Scientists and public engagement

The research group has explored many aspects of scientific issues through the lens of scientists, lay audiences, and their intersection through science engagement. Using a systematic sampling methodology based on keyword searches of scientific publications in the field of interest to identify experts (see Peters et al., (2008)), we have studied scientists’ take on the controversial scientific issues in which they research. We have also explored public engagement with science and deliberative democracy from multiple perspectives.

For a complete list of publications, see the “Publications” tab.

Scientists surveys

Scheufele, D. A., Corley, E. A., Dunwoody, S., Shih, T.-J., Hillback, E., & Guston, D. H. (2007). Scientists worry about some risks more than the public. Nat Nano, 2(12), 732-734. doi: 10.1038/nnano.2007.392

Peters, H. P., Brossard, D., de Cheveigné, S., Dunwoody, S., Kallfass, M., Miller, S., & Tsuchida, S. (2008). Interactions with the mass media. Science, 321(5886), 204. doi: 10.1126/science.1157780

Corley, E. A., Scheufele, D. A., & Hu, Q. (2009). Of risks and regulations: How leading U.S. nanoscientists form policy stances about nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 11(7), 1573-1585. doi: 10.1007/s11051-009-9671-5

Dunwoody, S., Brossard, D., & Dudo, A. (2009). Socialization or rewards? Predicting American scientists-media interactions. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 86(2), 299-313. doi: 10.1177/107769900908600203

Scheufele, D. A., Brossard, D., Dunwoody, S., Corley, E. A., & Guston, D., & Peters, H. P. (2009). Are scientists really out of touch? The Scientist.

Berube, D. M., Cummings, C. C., Cacciatore, M. A., Scheufele, D. A., & Kalin, J. (2011). Characteristics and classification of nanoparticles: Expert Delphi survey. Nanotoxicology, 5(2), 236-243. doi: 10.3109/17435390.2010.521633

Corley, E. A., Kim, Y., & Scheufele, D. A. (2011). Leading US nano-scientists’ perceptions about media coverage and the public communication of scientific research findings. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 13(12), 7041-7055. doi: 10.1007/s11051-011-0617-3

Youtie, J., Carley, S., Shapira, P., Corley, E. A., & Scheufele, D. A. (2011). Perceptions and actions: Relationships of views on risk with citation actions of nanotechnology scientists. Research Evaluation, 20(5), 377-388. doi: 10.3152/095820211X13176484436014

Kim, Y., Corley, E. A., & Scheufele, D. A. (2012). Classifying US nano-scientists: Of cautious innovators, regulators, and technology optimists. Science and Public Policy, 39(1), 30-38. doi: 10.3152/030234212X13113405157822

Allgaier, J., Dunwoody, S., Brossard, D., Lo, Y-Y., Peters, H.P. (2013). Journalism and social media as means of observing the contexts of science. BioScience, 63, 284-287. doi: 10.1525/bio.2013.63.4.8

Allgaier, J., Dunwoody, S., Brossard, D., Lo, Y.-Y., & Peters, H. P. (2013). Medialized science: Neuroscientists’ reflections on their role as journalistic sources. Journalism Practice, 7(4), 413-429. doi: 10.1080/17512786.2013.802477

Yeo, S. K., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., Nealey, P., & Corley, E. A. (2013, July 2). Tweeting to the top. The Scientist.

Liang, X., Su, L. Y.-F., Yeo, S. K., Scheufele, D. A., Brossard, D., Xenos, M., . . . Corley, E. A. (2014). Building buzz. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 91(4), 772-791. doi: 10.1177/1077699014550092

Corley, E. A., Kim, Y., & Scheufele, D. A. (2016). Scientists’ ethical obligations and social responsibility for nanotechnology research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(1), 111-132. doi: 10.1007/s11948-015-9637-1

Koh, E. J., Dunwoody, S., Brossard, D., & Allgaier, J. (2016). Mapping neuroscientists’ perceptions of the nature and effects of public visibility. Science Communication, 38(2), 170-196. doi: 10.1177/1075547016635180

Su, L. Y.-F., Cacciatore, M. A., Brossard, D., Corley, E. A., Scheufele, D. A., & Xenos, M. A. (2016). Attitudinal gaps: How experts and lay audiences form policy attitudes toward controversial science. Science and Public Policy, 43(2), 196-206. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scv031

Kim, Y., Corley, E. A., & Scheufele, D. A. (2017). Nanoscientists and political involvement: Which characteristics make scientists more likely to support engagement in political debates? Science and Public Policy, 44(3), 317-327. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scw065


Public engagement

Nisbet, M. C. & Scheufele, D. A. (2007). The future of public engagementThe Scientist, 21(10), 38-44.

Becker, A. B., Dalrymple, K. E., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., & Gunther, A. C. (2010). Getting citizens involved: How controversial policy debates stimulate issue participation during a political campaign. The International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 22(2), 181-203. doi: 10.1093/ijpor/edp047

Brossard, D. & Lewenstein, B. V. (2010). A critical appraisal of models of public understanding of science: Using practice to inform theory. In L. Kahlor & P. Stout (Eds.), Communicating Science: New Agendas in Communication (pp. 11-39). New York: Routledge.

Delborne, J. A., Anderson, A. A., Kleinman, D. L., Colin, M., & Powell, M. (2011). Virtual deliberation? Prospects and challenges for integrating the Internet in consensus conferences. Public Understanding of Science, 20(3), 367-384. doi: 10.1177/0963662509347138

Kleinman, D. L., Delborne, J. A., & Anderson, A. A. (2011). Engaging citizens: The high cost of citizen participation in high technology. Public Understanding of Science, 20(2), 221-240. doi: 10.1177/0963662509347137

Powell, M., Colin, M., Kleinman, D. L., Delborne, J., & Anderson, A. (2011). Imagining ordinary citizens? Conceptualized and actual participants for deliberations on emerging technologies. Science as Culture, 20(1), 37-70. doi: 10.1080/09505430903567741

Xenos, M. A., Becker, A. B., Anderson, A. A., Brossard, D., & Scheufele, D. A. (2011). Stimulating Upstream Engagement: An experimental study of nanotechnology information seeking. Social Science Quarterly, 92(5), 1191-1214. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6237.2011.00814.x

Scheufele, D. A. (2013). Communicating science in social settings. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(Supplement 3), 14040-14047. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1213275110

Jones, A. R., Anderson, A. A., Yeo, S. K., Greenberg, A. E., Brossard, D., & Moore, J. W. (2014). Using a deliberative exercise to foster public engagement in nanotechnology. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(2), 179-187. doi: 10.1021/ed400517q

Scheufele, D. A. (2014). Science communication as political communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(Supplement 4), 13585-13592. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1317516111

Kim, Y., Corley, E. A., & Scheufele, D. A. (2017). Nanoscientists and political involvement: Which characteristics make scientists more likely to support engagement in political debates? Science and Public Policy, 44(3), 317-327. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scw065

Rose, K. M., Korzekwa, K., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., & Heisler, L. (2017). Engaging the public at a science festival: Findings from a panel on human gene editing. Science Communication, 39(2), 250-277. doi: 10.1177/1075547017697981