From Apes to Whistleblowers

Abstract

Scientists are being called upon to communicate more clearly, strategically, and frequently with the public. An understudied, but influential, outreach method is writing newspaper op-ed commentaries. Using speech act theory as a framework, this qualitative analysis of the objectives and strategies scientists enact when writing op-eds found that writers focus on informing, defending, and exciting about science through personal stories, accessible descriptions of research, and references to history and popular culture. This study’s application of speech act theory to empirically derived objectives expressed by scientists and enacted in a specific mode of communication helps advance science communication beyond deficit-oriented models toward styles of outreach that take the audience’s interpretive agency into account.

Keywords

media advocacy newspapers op-eds qualitative analysis science communication speech act theory

Scientists are increasingly being called upon to communicate more clearly, strategically, and frequently with the general public (Bucchi, 2013; Davies, 2008; Dudo, 2012; Poliakoff & Webb, 2007; Sharon & Baram-Tsabari, 2014; Varner, 2014) through many forms of outreach (Besley, Dudo, & Storksdieck, 2015; Fischhoff & Scheufele, 2014; Sommer & Maycroft, 2008). The needs, intentions, and strategies behind scientists’ public outreach are manifold (Fischhoff & Scheufele, 2013) and reflect a variety of motives and objectives, including informing and exciting the public about science (Davies, 2008; Dudo & Besley, 2016), defending science (Fischhoff & Scheufele, 2014), building trust in scientists (Dietz, 2013; Goodwin & Dahlstrom, 2014), influencing policy (Goodwin, 2014; Sommer & Maycroft, 2008; Uhlenbrock, Landau, & Hankin, 2014), and enhancing their careers (Davies, 2008; Nisbet & Markowitz, 2015; Sommer & Maycroft, 2008). Outreach methods include being interviewed by journalists, blogging or using social media (Shema, Bar-Ilan, & Thelwall, 2012), participating in public forums, visiting schools, and producing content directly for mainstream news media in the form of opinion pieces and commentaries (Bauer & Jensen, 2011; Davies, 2008; Liang et al., 2014; Peters, 2013).

There is a growing body of research around what scientists hope to achieve when they communicate (e.g., Dudo & Besley, 2016), and there is a growing body of research about styles of communication that are more or less persuasive (e.g., Goodwin & Dahlstrom, 2014). But there is scant research examining how scientists actually communicate in practice. This analysis will examine scientists’ communication approaches in newspaper op-eds through the framework of speech act theory, which proposes that communicators build trust with their audiences by taking on personal and reputational vulnerability in asserting their claims (Goodwin, 2014, forthcoming), with the ethical implication that the audience is an active evaluator of both the claim and the claim maker. Speech act theory can help both guide and explain scientists’ rhetorical moves in the public sphere, as a departure from deficit-based communication efforts. Deeper and richer understanding of scientists’ communication practices can lead to improved public communication and, potentially, a citizenry more favorably engaged with scientific research and its consequences.

Op-ed articles in major newspapers represent “one of the most valuable tools of influence” for academics who wish to affect the policy-making process (Sommer & Maycroft, 2008, p. 586). About 30% of scientists have agreed that writing for national news organizations is the best way to reach the public (Besley & Nisbet, 2013). Yet there has been little scholarly research on op-ed content (Day & Golan, 2005), much less on the use of this channel by scientists. Speech act theory as applied to science communication to date has not differentiated across modes of communication (e.g., Goodwin, forthcoming), but it is reasonable to expect that scientists’ speech acts in the deployment of communication goals and objectives will differ based on the mode in which the scientist is operating, particularly along a continuum of control the scientist maintains over the final product of his or her utterance. The purpose of this study is to analyze one understudied mode of science communication—newspaper op-ed articles authored by scientists—with special attention to the affordances and constraints such a mode places on the speech acts performed in pursuit of specific communication objectives.

Scientists and the Public

Scientists and the general public have long had difficulty communicating with one another (Besley, 2014; Dudo, 2012). Many scientists subscribe to the “deficit model” of the public’s understanding of science—the belief that people are generally ignorant of scientific processes and outcomes and that if they simply knew more, they would appreciate and support scientific endeavors (Bauer, Allum, & Miller, 2007; Besley & Nisbet, 2013; Bronson, 2014; Davies, 2008). Many scientists also believe the public sees them as untrustworthy and detached (Besley & Nisbet, 2013), even though scientists collectively are held by Americans in high esteem (Nisbet & Scheufele, 2009). Scientists’ efforts to communicate directly with the public have been dismissed by some academics (Dudo, 2012) as a distraction from the focused research and peer-to-peer communication necessary for prestige and advancement in the academic world (Liang et al., 2014; Poliakoff & Webb, 2007). Scientists have also debated among themselves whether policy advocacy is appropriate to their profession (Goodwin, 2014).

Despite these findings, majorities of scientists were interacting with journalists at the end of the 20th century (Peters, 2013), suggesting that attitudes about outreach might have been based as much on perceptions as practice. In recent years, scientists have been more explicitly encouraged to directly engage the public (Nisbet & Scheufele, 2009; Peters, 2013; Poliakoff & Webb, 2007) and more scientists have shown interest in doing so (Maillé, Saint-Charles, & Lucotte, 2010). Nearly 9 in 10 scientists now believe that a major or minor reason for the public’s limited knowledge about science is that too few scientists are willing to communicate through the media (Pew Research Center, 2015). Those who choose to reach out have numerous options, including the highly recommended (Sommer & Maycroft, 2008) but minimally studied (Day & Golan, 2005) newspaper op-ed commentary.

The Power of the Op-Ed

The op-ed genre of newspaper content may have originated more than a century ago (Ciofalo, 1998), but it appears to have gone mainstream after The New York Times launched its page in 1970 as an opportunity for nonstaff members to publish commentary that was distinct, if not necessarily different, from the views of the editorial board (Ciofalo & Traverso, 1994; Day & Golan, 2005; Sommer & Maycroft, 2008). The pieces originally ran opposite the editorial page, inspiring the abbreviated op-ed term. While newer and social media outreach opportunities have garnered substantial institutional and scholarly attention (e.g., Shema et al., 2012; Sugimoto & Thelwall, 2013), op-ed pieces in elite newspapers hold continued potential to influence policy makers and the public (Sommer & Maycroft, 2008). Print media’s wide availability makes it a significant source of informal science learning (Lin, Lin, Lee, & Yore, 2015). Public officials and policy advocates routinely cite op-eds when defending their positions, and op-ed authors are often called upon to testify as experts in legislative hearings (Sommer & Maycroft, 2008). Agenda setting theory posits that news media content helps determine what the public considers to be important (e.g., McCombs & Shaw, 1972; Vu, Guo, & McCombs, 2014) and can directly influence individual policy makers (e.g., Takahashi & Meisner, 2014).

