Perceptions of Scientists before and after Taking a Graduate Level Science Communication Course
Graduate Students' Perceptions of a Scientist
Keywords:
Science communication, perception of science, semiotics, studentsAbstract
Science education and communication students do not often see themselves as scientists although the future of science is highly dependent upon effective science communication. The purpose of this study was to determine if a science communication course could alter graduate students’ perceptions of scientists and their own self-perception as a scientist. Using a semiotic approach and the Draw-A-Scientist-Test (DAST), participants were asked to draw an image of a scientist based on their perceptions on the first and last day of a 16-week course. Analysis of the images prior to the course indicated failure by students to perceive themselves as scientists. After taking the course, participants depicted being a scientist as a process and described scientists based on their roles. The participants’ failure to identify themselves as scientists before the class indicates a gap in undergraduate curriculum educating students about the diversity of scientific roles within society and the academy. As such there is need for a comprehensive review of course offerings at the undergraduate level to ensure students are not only equipped with scientific knowledge but that they develop a clear understanding of who a scientist is as well as the roles of scientists.
Downloads
References
Acharya, A. S., Prakash, A., Saxena, P., & Nigam, A. (2013). Sampling: Why and how of it. Indian Journal of Medical Specialties, 4(2), 330 – 333. https://doi.org/10.7713/ijms.2013.0032
Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities. (2012). The land-grant tradition. http://www.aplu.org/library/the-land-grant-tradition/file.
Altbach, P. G. (2007). Peripheries and centres: Research universities in developing countries. Higher Education Management and Policy, 19(2),111 – 155. https://doi.org/10.1787/hemp-v19-art13-en
Baker, M. J., Williams, L. F., Lybbert, A. H., & Johnson, J. B. (2012). How ecological science is portrayed in mass media. Ecosphere, 3(1),1 – 7.https://doi.org/10.1890/ES11-00238.1
Bird, S. J. (2013). Public trust and institutions of higher learning: implications for professional responsibility. Trust in Universities Wenner-Gren International Series, (86),25 – 39. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1088.810&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Bonney, R., Phillips, T. B., Ballard, H. L. & Enck, J. W. (2015). Can citizen science enhance public understanding of science? Public Understanding of Science, 25 (1), 2 – 16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515607406
Chambers, D. W. (1983). Stereotypic images of the scientist: The draw-a-scientist test. Science Education, 67(2),255 – 265. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730670213
Charanza, A. D., & Naile, T. L. (2012). Media dependency during a food safety incident related to the US beef industry. Journal of Applied Communications, 96(3), 38 – 51. https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.1145
Cloud, D. (2020). The corrupted scientist archetype and its implications for climate change communication and public perceptions of science. Environmental Communication, 1 – 14. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2020.1741420
DeWitt, J., Archer, L., & Osborne, J. (2013). Nerdy, brainy and normal: Children’s and parents’ constructions of those who are highly engaged with science. Research in Science Education, 43(4),1455 – 1476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9315-0
Dzimińska, M., Fijałkowska, J., & Sułkowski, Ł. (2018). Trust-based quality culture conceptual model for higher education institutions. Sustainability, 10(8), 259. https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.1140
Edgar, L. D., & Rutherford, T. (2012). A semiotic analysis of a Texas Cooperative Extension marketing packet. Journal of Applied Communications, 96(1), 1 – 14. https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.1140
Fortunato, S., Bergstrom, C. T., Börner, K., Evans, J. A., Helbing, D., Milojević, S., ... & Vespignani, A. 2018. Science of science. Science, 359(6379),1 – 7. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao0185
Haywood, B. K. & Besley, J. C. (2014). ‘Education, outreach, and inclusive engagement: Towards integrated indicators of successful program outcomes in participatory science’. Public Understanding of Science, 23 (1), 92 – 106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662513494560
Hendriks, F., Kienhues, D., & Bromme, R. (2016). Trust in science and the science of trust. In Trust and communication in a digitized world (pp. 143 – 159). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28059-2_8
Hoy, A.Q., (2018). Agricultural advances draw opposition that blunts innovation. Science, 360(6396), 1413 – 1414. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.360.6396.1413
Kotcher, J. E., Myers, T. A., Vraga, E. K., Stenhouse, N., & Maibach, E. W. (2017). Does engagement in advocacy hurt the credibility of scientists? Results from a randomized national survey experiment. Environmental Communication, 11(3), 415 – 429. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2016.1275736
Lawes, R. (2002). Demystifying semiotics: Some key questions answered. International Journal of Market Research, 44(3), 1 – 10. https://doi.org/10.1177/147078530204400302
Lowe, T., Brown, K., Dessai, S., de França Doria, M., Haynes, K., & Vincent, K. (2006). Does tomorrow ever come? Disaster narrative and public perceptions of climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 15(4), 435 – 457. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506063796
Loizzo, J., Conner, N. W., & Cannon, K. J. (2018). Project-Based Learning for Developing Digital Literacy in Undergraduate Science Communication. NACTA Journal, 62(2)
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8
Mastellar, S. L., & Bott-Knutson, R. C. (2017). Scientific Literacy of Equine Students Regarding the Use of Antibiotics and Vaccines. NACTA Journal, 61(4), 299-30
Mead, M., & Metraux, R. (1957). Image of the scientist among high school students. Science, 126(3270), 384 – 390. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.126.3270.384
Monroe, M. C. (2010). Engaging the public in environmental decisions: strategies for environmental education and communication. In Survival and Sustainability (pp. 741 – 749). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-95991-5_68
Mikhaeil, C. A. & Baskerville, R. L. (2019). Using semiotics to analyze representational complexity in social media. Information and Organization, 29(4), 100271
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2019.100271
McCluskey, J. & Swinnen, J. (2011). The media and food‐risk perceptions. EMBO Reports, 12(7), 624 – 629. https://doi.org/10.1038/embor.2011.118
Nisbet, M. C., Scheufele, D. A., Shanahan, J., Moy, P., Brossard, D., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2002). Knowledge, reservations, or promise? A media effects model for public perceptions of science and technology. Communication Research, 29(5), 584 – 608. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365002236196
Nisbet, M. C. & Scheufele, D. A. (2009). What's next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany, 96(10), 1767 – 1778. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.0900041
Petts, J. (2008). Public engagement to build trust: false hopes? Journal of Risk Research, 11(6): 821 – 835. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669870701715592
Pew Research Center. (2015). Public and scientists’ views on science and society. The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/.
