De onderzoeker als communicator : een kwalitatief en verkennend onderzoek naar de determinanten van wetenschapscommunicatiegedrag

This study explores possible explanations for science communication behaviour on the part of researchers. More specifically, it considers which factors impact on the active participation of researchers in science communication.For the purpose of this study, science communication behaviour is defined as communication by academics about their scientific research, in the broadest sense of the word, and to an ‘external’ audience. By this we mean persons or groups outside the confines of the research setting. The audience may be affected by the research or exert an influence on it, but it should not fulfil a necessary role in it. Hence, any interaction with outsiders within the parameters of the research process, e.g. as an integral part of a participatory research approach, shall not be regarded as science communication behaviour. Likewise, communication by academics with their peers is also beyond the scope of the present study, as this is considered to belong to the field of ‘scientific’ communication.This qualitative research project endeavours to identify the determinants of the science communication behaviour of fifteen researchers with the University of Antwerp, mostly professors from an array of academic fields. Their behaviour is characterised primarily by a traditional outlook on the communication process, i.e. in terms of a source, a recipient and a transmitter. Moreover, they usually take no initiative towards participating actively in science communication, though they will participate upon request. The diversity exhibited in their science communication behaviour manifests itself in terms of the communication frequency, target group preferences, and type of science communication activities.Explanations for the science communication behaviour of the researchers were found first and foremost in the aspects of ‘willingness’, ‘permission’ and ‘ability’. These correspond with the principal determinants in Ajzen’s theory of planned behaviour, namely attitude, the subjective norm, and perceived behavioural control.With regard to the first aspect, the respondents in the study exhibit a mainly positive attitude towards science communication in general. However, that is not to say that they always communicate equally actively with external audiences, as they may also take into account a variety of critical considerations, which can be grouped into seven categories: 1) the choice of communication content: scientific facts, the scientific process or the consequences of the research, 2) the educational level, the degree of interest and the behaviour of the ‘general’ public, 3) the moment of communication: after research has been concluded or during the actual research process, 4) the manner of communication: by means of transmission or transaction, 5) the simplification of the message, 6) the use of infotainment, and 7) the individual and / or collective responsibility involved. There are also divergent opinions on the motives or reasons to engage in science communication, including the potential benefits to the researchers and their research, to the organisation and science in general, and to society as a whole. We therefore conclude that the group of academic researchers is by no means homogenous insofar as attitude towards science communication is concerned.Second, communication with an external audience requires ‘permission’. In other words, it requires a university management that gives its backing and provides a certain acknowledgment, appreciation and support, as well as a public authority that underscores the significance of science communication. If these aspects are lacking, the positive attitude of the researcher towards science communication may evaporate. Another obstacle originating in the social environment of the researcher is the lack of status of young scholars within the academic milieu, which makes them worry they might damage their career prospects by devoting time to science communication. A further element is criticism from colleagues, superiors or other members of the research team. In addition, there may be organisational factors to consider: the internal regulation of the research institution or the house rules of whoever commissioned the research may prohibit or restrict communication with an external audience. Finally, the internal scientific culture, which tends to emphasise the primacy of research and academic publications, may also undercut researchers’ intention to engage in science communication or affect their positive attitude towards it.Third, the scientist must ‘be able’, i.e. they must possess the necessary skills for science communication. This requires training as well as experience. Whereas most respondents consider themselves to possess the necessary communication skills, they also tend to feel their colleagues lack them. The most frequently cited obstacle is, however, lack of time. The respondents explain that they have many other tasks that take precedence over science communication, including research commitments, educational assignments, fundraising, administrative responsibilities and personnel management. Other bottlenecks are a lack of positive feedback and support in communication with external audiences, the often negative balance between investments in and yield from science communication, and the absence of any perceivable impact of science communication. Finally, the strained relationship with the media is cited as an obstacle or barrier. It is attributed to the different cultures of academia and the media, a primarily negative perception of the media on the part of the scientific community, and anxiety over damaging fallout.Attitude, the subjective norm and perceived behavioural control may each impact separately on the researcher’s behaviour, but they also interact. In other words, they may enhance or suppress one another. For example, the attitude of a researcher may be very positive and yet he or she may fail to exhibit active behaviour due to a lack of communication skills. Conversely, researchers who do not regard science communication as their personal duty may nevertheless choose to participate actively in it because of the appreciation shown by their social environment.In the behavioural model of Ajzen, there are also a number of individual background characteristics that play a determining role. Our research pointed to three significant factors.First and foremost, there is the knowledge paradigm within which the researcher works. The hypothesis substantiated by this study is that a researcher with a positivistic outlook will tend towards a traditional mode of communication; an approach whereby it is assumed that knowledge can be transmitted. The constructivist perspective, on the other hand, maintains that knowledge is constructed through interaction. In this approach, communication is regarded as a transaction. It speaks for itself that constructivists tend to be more at ease with interactive and participatory forms of communication than positivistic researchers are. Our research shows the respondents to have a mainly positivistic attitude and to communicate primarily in a traditional way. This suggests that the knowledge paradigm is an important determinant of how the researcher communicates with external audiences. There is a potential for conflict between the growing trend towards more interactive and participatory science communication and the preferences of researchers whose approach is based on a positivistic knowledge paradigm.A second important background factor is the professional identity of the researcher. This identity is a function of how they perceive their job assignment, their professional motivation, and aspects of their social and personal identity. Our hypothesis is that a researcher’s professional identity can help explain his or her science communication behaviour: if communication is, in one way or another, present in the researcher’s job perception and/or is part and parcel of their professional motivation, then science communication is congruent with their professional identity. An analogous reasoning applies if communicating corresponds with aspects of the researcher’s personal or social identity.The third and final background factor is interaction with society. Our study shows that the presence or absence of an external research orientation has explanatory power for the researcher’s display of active science communication behaviour. In other words, if society is in any way the focus of the researcher’s work, as might be the case in such fields as medicine, sociology or law, then communication with external audiences may be beneficial to the research. Science communication is then a tool which the researcher may apply to enhance his work.It is also noticeable that the barriers or bottlenecks that researchers experience in relation to science communication may present themselves in all of the aforementioned areas. Hence, existing recommendations for encouraging science communication by researchers are equally diverse. However, previous research into these obstacles has restricted itself too much to identifying external environmental barriers and to finding ways of eliminating them. The present doctoral research suggests that the problem is much more complex than that. It is too simple only to look for barriers that are external to the researcher and subsequently to deal with them in an instrumental way. A more comprehensive approach is called for, whereby person-related factors are also studied in order to better understand and possibly adjust the science communication behaviour of the researcher. This requires closer attention to the person of the researcher, and particularly to their perception of scientific knowledge production and attitudes towards their profession and the tasks it entails, as well as the relationship between the research activities and society.Making adjustments to researchers’ personal perceptions is however not an easy proposition and requires a different kind of approach than merely the lifting of barriers. Still, it is our expectation that communication between the researcher and society can be enhanced by combining the elimination of external bottlenecks with behavioural incentives on the one hand and, on the other, through greater emphasis in the training of researchers on diversity of knowledge paradigms, professional identity and the role of society.In sum, our study indicates that the intention and behaviour of researchers in relation to science communication depends on four major clusters of factors, namely attitude, the subjective norm, perceived behavioural control, and a number of person-related background factors. Together, these determinants constitute a complex whole in which contributing factors may enhance or suppress one another. The extent to which each of the determinants comes into play could not be ascertained in this qualitative study. A quantitative research approach might provide better insight into that aspect.