Every mode of science communication offers certain affordances and constraints in terms of scientists’ freedom to communicate and the amount of exposure their communication will receive. Op-eds in newspapers such as The New York Times provide high-profile, credible platforms that are noticed and amplified by other media (Fortunato, 2014), compared with blogs or social media posts that typically attract much smaller audiences. Furthermore, the op-ed offers scientists a relatively high degree of content control compared with other media interactions (Peters, 2013)—a degree that can be placed on a continuum between the near total freedom of a blog post and the much more mediated results of an interview with a journalist, who ultimately decides which portions of the scientist’s comments to place in a story and where (see Figure 1). To succeed as op-ed writers, scientists must get past the gatekeepers who select which items to run and which to reject (Day & Golan, 2005; Sommer & Maycroft, 2008), and journalists’ criteria for what makes a scientist’s message newsworthy or salient can differ from the scientific community’s (Weingart & Pansegrau, 1999). But the published op-ed, so long as it meets gatekeeping editors’ standards of quality, relevance, and topicality, will ultimately be the product of the scientist-author.

Figure 1.

Scientists’ communication control.

While many scientists may still prefer to be sources for reporters rather than create their own content, traditional news organizations are producing less science-based news due to declines in audience and revenue (Brossard, 2013; Dudo, 2012; Nisbet & Scheufele, 2009). The result of decreasing journalist-mediated science information “poses new opportunities for scientists to play an active role in communicating directly with various publics” (Liang et al., 2014, p. 773). For scientists with the skills to write accessibly for editors and the general public, and whose research priorities align with subject matter that news organizations consider widely relevant, “few methods provide a more effective way to express one’s ideas unfiltered, with more words, and to a larger and yet more targeted audience, than an op-ed” (Sommer & Maycroft, 2008, p. 590).

Scientists’ Communication Objectives and Speech Act Theory

Despite increasing skepticism that educating an ignorant public is the prevailing problem that science communicators must address (Bauer et al., 2007; Hart & Nisbet, 2012; Varner, 2014), scientists continue to maintain deficit-oriented attitudes (Dudo & Besley, 2016). Some 84% of scientists still find the public’s lack of knowledge about science to be a “major problem” (Pew Research Center, 2015). But potentially more effective than one-way education efforts is a range of strategies that demonstrate openness and transparency (Goodwin & Dahlstrom, 2014) and approach communication as a dialogue rather than a pipeline (Davies, 2008). It is also important to address gaps in knowledge considerately, without insulting those who may not know (Rowan, 1991). These strategies, in addition to providing information and education, are possible to deploy in writing newspaper commentaries.

Dudo and Besley (2016) have studied five key objectives among scientists who communicate online with the public: informing people about science, exciting people about science, building trust in scientists, tailoring messages in ways that are relevant to audiences, and defending science from misinformation. Although the extent of what constitutes legitimate advocacy is under debate (Goodwin, 2014), many scientists believe that they should play a role in policy deliberations (Besley & Nisbet, 2013; Uhlenbrock et al., 2014) and, as discussed above, the op-ed is a powerful tool for influencing policy makers.

Many public intellectuals, whom Nisbet (2014) identifies by their ability to synthesize multidisciplinary knowledge and assert a point of view for popular audiences, gain credibility in public communications by personalizing their involvement with the issue at hand. They “merg[e] their public and private selves by relating complex ideas or problems to personal anecdotes, ‘journeys,’ ‘realizations,’ confessionals, or internal conflicts,” as “audiences . . . have come to depend on personalization to understand complex issues” (p. 811). Many scientists agree that public communications should be personally relevant (Varner, 2014), become more “humane” (Bucchi, 2013, p. 908), connect to everyday life (Baram-Tsabari & Lewenstein, 2013), and focus on “‘big ideas’ or key principles [rather] than detailed research” (Davies, 2008, p. 417). Avoiding jargon-laden terms (Baram-Tsabari & Lewenstein, 2013; Sharon & Baram-Tsabari, 2014; Uhlenbrock et al., 2014), using explanatory rhetorical devices such as metaphors (Baram-Tsabari & Lewenstein, 2013; Uhlenbrock et al., 2014), and employing humor (Baram-Tsabari & Lewenstein, 2013; Lin et al., 2015) are other writing strategies scientists can use to communicate with the public. Many of these strategies do not come naturally for scientists, whose professional socialization involves learning to communicate more through abstraction and precision than example and analogy (Baram-Tsabari & Lewenstein, 2013). In assessing scientists’ written communication skills, Baram-Tsabari and Lewenstein found too much jargon and too little humor, analogy, relevance, and narrative technique.

One tool for consolidating the above communication strategies, moving conceptually beyond the deficit model of communication, and evaluating the effectiveness of scientific communication is speech act theory. Speech act theory, which dates to the mid-20th century (e.g., Grice, 1957), assumes that audiences are not passive receptors of communication messages but rather have power to interpret and react to those messages (Goodwin, forthcoming). Under this model, communicators have an ethical responsibility not simply to transmit information but also to elicit the trust necessary for the audience to receive and evaluate it. Furthermore, the goal of communication is not just to tell; a communicator acts “with a reasonable expectation that it will change the world in some way” (Goodwin, forthcoming). This conceptualization comports with the scientific objectives explicated by Dudo and Besley (2016), which all aim to advance scientific understanding through specific channels of argument. Goodwin (forthcoming) applies speech act theory to four roles of science communicators—exercising authority, reporting, advising, and advocating—and suggests that the theory can “cover communication in any medium: oral, written, electronic, visual, and those yet to be invented.” The present study argues that scholars should take note of the specific mode of communication when assessing speech acts, as the affordances and constraints of specific communication modes may help determine which acts make sense in which contexts. For instance, a scientist might feel much freer to adopt the speech act of advocating—which involves making strong arguments and counterarguments—when writing on a personal blog, whereas she or he might lean toward exercising authority—which includes hedging and acknowledging limitations and uncertainty—when being interviewed by a reporter. An op-ed, which falls between these modes on the continuum of scientist control, might afford opportunities for advocacy while also requiring a credibility-establishing exercise of authority to appease journalistic gatekeepers. Scientist op-ed authors who, by virtue of their scientific authority, seek to advocate for a particular point of view through persuasive writing must bear in mind that, as Goodwin points out, audiences tend to resist persuasive efforts. This places the onus on the communicator to build trust before the message can be heard. Under speech act theory, this trust-building involves

taking responsibility for making the best possible case for her position. If she fails to develop strong arguments, she can be criticized not just for being ineffective, but for the more serious offense of failing to live up to her ethical responsibilities. (Goodwin, forthcoming)

Scientists appear to take this ethical component seriously; Dudo and Besley (2016) found that scientists prioritize communication objectives they believe are ethically sound. The following analysis will use the lens of speech act theory to evaluate how scientists enacted research-identified communication objectives in newspaper op-eds, with an eye not just toward what the op-eds say but also toward what they do in the world. Such a framework, and existing science communication literature, raises the following interrelated research questions:

Research Question 1 (RQ1): What topics do scientists write about in newspaper op-eds?

RQ2: What speech acts identified in the literature are most commonly deployed? That is, what ethical responsibilities do scientists undertake with their audience in their communication choices?

RQ3: What research-based science communication objectives are enacted?

RQ4: What writing and rhetorical approaches do scientists take and to what extent does the tone and structure evoke and/or differ from academic writing?

RQ5: How effectively are these strategies deployed, based on extant research?

Method

To answer these questions, several exploratory searches were conducted to find a suitable sample of science-related newspaper op-eds written by scientists. An early attempt was made to collect op-eds on the subjects of climate change, hydraulic fracturing, and nanotechnology across multiple newspapers to compare approaches among those subjects. However, neither a sufficient number of natural scientists nor enough op-eds specific to these three issues were found to justify the initial approach. Therefore, the search was opened to scientist-authored op-eds on any subject.