Prokopy, L. S., Morton, L. W., Arbuckle Jr, J. G., Mase, A. S., & Wilke, A. K. (2015). Agricultural stakeholder views on climate change: Implications for conducting research and outreach. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 96(2), 181 – 190. https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00172.1
Prokopy, L. S., Carlton, J. S., Arbuckle, J. G., Haigh, T., Lemos, M. C., Mase, A. S., ... & Hart, C. (2015). Extension′ s role in disseminating information about climate change to agricultural stakeholders in the United States. Climatic Change, 130(2): 261 – 272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1339-9
Poliakoff, E., & Webb, T. L. (2007). What factors predict scientists' intentions to participate in public engagement of science activities? Science Communication, 29(2), 242 – 263. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547007308009
Roger, E. & Klistorner, S. (2016). BioBlitzes help science communicators engage local communities in environmental research. Journal of Science Communication, 15(3),118. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.15030206
Royal Society. (2005). Survey of factors affecting science communication. Report on qualitative data. London.
Ruth, T. K., Rumble, J. N., Lundy, L. K., Galindo, S., Carter, H. S., & Folta, K. M. (2020). Motivational Influences on Land-Grant Faculty Engagement in Science Communication. Journal of Agricultural Education, 61(2):77 – 92. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2020.02077
Sellnow, D. D., & Sellnow, T. L. (2014). The challenge of exemplification in crisis communication. Journal of Applied Communications, 98(2), 53 – 65. https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.1077
Settle, Q., Rumble, J. N., McCarty, K., & Ruth, T. K. (2017). Public knowledge and trust of agricultural and natural resources organizations. Journal of Applied Communications, 101(2), 86 – 98. https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.1007
Specht, A. R. & Beam, B. W. (2015). Prince farming takes a wife: exploring the use of agricultural imagery and stereotypes on ABC’s The Bachelor. Journal of Applied Communications, 99(4),20 – 34. https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.1055
Suldovsky, B., Landrum, A., & Stroud, N. J. (2019). Public perceptions of who counts as a scientist for controversial science. Public Understanding of Science, 28(7), 797 – 811. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662519856768
Tan, A. L., Jocz, J. A., & Zhai, J. (2017). Spiderman and science: How students’ perceptions of scientists are shaped by popular media. Public Understanding of Science, 26(5), 520 – 530. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515615086
Teisl, M. F., Fein, S. B., & Levy, A. S. (2009). Information effects on consumer attitudes toward three food technologies: Organic production, biotechnology, and irradiation. Food Quality and Preference, 20(8),586 – 596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2009.07.001
Tyson, R. V. (2014).The merits of separating global warming from extension education sustainability programs. Journal of Extension, 52(1)
Uhlenbrock, K., Landau, E., & Hankin, E. (2014). Science communication and the role of scientists in the policy discussion. In New trends in earth-science outreach and engagement (pp. 93-105). Springer, Chamber. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01821-8_7
Varner, J. (2014). Scientific outreach: toward effective public engagement with biological science. BioScience, 64(4), 333 – 340. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biu021
Vincenzi, D., Ison, D., & Liu, D. (2013). Public perception of unmanned aerial systems (UAS): A survey of public knowledge regarding roles, capabilities, and safety while operating within the National Airspace System (NAS). Retrieved from https://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1733&context=publication
Watermeyer, R. (2013). The presentation of science in everyday life: the science Show. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 8(3):737 – 751. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-013-9484-9
Zhai, J., Jocz, J. A., & Tan, A. L. (2014). Am I like a scientist? Primary children's images of doing science in school. International Journal of Science Education, 36(4): 553 – 576. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.791958
