Mixed-Methods Studies of Science Communication

National Human Genome Research Institute

Investigators

Linked publications, trials & patents

Abstract

Staff and students at all types of research institutions—universities, government, nonprofits, and private industry—are no strangers to the mounting pressure for scientists to communicate their work to the general public. In response, science communication activities have proliferated across research environments, providing opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration and greater engagement with non-scientists [McKee et. al, 2022; Naughton et. al, 2024]. Recent science communication efforts continue to make use of traditional channels like television appearances and print media alongside more modern online platforms and experimental approaches [Entradas et al., 2020]. An expansion in the development and availability of specialized trainings has accompanied the rise in science communication practice, as have limited analyses of the efficacy of such trainings, which have raised concerns over the consistency, oversight, and impact of science communication training methods [Baram-Tsabari & Lewenstein, 2017; Rubega et. al, 2021]. Broadly, the progress in science communication efforts and training opportunities has not been matched by efforts made in the systematic design and evaluation of these ventures. The scarcity of so-called “evidence-based” science communication has been attributed to a variety of multifactorial phenomena. Jensen & Gerber [2020] propose a leveled hierarchal framework describing a disconnect between research and practice in the field of science communication, ranging from challenges in meaningfully determining the relevance or applicability of findings in science communication research to ensuring that these research findings are accessible and methodologically robust. Evaluation efforts that exist in spite of research-practice disconnect are not always publicly available, and those that are have been found to often take the role of telling “success stories” that represent the end of a particular science communication venture rather than a foundation of evidence for other communicators to utilize and build upon [Jensen, 2015; Ziegler et al., 2021]. Additionally, many of those communicating science are not themselves scholars in communication, leading to a disconnect in expectations between those trying to communicate and those evaluating that work [Yuan, Besley, & Dudo, 2019]. Regardless of discipline, field, or setting, there is a clear insufficiency in attempts to evaluate science communication efforts. In the United States (US), one of the main venues for federal-level engagement in science communication of biomedical research is the National Institutes of Health (NIH), who share content through many avenues including online channels, briefings for other areas of government, press interactions, working with advocacy groups, and traditional academic outputs. Like any large and complex institution, the professional environment of the NIH presents its own unique challenges for science communication, and these serve quite different objectives. For context, the NIH is made up of a collection of institutes, centers, and offices (ICOs), most serving as home to a number of research groups (intramural research), while each ICO also sends the bulk of its funds to investigators in other institutions (extramural research); naturally, the ICOs often want to communicate about all of it. The NIH Office of the Director may focus science communication efforts on increasing institutional visibility by highlighting specific health and science advancements funded by the NIH or reaching those who control the funding for the institution [“How the NIH Brings Health,” 2018]. In contrast, individual laboratories may be most interested in reaching very small, specific communities to encourage participation in their own research, such as for rare conditions [Peters, 2022]. To facilitate this, NIH has significantly invested in encouraging individual investigators to learn better science communication through workshops, trainings, resources, and other similar training opportunities [“Clear Communication,” 2021]. Differing objectives, of course, require different communication strategies and different metrics to define and judge success. Therefore, it is crucial that staff looking to use the most effective approaches to fulfill any of these communication objectives are appraised of the latest work in science communication research, and have access to information about a range of methods for the design and evaluation of science communication activities. We carried out an anonymous, online mixed-methods survey to collect information on communication activity types and frequencies within the last 12 months, opinions on NIH-specific barriers to science communication, preferences for future SIG activities, respondent demographics, and other similar metrics. We distributed two versions of the survey: one version for SIG members that had additional questions regarding respondents’ experiences with the SIG, and a non-member version that omitted member-specific questions. Our exploratory survey found that staff and scientists at the US NIH have an interest in participating in science communication efforts, and those that have participated generally perceive their efforts to have been successful. This perceived success was present regardless of whether respondents considered themselves as members of our Science of Science Communication SIG. However, many SIG members and an even greater proportion of non-members have not participated in any type of public-facing science communication in the past year; therefore, their answers presumably reflect levels of success with academic audiences and methods rather than public ones. This relatively low frequency of public-facing science communication is in line with previous studies of natural scientists [Yuan, Besley, & Dudo, 2019], but poses an interesting contrast with the qualitative results in Figure 2, where non-members listed “communication with the public” as their top “most important goal of science communication.” We suggest there remains an ongoing need and appetite for both targeted training and establishment of communication opportunities for biomedical researchers, especially for multiple audiences. The SIG has seemingly gone beyond its original mission of providing a forum to learn about and discuss evidence-based science communication and has now evolved into a productive community space from which its members gain new skills, collaboratively discuss and remedy obstacles, and tangibly apply what they have learned from the group in their own work. The possibility of creating similar groups at other types of scientific institutions should be considered a promising option for a more widespread discussion on evidence-based practices in science communication. The final report was published in 2025 in the Journal of Science Communication. Further work is focusing on multiple tenets of NIH’s new gold-standard science implementation plan, including communication of error and uncertainty, transparency, and interdisciplinarity.