A broad definition of “scientist” was employed, relying on the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) categories enumerated by the National Science Foundation (2014), in addition to including social science categories recognized by certain National Science Foundation documents. To focus on practicing researchers with minimal political, corporate, or advocacy-based conflicts, the scientists for this sample were limited to university faculty, postdoctoral researchers, graduate students, and emeritus professors. Other studies of scientists’ communication objectives and methods have also focused exclusively on university-based researchers (e.g., Besley et al., 2015; Liang et al., 2014).

Finally, because exploratory searches indicated that the most diverse and voluminous range of university scientist–authored op-eds was available in The New York Times (e.g., a related search in the Washington Post yielded only three op-eds with authors from the natural sciences during the study period), the sample was limited to that newspaper. Numerous news media analyses have drawn samples predominantly or exclusively from The New York Times (Weaver & Bimber, 2008), which has been described as “elite media” (Wu, 2007), “a recognized source of record” (Neuman, 1990), “the most prestigious national newspaper” (Winter & Eyal, 1981), and the “premier agenda setter among the nation’s major news media” (Gunter & Harris, 1998). Single–newspaper content studies, when the paper is deemed the most effective representative source, have generated useful and well-cited results (e.g., Gordon, Deines, & Havice, 2010). There are, of course, limitations that are addressed in the discussion section.

The final sample was obtained from a LexisNexis search of The New York Times, limited to the content category “Editorials and Commentaries,” for items containing the terms op-ed and university, plus the term professor or scholar or researcher, for the full year 2013. The search returned 437 results, which were examined for op-eds authored by university-affiliated scientists. Ninety-six op-eds were originally selected, including 25 by natural scientists, 2 by mathematicians, 4 by engineers, and 66 by social scientists.¹ On op-eds with more than one author, the primary represented discipline was derived from the first listed author from a STEM or social science field. The op-eds were also divided into three categories by broad subject matter: those predominantly devoted to natural science, those predominantly devoted to social science, and those in which discussion of science or scientists was not the primary focus. Articles retained for analysis were those authored by STEM scientists or social scientists whose primary topic was directly related to science or who used extensive, explicit reference to social science research to explain a social phenomenon. The final sample was 38 op-eds, a sufficient number for the close qualitative analysis conceived for this study design (Ritchie & Lewis, 2013), so search dates were not expanded.

The op-eds were analyzed qualitatively using QDA Miner by two coders (Sweeney, Greenwood, Williams, Wykes, & Rose, 2013). The use of two coders allowed the validation of coding categories and followed traditional and social aspects of intercoder reliability in qualitative analysis (Sanders & Cuneo, 2010). Several op-ed articles were first reviewed jointly to test a priori categories and establish basic agreement on open coding procedures. Each item was then individually coded, with coders coming together after each item to compare notes, establish construct validity (Ryan, 1999), and enter final codes into the database. Codes were applied to relevant sentences, paragraphs, and/or sections of op-eds, and many passages received multiple codes. The commentaries were also coded for the scientist’s discipline, gender, and university affiliation and the op-ed’s primary topic.

A key priority was to establish presence or absence of the science communication objectives identified by Dudo and Besley (2016)—informing people about science issues, exciting people about science, building trust in the scientific process, defending science against misinformation, and tailoring messages for resonance. Dudo and Besley suggest such objectives are employed in the service of certain communication goals, such as influencing public policy—a key aim of op-ed writers (Sommer & Maycroft, 2008). This assessment was an effort to get not into scientists’ heads but rather into their texts, to evaluate what a particular op-ed presented to the reader. Taking cues from Goodwin’s (forthcoming) analysis of scientists’ advocacy and authority-exercising roles, speech act theory was applied to assess certain ethical responsibilities scientists undertook to win over their audience. Similar to Dudo and Besley (2016), this involves asking first not how scientists are communicating complicated ideas (although this is crucial) but what the scientist is attempting to accomplish. In Goodwin’s (forthcoming) model, this means questioning whether the scientist is taking responsibility for advocating, advising, reporting, or exercising authority. In Dudo and Besley’s (2016), it means seeking to understand whether the scientist is taking responsibility for informing, defending, exciting, building trust, or tailoring. Further inductive open coding revealed strategic patterns and trends (Lindlof & Taylor, 2011) in the op-eds’ content, in addition to authors’ use of rhetorical and linguistic devices, which get at the how of their communication practices. Multicoder agreement enabled the identification of both “typical” and “exemplary” items for analysis (Ryan, 1999, p. 313).

Results

Of the 38 op-eds examined, 32 listed men as the primary science– or social science–affiliated author. The authors identified for analysis represented 30 universities in three countries (only two institutions outside the United States). Twenty-two were STEM scientists, representing most prominently the biological and physical sciences; 16 of the op-eds were written by social scientists, including multiple authors from economics, anthropology, and sociology. Three authors had more than one op-ed appear in the sample. The following sections describe the key scientific communication objectives and goals exhibited in these op-eds, identify themes in topic choice and styles of argument, and discuss rhetorical and literary moves employed by the authors.

Key Communication Objectives

Overall, communication categories reflected in scientists’ op-ed articles matched the objectives identified by Dudo and Besley (2016). The primary communication act evident in the articles was informing the public, followed by defending science, building trust, and exciting people about science. These acts were commonly undertaken with the explicit goal of influencing public policy, that is, the overwhelming majority of op-ed authors acted as advocates seeking to persuade an audience to accept a particular point of view. Because newspaper op-eds are produced for a mass audience in a medium not designed for direct real-time contact, the objective of tailoring messages was not regularly apparent, although some authors demonstrated sensitivity toward the perceived characteristics of The New York Times readers. Seeking career enhancement, one of the benefits promised to op-ed authors by Sommer and Maycroft (2008), was ultimately accepted as a given. Following is the analysis of how major science communication objectives manifested in the op-eds.

Informing

The most common act performed by scientist-authored op-eds in The New York Times appears to be informing the public, though not in the overbearing, conduit-model style that is often criticized under the deficit approach. Two main informing dimensions were inductively derived: explicitly addressing science issues and bringing scientific expertise to bear on matters of public interest. The ultimate act of these informative commentaries consistently was to produce a policy recommendation. Framed in terms of Goodwin’s (forthcoming) speech act framework, scientists exercised their authority in order to be effective advocates. With their credentials on the line, these authors accepted “responsibility not just to speak the truth, but also to speak the truth as an expert.” A common op-ed structure is to lead a piece with an anecdote, a pointed fact, or a summary of the state of affairs about a given topic; fill the body of the article with exposition and explanatory information; and conclude in the final few paragraphs with a proposed policy direction. This approach, rather than merely pushing facts, accepts that readers have freedom of choice to accept or reject an argument and seeks to persuade through the act of providing compelling background information.

