University central offices are moving away from doing towards facilitating science communication: A European cross-comparison.

There is increasing interest in studying science communication from an institutional point of view. With much of the empirical research focusing on views of institutional actors on communication and their roles in the organisation, less attention has been paid to practices and dispositions of universities to communicate their research with publics. Universities have professionalised communication structures for external relations, and science communication has been absorbed in this. Yet, the evidence on what those practices represent for the university-at different levels of the organisation-is insufficient to understand the role of science communication within the university landscape. This study investigates science communication at central offices of research universities. Sampling whole populations of universities in four European countries (Germany, Italy, Portugal, and the United Kingdom; 44% response rate), we disentangle practices of communication as a centralised function. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first cross-national study on this topic based on all universities within the surveyed countries. We compare general trends in science communication of universities across countries. The evidence shows that science communication is a secondary function at central offices of universities, strongly medialised, and points to a supporting role for central structures in facilitating science communication at other levels while moving away from doing it themselves. Universities might need to consider their long-term positioning in enhancing national science culture by fostering science communication through models of dialogue and public debate.

In Science We Trust: The Effects of Information Sources on COVID-19 Risk Perceptions.

The goal of this study was to investigate the effects of sources of information on COVID-19 risk perceptions. Using data from a representative sample of the Portuguese population (N = 1,411) collected early in the pandemic, we find that while media sources were more frequently used, scientific sources played a more important role on perceived personal and societal-level risks; higher trust in scientific sources associated with increased risk perceptions (i.e., amplified perceived risk), trust in social media associated with dismissing personal threat (i.e., attenuated perceived risk). These findings suggest that people's relations with science were determinant factors in risk perceptions, and dimensions that measure these deserve further investigation.

Public communication at research universities: Moving towards (de)centralised communication of science?

This research note reports empirical observations on public communication of research institutes within universities, using data from an international quantitative study in eight countries (N = 2030). The note aims to contribute to discussions on the role of science communication at research universities. We observe growing science communication at the institute level, which indicates, at a first glance, a trend towards decentralised communication of science. We argue that these might be places where science communication and public engagement can thrive. Rather than claiming to be conclusive, our goal here is to stimulate discussion on the ongoing changes in the organisational science communication landscape, and the consequences it may have for practice.

Correction: Public communication by research institutes compared across countries and sciences: Building capacity for engagement or competing for visibility?

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235191.].

Public communication by research institutes compared across countries and sciences: Building capacity for engagement or competing for visibility?

Leading academic institutions, governments, and funders of research across the world have spent the last few decades fretting publicly about the need for scientists and research organisations to engage more widely with the public and be open about their research. While a global literature asserts that public communication has changed from a virtue to a duty for scientists in many countries and disciplines, our knowledge about what research institutions are doing and what factors drive their 'going public' is very limited. Here we present the first cross-national study of N = 2,030 research institutes within universities and large scientific organisations in Brazil, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America. We find that institutes embrace communication with non-peers and do so through a variety of public events and traditional news media-less so through new media channels-and we find variation across countries and sciences, yet these are less evident than we expected. Country and disciplinary cultures contribute to the level of this communication, as do the resources that institutes make available for the effort; institutes with professionalised staff show higher activity online. Future research should examine whether a real change in the organisational culture is happening or whether this activity and resource allocation is merely a means to increase institutional visibility.

Mobilisation for public engagement: Benchmarking the practices of research institutes.

Studies on scientists' practices of public engagement have pointed to variations between disciplines. If variations at the individual level are reflected at the institutional level, then research institutes in Social Sciences (and Humanities) should perform higher in public engagement and be more involved in dialogue with the public. Using a nearly complete sample of research institutes in Portugal 2014 ( n = 234, 61% response rate), we investigate how public engagement varies in intensity, type of activities and target audiences across scientific areas. Three benchmark findings emerge. First, the Social Sciences and the Humanities profile differently in public engagement highlighting the importance of distinguishing between these two scientific areas often conflated in public engagement studies. Second, the Social Sciences overall perform more public engagement activities, but the Natural Sciences mobilise more effort for public engagement. Third, while the Social Sciences play a greater role in civic public engagement, the Natural Sciences are more likely to perform educational activities. Finally, this study shows that the overall size of research institutes, available public engagement funding and public engagement staffing make a difference in institutes' public engagement.

Experimenting with distributed approaches - Case study: A 'national-level' distributed dialogue on bioenergy in the United Kingdom.

An emerging thread in the public participation debate is the need for innovative and more experimental forms of dialogue to address weaknesses of previous structured deliberative methods. This research note discusses an experiment with a distributed approach to dialogue, which used bioenergy as a case study. We discuss the potential of the model to attract a variety of publics and views and to inform policy. This is done with a view to refining future dialogues and increasing the involvement of scientists and other practitioners at the science-policy interface.

What is the public's role in 'space' policymaking? Images of the public by practitioners of 'space' communication in the United Kingdom.

Studies on experts' understanding of the public have mainly focused on the views of scientists. We add to the literature on constructions of the public by analyzing the views of decision-makers, professional science communicators and scientists involved in 'space' communication on the public and public participation in policy. Findings show that contextual situations and roles determine the way the public is conceptualised: the public is sophisticated and knowledgeable to participate in space activities/citizen science, but in matters of policy, a gullible image of the public is brought up. Despite the democratic talk on participation, practitioners delimited public involvement in policy in some way or other to protect their own power and decision-making capabilities. This conception of the public competes with the stated aims of scientific and political institutions for public engagement and the substantive value of public participation, leaving a limited role for the public in space policymaking.

Preaching to the converted? An analysis of the UK public for space exploration.

This article presents the results of a survey carried out at two space outreach events in the UK aimed at characterising "the public for space exploration" and measuring public support for space exploration. Attitude towards space exploration and policy preferences were used as measures of public support. The sample involved 744 respondents and was mainly composed of adults between 25 and 45 years old, with men slightly over-represented compared with women. Findings revealed that males appeared to be stronger supporters than females - men had a more positive attitude towards space exploration and stronger space policy preferences. Because mixed groups tend to come together to such events we argue that male respondents would be more likely to be part of the "attentive" and "interested" public who come to outreach activities and bring a less interested public with them.