Informative pieces covered such topics as the status of plant and animal species (chestnuts, wolves, monarch butterflies, apes, carp) or ecosystems (the Amazon rain forest, the oceans). Hydraulic fracturing and climate change were also addressed. Social science topics included immigration, human spirituality, telecommuting, workplace issues (harassment, whistleblowing), homosexuality, the Second Amendment, and Neanderthals. The focus in many natural science op-eds on specific species, rather than more abstract or meta-level subjects, was notable. Often, the deep look into the plight of a particular plant or animal underlay a broader argument at the end of the piece. Here, for instance, is part of a detailed informative paragraph by a professor of biology:

The American chestnut . . . was a dominant species from Maine to Mississippi, accounting for 25 to 30 percent of the hardwoods, with trees capable of growing to a hundred feet in height and almost 16 feet in diameter. Then in the late 1800s nuts of a similar tree were imported from Asia, and some spores of Cryphonectria parasitica, a fungus that produces oxalic acid, which poisons and kills the tree, were inadvertently introduced as well. . . . An estimated four billion trees were swept from our forests within a half century, and the American chestnut essentially disappeared.

The ultimate aim of this exposition, however, is to challenge the process of genetically modifying plant species to aid their restoration, a point raised only in the final four paragraphs:

Yes, I would love to see the American chestnut restored to our forests. But do we need to alter the chestnut’s genome—the code of life that has evolved over millenniums? I don’t think so, and I worry that the feel-good campaign . . . could be a Trojan horse that may seduce the public into accepting other genetically engineered trees . . .

In a social scientist–authored op-ed, an anthropologist and her colleague shared research on the assimilation of immigrant children in schools to lend perspective to the possibility of alienation in the ethnic Chechen brothers behind the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing:

Many newcomer students attend tough urban schools that lack solidarity and cohesion. In too many we found no sense of shared purpose, but rather a student body divided by race and ethnicity, between immigrants and the native born, between newcomers and more acculturated immigrants. Only 6 percent of the participants could name a teacher as someone they would go to with a problem; just 3 percent could identify a teacher who was proud of them.

This piece also concluded with a policy-oriented call, encouraging the use of research-based knowledge in decision making:

[T]he broad lesson—assimilating immigrant students into the fabric of society through academic, psychological and other supports—should inform educators and policy makers in the decades ahead, when immigrants and their children will account for most of the nation’s population growth.

In sum, the overwhelming majority of op-eds written by natural and social scientists employed extensive use of information, often research-based, to build knowledge in readers that then prepared them for a policy recommendation.

Defending

Another primary act apparent in scientist-authored op-eds is to defend science, either broadly as a vital form of human knowledge or narrowly as in a defense of one’s own work. As predicted by Dudo and Besley (2016), defensive articles tended to take on a more aggressive tone and exhibited a deficit model perception of the public, accusing skeptics of intellectual laziness or manipulation that could jeopardize humanity’s future. In a piece headlined “Welcome to the Age of Denial,” a physics and astronomy professor wrote,

Meanwhile, climate deniers, taking pages from the creationists’ PR playbook, have manufactured doubt about fundamental issues in climate science that were decided scientifically decades ago. And anti-vaccine campaigners brandish a few long-discredited studies to make unproven claims about links between autism and vaccination.

The defense of science turned on a description of method:

We face many daunting challenges as a society, and they won’t all be solved with more science and math education. But what has been lost is an understanding that science’s open-ended, evidence-based processes—rather than just its results—are essential to meeting those challenges.

Similarly, a piece by a physicist headlined “Deafness at Doomsday” makes a case for scientists taking a seat at the policy table in matters of global security, specifically nuclear proliferation. In essence, this is a plea to be invited to partake more frequently in the “advising” role that Goodwin (forthcoming) describes as scientists offering a “wider perspective” to policy decision makers. The op-ed notes that the scientists who helped develop the atomic bomb during World War II were highly influential among policy makers of the time. In the present day, however, scientists do not enjoy such prestige, as “distinguished scientific minds at our research universities and other national labs . . . provide advice that is routinely ignored.” The author, then, produces a speech act as an advocate in an effort to produce more speech acts as an advisor. The advocacy includes arguments that university scientists might be better heeded if they returned to crafting destabilizing weaponry:

Do scientists need to develop new doomsday tools before our views are again heard? Will climate researchers remain voiceless unless they propose untested geoengineering technologies that could have insidious consequences? Will biologists be heard only if their work spawns new biotechnologies that could be weaponized?

Some of the more strident commentary in defensive op-ed pieces risks backfiring on the authors. Pushing too hard against science skeptics can lead to motivated reasoning that actually reinforces their skepticism (Dudo & Besley, 2016), as ideology and religion can play as strong a role in opinion formation as facts (Hart & Nisbet, 2012). Science communication that fails to take these factors into account can lead to a “boomerang effect,” in which “a message is strategically constructed with a specific intent but produces a result that is the opposite of that intent” (Hart & Nisbet, 2012, p. 704). Language such as “The nay-sayers like to quibble over details” of climate change or “silliness like creationism,” rather than persuading skeptics, could instead exacerbate polarization over emotionally fraught issues.

Other op-ed writers aim to defend not science in general but their own discipline, or even their specific research. This approach arose among several economists in the 2013 sample. One authored a piece headlined “Yes, Economics Is a Science,” in which the primary defense was to suggest that skeptics of economics hold the discipline to standards of meta-knowledge that would not be applied in the natural sciences:

Health researchers have worked for more than a century to understand the “big picture” questions of how diet and lifestyle affect health and aging, yet they still do not have a full scientific understanding of these connections. Some studies tell us to consume more coffee, wine and chocolate; others recommend the opposite. But few people would argue that medicine should not be approached as a science or that doctors should not make decisions based on the best available evidence.

Two economists whose research had played a major role in global policy wrote to defend their work after revelations that data had been misinterpreted and allegations that the authors had allowed their findings to be misused. The authors wrote a detailed explanation of their methods and policy intentions for the Times’ print edition and extended their remarks in an online version that employed technical language and appeared to be aimed primarily at economists, rather than the general public. They used the outlet, in a sense, as a more immediate forum for an academic debate than a back-and-forth in a peer-reviewed journal could provide.

Building Trust

Op-ed authors made several moves to build trust in science or scientists, but while this was a highly prevalent goal, it was less central, often manifesting in a sentence or phrase as a secondary aim of defending or exciting about science. Establishing trust with a nonexpert audience is a crucial prerequisite to being received as a legitimate source (Goodwin & Dahlstrom, 2014). Building trust in the op-eds often took the form of expressing confidence in the ability of science to solve problems or in an affirmation of scientific methods. “There is no environmental reason for people to go hungry now or in the future,” one author wrote,

The only limits to creating a planet that future generations will be proud of are our imaginations and our social systems. In moving toward a better Anthropocene, the environment will be what we make it.

Authors addressing the debate over specific economics research put a positive spin on academic argument and uncertainty, responding to its characterization as an “academic kerfuffle” by saying, “[W]e believe the debate has been constructive, because it has brought greater clarity over the ideas shaping austerity policies in both the United States and Europe.” Other authors worked to highlight the creativity and rigor of their methods:

You might think that it would be nearly impossible to isolate the causal effect of a third-grade teacher while accounting for all the other factors that affect a child’s life outcomes. Yet we were able to develop methods to identify the causal effect of teachers by comparing students in consecutive cohorts within a school.

Many authors also sought to build trust by both establishing their expertise (Goodwin, forthcoming) and displaying personal vulnerability. Nisbet (2014) notes that public intellectuals “often shift between detached analysis and personalization” (p. 811) in their efforts to engage audiences. There is strong evidence of this pattern in this op-ed sample. Just under half of authors made some explicit effort to establish credibility, often by mentioning books they had authored, naming journals in which their research had been published, referencing leadership roles, noting when their predictions had come true, or aligning themselves with colleagues doing similar work. About half of authors also inserted personal experiences into their op-eds, from describing field research to relaying anecdotes about participating in church, cultivating chestnuts, losing a pet, or journeying toward intellectual discovery.

Exciting

A handful of op-ed authors devoted substantial energy toward getting readers excited about the discoveries and possibilities of science. Some did this by working to build curiosity through rhetorical questions and speculative claims, as in this piece about Neanderthals:

There is even a site where the forehead of a Neanderthal woman from Croatia was marked with a series of 35 parallel lines—presumably some kind of ritual, since the marks do not match any other type of bone modification at the site. Were the Neanderthals telling a story about the person? Were they tallying up the woman’s accomplishments? Who knows, but the marks likely signify some ritual behavior.

Other authors used personal stories to share their own sense of excitement about the field:

In 1982 I was an undergraduate physics major. In 1989 I was a graduate student. My dream was that, in a quarter-century, I would be a professor of astrophysics, introducing a new generation of students to the powerful yet delicate craft of scientific research.

And one characterized uncertainty as the principle driver of scientific investigation:

Cosmic mysteries still abound, global problems like climate change still elude solution and technology continues its inexorable advance, resolving old problems but often creating new ones.

Influencing Policy

Policy influence is a primary reason for scholars to engage in outreach generally (Besley & Nisbet, 2013; Uhlenbrock et al., 2014) and to write newspaper op-eds in particular (Sommer & Maycroft, 2008). Policy aims are exhibited in roughly three fourths of the op-eds examined for this study—nearly always in the concluding paragraphs after a body of text devoted primarily to informing people about the issue at hand. The persuasive nature of the op-eds and the speech activity of advocacy assumed by their authors, therefore, is evident.

Prescriptions were occasionally blunt: “The best way to [reduce global warming] would be to put a global price on carbon dioxide pollution”; “Eliminating the use of trawls in the depths of the Northeast Atlantic would seem to be a no-brainer.” Often, however, policy arguments were broad, indirect, or oblique. Some examples are the following:

Europe is currently increasing its reliance on coal while discouraging or banning fracking. If we are going to get our energy from hydrocarbons, blocking fracking while relying on coal looks like a bad tradeoff for the environment.

Until science and data become central to informing our public policies, our civilization will be hamstrung in confronting the gravest threats to its survival.

Some authors were downright coy. Rather than explicitly stating how the Supreme Court should rule on gay marriage, a biology professor led readers on a guided tour of the sexual diversity of Washington, D.C., wildlife, then concluded, “Let those who wish for marriage to be ‘founded in nature’ take note: the view outside the Supreme Court is full of life’s beautiful sexual variegation.” The indirect nature of many policy appeals could suggest some discomfort with explicitly taking sides in a specific political debate, as the appropriateness of scientific advocacy remains in dispute (Goodwin, 2014).

Tailoring

Few op-ed authors appeared to tailor their message for specific audiences—a reflection of the constraints of the unique platform provided by general interest newspaper guest commentaries. However, at least two authors did appear mindful of the stereotype of The New York Times readers as high-income, well-educated liberals. An article on spirituality and belief noted that a particular theological stance was “more real for many evangelicals than most secular liberals imagine,” implying that the secular liberals who read the Times should be disabused of certain prejudices. Another author, venturing into the second person, wrote, “Despite what you might hear at your local farmers’ market or Whole Foods, not all big farms are bad.”

Common Op-Ed Themes

Identifying the communication objectives and particular speech acts demonstrated in scientist-authored op-eds—the what are they doing question—leads to the further question of how authors worked to achieve those objectives within the genre. Several recurring patterns and themes were identified through open coding, including:

References to Research

More than 8 out of 10 op-ed writers made explicit references to scientific research. Some references were fleeting acknowledgments of broad understandings in the relevant field (“Researchers are finding increasing levels of mercury in many indigenous people”); others were extensive summaries of the authors’ own work. Most summations of research were worded conversationally and woven into narrative-like arguments, but a handful read like structured academic papers rendered in slightly more layperson-friendly terms.

References to History

A large majority of scientists called on history, either scientific or socio-political, to help convey information and make arguments. Science defenders noted the prestige of scientists in the mid-20th century as a contrast with their perceived lower status today. Other writers invoked the sensitivities of 19th-century Transcendentalists, traced the modern histories of species such as chestnuts and moose, recalled the scientific triumphalism of the late 1800s, outlined survival strategies of early humans, reviewed decades of damage from invasive species, cited the ideas of ancient thinkers such as Archimedes, charted two centuries of interpretation of the Second Amendment, and interpreted current climate discourse through the lens of John F. Kennedy’s 1963 “Strategy of Peace” speech.

Characterizing

Large proportions of scientists’ op-eds convey information in a relatively neutral tone similar to that found in academic work. But interspersed with straightforward factual accounts were more subjective judgments or characterizations of situations, policies, or other scientists. These judgments or characterizations could be affective (“As a humanist, I tend to have faith in humankind’s capacity to make the right choices”), evaluative (“Attention to the year 2047 is misguided”; “The 200 number is ridiculously small”), or dismissive (“That view is unfair and uninformed”). The op-ed appears to be a forum that frees many scientists from the more restrained modes of opining accepted in academic venues.

Uncertainty

Effectively addressing uncertainty—neither glossing over unknowns nor obscuring areas of consensus—is a major challenge for science communicators (Fischhoff & Davis, 2014; Kueffer & Larson, 2014; Retzbach & Maier, 2014) and an important aspect of the authority-exercising role explicated by Goodwin (forthcoming). Well over half of the op-ed writers took on this challenge, acknowledging gaps in knowledge through references to “controversy in the scientific literature” or direct use of the term: “[M]ethane is leaking, though there is significant uncertainty over the rate.” The concept of uncertainty was frequently used to inform people about science issues, but it also came up in efforts to excite people about science or to defend the scientific process: “That is not to say that science doesn’t make mistakes. But we do have a culture of questioning and testing scientific results that fosters self-correction.”

Speculation and Fear of the Future

In addition to describing uncertainty, many writers made speculative statements, some to advance arguments and others to engage audiences, such as the series of guesses about how Neanderthals used tools. Authors used phrases such as “I suspect,” “could lead to,” “may even,” “there will certainly be,” “it is possible that,” and “most likely” to indicate unconfirmed explanations or future-looking statements. A majority of writers peered into the future and didn’t like what they saw, predicting “a deathblow to . . . sustainability,” invoking “the real threat of climate change-induced conflict,” and foreseeing “more violent rhetoric—and more deadly violence”—unless their policy prescriptions were adopted.

Authors’ Rhetorical Moves

In addition to pursuing specific objectives and choosing what kind of information to present, op-ed authors had to make choices as writers. They had to decide how to begin their pieces, how to describe their positions and observations, and which tools of language would bolster their argument. Some of the rhetorical choices the authors made are highlighted below.

Lead Paragraphs

The first, or lead, paragraphs in nearly half of the op-eds followed a similar pattern: In a few sentences, the authors would lay out a summary of the state of affairs surrounding their subject. The first paragraph was often dispassionate and matter-of-fact:

Biomedical research with captive chimpanzees, an enterprise that has helped save millions of human lives, is being dismantled. The National Institutes of Health, citing a reduced need for chimps in research as well as their “likeness to humans,” recently decreed that all but 50 of the 451 chimps that are federally owned or supported will be retired and moved to sanctuaries.

The debate over government debt and its relationship to economic growth is at the forefront of policy debates across the industrialized world. The role of the economics profession in shaping the debate has always come under scrutiny.

About a quarter of the leads were anecdotal—the author told a short story, personal or otherwise, to draw people into the topic:

A few years ago, one of my graduate students showed me a Google Earth image that changed my view of the world. On a photo showing all of South America, I could clearly see a single soybean farm in the Brazilian state of Mato Grosso. My first thought was that a farm that big, sitting on the edge of the Amazon, must be an environmental disaster. But when it comes to agricultural sustainability, all is not what it seems.

Other, less common lead choices included directly asserting a policy position, using a quotation, or stating or elaborating on a specific fact.

First and Second Person

Nearly two thirds of op-ed authors referred to themselves at least once in the first person, a further example of Nisbet’s (2014) assertion that scientists attempt to personalize issues in communicating with the public. Sometimes the pronouns “I” or “we” were used simply to assert an opinion; other times they were used to introduce personal stories. Just under half of authors used the pronouns “we” or “our” to indicate larger groups, either a set or the population of scientists—“Do scientists need to develop new doomsday tools before our views are again heard?”—or society at large—“We are out of time.” Many op-eds also directly addressed the reader: “So, be careful when you call someone a Neanderthal. You’re speaking about part of yourself.”

Figurative and Vivid Language

A little under half of op-ed authors used noteworthy figurative language, primarily simile and metaphor, to help make a point. Just as many outreach advocates encourage metaphors to help illustrate complex ideas, some scholars caution that scientific metaphors must be carefully considered so as not to mislead audiences or overstate data (Kueffer & Larson, 2014). Metaphors in the present sample covered a range of colorful comparisons and sinister suggestions. Genetically modified chestnuts would be a “Trojan horse” leading to widespread genetic engineering, deforestation is a “dark shadow” in the Michoacán mountains, grass carp are like “underwater lawnmowers,” climate change leaves “fingerprints,” “the gloom of math anxiety” hangs “thickly over everything,” diverse organisms “represent the library of life on Earth,” ignoring scientific knowledge in policy making is “tantamount to a toreador turning his back on a raging bull.”

Furthermore, about a quarter of op-eds included vivid or florid descriptions:

The walls of my Bombay classroom seemed to blow away, as nascent cardinals streaked through space.

After the slaughter and illegal dumping of a diseased herd, the authorities in Shanghai went fishing for 16,000 bloated carcasses in the Huangpu River, which flows through the city.

An inspection of the bark of these trees reveals garden snails grazing on thin, vertical lawns of lichens, yeasts and algae. Like the trees, each sexually mature snail makes both egg and sperm. Mating among these gastropods is charged with romantic tension; two males and two females are caught up in every embrace.

Rhetorical Questions

Questions the reader was not in a position to answer were used in two thirds of the op-eds, sometimes to provoke thought, other times to advance arguments. The following are some examples: “Why do so many wells leak this way?” “So what math ideas can be appreciated without calculation or formulas?” “Does the leveling-off of temperatures mean that the climate models used to track them are seriously flawed?” “So what does 21st-century science have in store for us?” “Why do people believe in God?” “What would happen if our right to gun ownership were explicitly protected and balanced against a concern for public safety?” “Why is it that highly trained natural scientists don’t understand this?”

Popular Culture References

Popular culture helps people make sense of events by creating connections between what they know and what they don’t (Ungar, 2000). Nearly a third of op-ed writers used popular culture references to engage readers with their scientific topics. Some references were iconic, as in the use of The Wizard of Oz in an op-ed about tornadoes or George Orwell’s 1984 in a piece about Internet monitoring. Many were contemporary, such as the television shows The Big Bang Theory, American Idol, and Bamazon, or a cartoon reference (“the Dilbertization of Yahoo”). Still others were, perhaps, more “high-culture” references appealing to an educated The New York Times audience, from Chekhov to Dante to Robert Frost.

Other Moves

Less prevalent rhetorical tools included the use of irony, sarcasm, hyperbole, and humor. Few op-ed writers attempted (or appeared to attempt) to be funny, perhaps heeding caveats about the pitfalls of that practice (Goodwin & Dahlstrom, 2014; Riesch, 2014). But one piece, about the social implications of a woman being fired from a dental hygienist job for being too temptingly attractive to her boss, struck a tongue-in-cheek tone throughout:

[T]he professional beauty quotient has now morphed into what we might call the Goldilocks dilemma. Like the porridge in that famous fable, you can’t be too cold. But as Ms. Nelson found out, you can’t be too hot, either.

Discussion and Conclusion

This study offers a close examination of op-ed articles written for an elite newspaper by university-affiliated natural scientists and social scientists. Research in science communication suggests that scientists should engage with various publics, improve their communication skills, and act strategically in their outreach. Researchers have begun examining how scientists view communication objectives (e.g., Besley et al., 2015; Dudo & Besley, 2016) and developing models to determine effective communication practices (e.g., Baram-Tsabari & Lewenstein, 2013; Goodwin & Dahlstrom, 2014). The purpose of this study was to generate empirically rich analysis of these objectives and strategies in practice within a particular, underexamined media platform, employing speech act theory to assess the ethical responsibilities scientists implicitly undertook in their communication practices as an alternative to discredited deficit-model approaches. Through the research questions, this study sought to identify what topics were covered in scientists’ op-eds (RQ1), what ethical roles scientists assumed responsibility for in their communication acts (RQ2), what specific communication strategies were enacted (RQ3), what content and rhetorical patterns were evident (RQ4), and the extent to which authors effectively applied communication practices from the literature (RQ5).

Most scientist-authored op-eds sought to inform the public on specific issues and, through that information, instruct on policy. Defense of science and scientists was also frequently evident, along with exciting the public about science and building trust in scientific processes. These findings, though not generalizable, largely support and lend depth to Dudo and Besley’s (2016) main scientist communication objectives, as well as Sommer and Maycroft’s (2008) argument for the op-ed as a venue for the goal of seeking policy influence. Op-ed authors worked both to inform readers about science issues and to elbow their way into public debates—that is, they exercised their scientific authority, advocated for policy positions, and made arguments for their significance as advisors. Scientists also occasionally reverted to the deficit model, defending science by calling attention to misinformation and rebutting or belittling those who attacked widely supported findings. In a more nuanced finding expanding beyond Dudo and Besley’s (2016) dimensions, this study observed scientists defending their own field or results, sometimes at the expense of other disciplines or researchers. Authors often employed openness and transparency to build trust, and a couple showed evidence of tailoring messages for The New York Times audience. We did not find major differences between op-eds authored by natural scientists and social scientists. This is possibly attributed to the selection of op-eds focused only on research, which one could argue follows similar standards regardless of discipline. Dudo and Besley (2016) also found that scientists’ discipline rarely correlates with particular communication objectives.

Speech act theory helps explain the more personal, descriptive, and credibility-building moves that scientist-authors made in these op-eds. Writing for a predominantly nonexpert audiences, the scientists exhibit a personal investment in their communication that is not common to academic writing. By accepting vulnerability through the use of personal stories and first- and second-person pronouns, the authors’ persuasive authority is enhanced; readers are given the opportunity to test and judge their claims in a way that moves beyond the deficit approach to communication (Goodwin, forthcoming). Though informing is the key function the op-eds perform, as in the “exercising authority” role in Goodwin, readers are positioned as evaluators of arguments, not simply receivers at the end of a transmission. In advocating for certain policy outcomes, the authors accepted ethical responsibility for “making the best possible case” leading to their conclusions. To make their case, op-ed authors consistently relied on references to research and history in building arguments, and they interwove straightforward factual information with personal judgments, characterizations, stories, and speculation. Most addressed scientific uncertainty, and many expressed fear of an unwelcome future should their policy prescriptions be ignored. It is concluded that many of the op-ed authors effectively used recommended communication methods to engage readers with their arguments.

Examining the content of scientists’ newspaper op-eds provides important insights into how scientists are working to shape the public sphere with respect to existing science communication theory. It can help scientists and science communicators recognize strengths and weaknesses in communication efforts and consider unexplored opportunities that might be available to underrepresented disciplines or demographics (e.g., women scientists, the primary authors of only 6 of 38 articles, are dramatically underrepresented in The New York Times op-eds). The nature of this study does not allow us to know which scientists may have attempted to publish op-eds but were rejected by editors due to space, time, quality, or intervening journalistic norms, but it does enable us to witness the convergence of scientific and journalistic content priorities reflected in the communication subjects and practices that achieved publication.

The analysis of one year of op-eds in a single publication means that it is not possible to determine whether the ways in which scientists are using op-eds to communicate to various audiences has significantly changed across time, or if it depends on specific media. However, the goal of this study was to examine the current communication practices of scientists, and as described in the Method section, The New York Times is the main national newspaper in which scientists are communicating through this particular format. We expect future research to apply the framework developed and tested in this study by expanding the time frame of analysis, the number and types of publications, the format of communication (e.g., op-eds, blogs, social media, etc.), and the countries under examination. For instance, it would be reasonable to expect that scientists engage in different speech acts based on the affordances and constraints offered by blogging or being interviewed by a journalist than they do when composing op-eds. It is also possible there will be differences in op-eds in different types of newspapers (e.g., popular vs. elite), in newspapers with different political stances (e.g., liberal vs. conservative), and also between media (e.g., newspapers vs. magazines vs. online-only publications). Such studies would allow further development of speech act theory in a science communication context and of specific effective communication strategies based on differences and similarities across nations, considering the existing nuances in scientists’ perceptions of science communication and public understanding of science (Peters, 2013). The framework could be predictive of scientists’ communication objectives and strategies when considering the variables of medium, country, gender, and possibly discipline, among others.

Finally, the theoretical propositions developed in this study have important implications for research in media effects. Recent research in media effects related to scientific issues mostly focuses on news media or interpersonal communication (e.g., Ho, Scheufele, & Corley, 2013; Retzbach & Maier, 2014), but few, if any, studies have focused on the effects of direct communication by scientists, such as in the case of op-eds. The typology and operationalization of communication objectives and strategies need to be tested with various audiences to determine their influence and, more important, whether the communication efforts are achieving the intended effects (e.g., building trust, exciting, influencing policy) of the communicator. This research would empower scientists to pursue further outreach and communication with audiences that would benefit from their work, continuing to build transparency, trust, and engagement between the scientific community and the various publics at a time when public accountability in science is a necessity (Frankel, 2015; Linková & Stöckelová, 2012).

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the editor and three anonymous reviewers for substantial suggestions that enhanced the theoretical contribution of this study, as well as Dr. John C. Besley of the Michigan State University College of Communication Arts and Sciences for his support through the research process.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Perry Parks is a doctoral student in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University. He has published in journals including Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly and Journalism & Mass Communication Educator. He is author of Making Important News Interesting: Reporting Public Affairs in the 21st Century.

Bruno Takahashi is an assistant professor in the School of Journalism and the Department of Communication at Michigan State University. He is also the research director of the Knight Center for Environmental Journalism. His research interests include media coverage of environmental affairs, environmental journalism practices, risk communication, and the links between media and policy.

References

Baram-Tsabari

Lewenstein

B. V.

(2013). An instrument for assessing scientists’ written skills in public communication of science. Science Communication, 35, 56-85.

Bauer

M. W.

Allum

Miller

(2007). What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science, 16(1), 79-95.

Bauer

M. W.

Jensen

(2011). The mobilization of scientists for public engagement. Public Understanding of Science, 20(1), 3-11.

Besley

J. C.

(2014). What do scientists think about the public and does it matter to their online engagement? Science and Public Policy. doi:10.1093/scipol/scu042

Besley

J. C.

Dudo

Storksdieck

(2015). Scientists’ views about communication training. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52, 199-220.

Besley

J. C.

Nisbet

(2013). How scientists view the public, the media and the political process. Public Understanding of Science, 22, 644-659. doi:10.1177/0963662511418743

Bronson

(2014). Reflecting on the science in science communication. Canadian Journal of Communication, 39, 523-537.

Brossard

(2013). New media landscapes and the science information consumer. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(Suppl. 3), 14096-14101. doi:10.1073/pnas.1212744110

Bucchi

(2013). Style in science communication. Public Understanding of Science, 22, 904-915.

10.

Ciofalo

(1998). Survey probes status of op-ed journalism and practices of op-ed editors. Newspaper Research Journal, 19(2), 18.

11.

Ciofalo

Traverso

(1994). Does the op-ed page have a chance to become a public forum? Newspaper Research Journal, 15(4), 51-63.

12.

Davies

S. R.

(2008). Constructing communication: Talking to scientists about talking to the public. Science Communication, 29, 413-434.

13.

Day

Golan

(2005). Source and content diversity in op-ed pages: Assessing editorial strategies in The New York Times and the Washington Post. Journalism Studies, 6(1), 61-71. doi:10.1080/141670052000328212

14.

Dietz

(2013). Bringing values and deliberation to science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(Suppl. 3), 14081-14087. doi:10.1073/pnas.1212740110

15.

Dudo

(2012). Toward a model of scientists’ public communication activity: The case of biomedical researchers. Science Communication, 35, 476-501. doi:1075547012460845

16.

Dudo

Besley

J. C.

(2016). Scientists’ prioritization of communication objectives for public engagement. PLoS One. Retrieved from http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0148867

17.

Fischhoff

Davis

A. L.

(2014). Communicating scientific uncertainty. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(Suppl. 4), 13664-13671.

18.

Fischhoff

Scheufele

D. A.

(2013). The science of science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(Suppl. 3), 14031-14032.

19.

Fischhoff

Scheufele

D. A.

(2014). The science of science communication II. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(Suppl. 4), 13583-13584.

20.

Fortunato

J. A.

(2014). Setting the media agenda: A study of Angelina Jolie’s op-ed announcing her undergoing a preventative double mastectomy. Florida Communication Journal, 42(1), 1-9.

21.

Frankel

M. S.

(2015). An empirical exploration of scientists’ social responsibilities. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 2, 301-310.

22.

Goodwin

(2014). Conceptions of speech acts in the theory and practice of argumentation: A case study of a debate about advocating. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 36(1), 79-98.

23.

Goodwin

(forthcoming). Effective because ethical: Speech act theory as a framework for scientists’ communication. In Priest

J. Goodwin

Dahlstrom

(Eds.), Ethics and practice in science communication. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

24.

Goodwin

Dahlstrom

M. F.

(2014). Communication strategies for earning trust in climate change debates. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 5, 151-160. doi:10.1002/wcc.262

25.

Gordon

J. C.

Deines

Havice

(2010). Global warming coverage in the media: Trends in a Mexico City newspaper. Science Communication, 32, 143-170.

26.

Grice

H. P.

(1957). Meaning. Philosophical Review, 62, 397-388.

27.

Gunter

V. J.

Harris

C. K.

(1998). Noisy winter: The DDT controversy in the years before Silent Spring. Rural Sociology, 63, 179-198. doi:10.1111/j.1549-0831.1998.tb00670.x

28.

Hart

P. S.

Nisbet

E. C.

(2012). Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Communication Research, 39, 701-723. doi:10.1177/0093650211416646

29.

S. S.

Scheufele

D. A.

Corley

E. A.

(2013). Factors influencing public risk–benefit considerations of nanotechnology: Assessing the effects of mass media, interpersonal communication, and elaborative processing. Public Understanding of Science, 22, 606-623.

30.

Kueffer

Larson

B. M.

(2014). Responsible use of language in scientific writing and science communication. BioScience, 64, 719-724

31.

Liang

L. Y.-F.

Yeo

S. K.

Scheufele

D. A.

Brossard

Xenos

. . . Corley

E. A.

(2014). Building buzz: (Scientists) communicating science in new media environments. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 91, 772-791. doi:1077699014550092

32.

Lin

S. F.

Lin

H. S.

Lee

Yore

L. D.

(2015). Are science comics a good medium for science communication? The case for public learning of nanotechnology. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 5, 276-294.

33.

Lindlof

T. R.

Taylor

B. C.

(2011). Qualitative communication research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

34.

Linková

Stöckelová

(2012). Public accountability and the politicization of science: The peculiar journey of Czech research assessment. Science and Public Policy, 39, 618-629.

35.

Maillé

M. È.

Saint-Charles

Lucotte

(2010). The gap between scientists and journalists: The case of mercury science in Québec’s press. Public Understanding of Science, 19, 70-79.

36.

McCombs

M. E.

Shaw

D. L.

(1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176-187.

37.

National Science Foundation. (2014). Graduate research fellowship program. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2014/nsf14590/nsf14590.htm

38.

Neuman

W. R.

(1990). The threshold of public attention. Public Opinion Quarterly, 54, 159-176.

39.

Nisbet

M. C.

(2014). Disruptive ideas: Public intellectuals and their arguments for action on climate change. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 5, 809-823. doi:10.1002/wcc.317

40.

Nisbet

M. C.

Markowitz

(2015). Expertise in an age of polarization: Evaluating scientists’ political awareness and communication behaviors. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658, 136-154.

41.

Nisbet

M. C.

Scheufele

D. A.

(2009). What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany, 96, 1767-1778.

42.

Peters

H. P.

(2013). Gap between science and media revisited: Scientists as public communicators. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110 (Suppl. 3), 14102-14109.

43.

Pew Research Center. (2015). Public and scientists’ views on science and society. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2015/01/PI_ScienceandSociety_Report_012915.pdf

44.

Poliakoff

Webb

T. L.

(2007). What factors predict scientists’ intentions to participate in public engagement of science activities? Science Communication, 29, 242-263.

45.

Retzbach

Maier

(2014). Communicating scientific uncertainty: Media effects on public engagement with science. Communication Research, 42, 429-456. doi:10.1177/0093650214534967

46.

Riesch

(2014). Why did the proton cross the road? Humour and science communication. Public Understanding of Science, 24, 768-775. doi:10.1177/0963662514546299

47.

Ritchie

Lewis

(Eds.). (2013). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

48.

Rowan

K. E.

(1991). Goals, obstacles, and strategies in risk communication: A problem-solving approach to improving communication about risks. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 19, 300-329.

49.

Ryan

G. W.

(1999). Measuring the typicality of text: Using multiple coders for more than just reliability and validity checks. Human Organization, 58, 313-322.

50.

Sanders

C. B.

Cuneo

C. J.

(2010). Social reliability in qualitative team research. Sociology, 44, 325-343.

51.

Sharon

A. J.

Baram-Tsabari

(2014). Measuring mumbo jumbo: A preliminary quantification of the use of jargon in science communication. Public Understanding of Science, 23, 528-546. doi:10.1177/0963662512469916

52.

Shema

Bar-Ilan

Thelwall

(2012). Research blogs and the discussion of scholarly information. PloS One, 7(5), e35869.

53.

Sommer

Maycroft

J. R.

(2008). Influencing public policy: An analysis of published op-eds by academics. Politics & Policy, 36, 586-613. doi:10.1111/j.1747-1346.2008.00122.x

54.

Sugimoto

C. R.

Thelwall

(2013). Scholars on soap boxes: Science communication and dissemination in TED videos. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64, 663-674.

55.

Sweeney

Greenwood

K. E.

Williams

Wykes

Rose

D. S.

(2013). Hearing the voices of service user researchers in collaborative qualitative data analysis: The case for multiple coding. Health Expectations, 16, e89-e99.

56.

Takahashi

Meisner

(2014). Re-examining the media-policy link: Climate change and government elites in Peru. In Crow

D. A.

Boykoff

M. T.

(Eds.), Culture, politics and climate change: How information shapes our common future (pp. 102-120). New York, NY: Routledge.

57.

Uhlenbrock

Landau

Hankin

(2014). Science communication and the role of scientists in the policy discussion. In Drake

J. L.

Kontar

Y. Y.

Rife

G. S.

(Eds.), New trends in earth-science outreach and engagement (pp. 93-105). New York, NY: Springer.

58.

Ungar

(2000). Knowledge, ignorance and the popular culture: Climate change versus the ozone hole. Public Understanding of Science, 9, 297-312.

59.

Varner

(2014). Scientific outreach: Toward effective public engagement with biological science. BioScience, 64, 333-340. doi:10.1093/biosci/biu021

60.

H. T.

Guo

McCombs

M. E.

(2014). Exploring “the world outside and the pictures in our heads” A network agenda-setting study. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 91, 669-686. doi:10.1177/1077699014550090

61.

Weaver

Bimber

(2008). Finding news stories: A comparison of searches using LexisNexis and Google News. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 85, 515-530.

62.

Weingart

Pansegrau

(1999). Reputation in science and prominence in the media: The Goldhagen debate. Public Understanding of Science, 8(1), 1-16.

63.

Winter

J. P.

Eyal

C. H.

(1981). Agenda setting for the civil rights issue. Public Opinion Quarterly, 45, 376-383.

64.

H. D.

(2007). A brave new world for international news? Exploring the determinants of the coverage of foreign news on US websites. International Communication Gazette, 69, 539-551.