Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Top Indian scientists as public communicators: a survey of their perceptions, attitudes and communication behaviors

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Research on science communication, especially from scientists’ point of view, is rare in the Indian context. This first of its kind study in India explores the perceptions and attitudes toward science communication of senior and experienced Indian scientists (N = 259). Based on a cross-sectional survey of scientists who are elected fellows of three Indian national science academies, it provides a snapshot of what Indian scientists think about their involvement, performance, and experience in public engagement activities and the perceived impact of their involvement in such activities. It also provides a diagnosis about the use of different ways of public communication by Indian scientists. The results show that almost all the respondents have participated in some science communication activity during their careers, and the majority of their affiliated institutions organized such activities. A vast majority of the respondents had a positive experience in public engagement and expressed willingness to engage in the future as well. More than three-quarters of the respondents personally enjoyed taking part in science communication while feeling that they were confident and well-equipped to communicate their research. The results from this survey are discussed with possible implications for future policies on science communication by scientists and devising appropriate inventions for enhancing their engagement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All the data used for the results presented in this paper are available in the paper.

References

  • Agnella, S., De Bortoli, A., Scamuzzi, S., L’Astorina, A., Cerbara, L., Valente, A., & Avveduto, S. (2012). How and why the scientists communicate with society: The case of physics in Italy. In M. Bucchi & B. Trench (Eds.), Quality, honesty and beauty in science and technology communication: PCST 2012 Book of Papers (pp. 391–395). PCST Network.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agre, P., & Leshner, A. I. (2010). Bridging science and society. Science, 327(5968), 921.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (2015). Social responsibility: A preliminary inquiry into the perspectives of scientists, engineers and health professionals. American Association for the Advancement of Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, E., Weaver, A., Hanley, D., Shamatha, J., & Melton, G. (2005). Scientists and public outreach: Participation, motivations, and impediments. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(3), 281–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, M. W., & Jensen, P. (2011). The mobilization of scientists for public engagement. Public Understanding of Science, 20(1), 3–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, A. (1994). Media (mis)communication on the science of climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 3(3), 259–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Besley, J. C., Dudo, A., Yuan, S., & Lawrence, F. (2018). Understanding scientists’ willingness to engage. Science Communication, 40(5), 559–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Besley, J. C., & Nisbet, M. (2013). How scientists view the public, the media and the political process. Public Understanding of Science, 22(6), 644–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boltanski, L., & Maldidier, P. (1970). Carrière scientifique, morale scientifique et vulgarisation. Information Sur Les Science Sociales, 9(3), 99–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brake, M. L., & Weitkamp, E. (2010). Introducing science communication: A practical guide. Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bullock, O. M., Amill, D. C., Shulman, H. C., & Dixon, G. N. (2019). Jargon as a barrier to effective science communication: Evidence from metacognition. Public Understanding of Science, 28(7), 845–853.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burchell, K. (2015). Factors affecting public engagement by researchers: Literature review. Policy Studies Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conradie, E. S. (2004). The role of key role players in science communication at South African higher educational institutions: An exploratory study. PhD Thesis, University of Pretoria.

  • Davies, S. R. (2008). Constructing communication: Talking to scientists about talking to the public. Science Communication, 29(4), 413–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, L. S. (2010). Science communication: A down under perspective. Japanese Journal of Science Communication, 7, 65–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of S&T, Govt of India. (2019). Scientific social responsibility policy (draft). Department of S&T Govt. of India.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of S&T, Govt. of India. (2020). Science, technology, and tnnovation Policy 2020 (draft). Available at: https://dst.gov.in/sites/default/files/STIP_Doc_1.4_Dec2020.pdf. Accessed 20 Feb 2021.

  • Dudo, A., & Besley, J. C. (2016). Scientists’ prioritization of communication objectives for public engagement. PLoS ONE, 11, e0148867.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dudo, A., Besley, J. C., Kahlor, L. A., Koh, H., Copple, J., & Yaun, S. (2018). Microbiologists’ public engagement views and behaviors. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 19(1), 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dudo, A., Kahlor, L. A., AbiGhannam, N., Lazard, A., & Liang, M. C. (2014). An analysis of naoscientists as public communicators. Nature Nanotechnology, 9, 841–844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ecklund, E. H., James, S. A., & Lincoln, A. E. (2012). How academic biologists and physicists view science outreach. PLoS ONE, 7(5), e36240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Entradas, M., et al. (2020). Public communication by research institutes compared across countries and sciences: Building capacity for engagement or competing for visibility? PLoS ONE, 15(7), e0235191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farahi, A., Gupta, R. R., Kraweic, C., Plazas, A. A., & Wolf, R. C. (2019). Astronomers’ and physicists’ attitudes toward education & public outreach: A programmatic study of the dark energy survey. Journal of STEM Outreach, 2(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.15695/jstem/v2i1.09

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gascoigne, T., & Metcalfe, J. (1997). Incentives and impediments to scientists communicating through the media. Science Communication, 18(3), 265–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Government of India, Ministry of Science and Technology, Department of Science and Technology. (2018). http://dst.gov.in/republic-day-2018. Accessed 18 Feb 2021.

  • Grillo, S.V.C., et al. (2016). Discourse perspectives of science divulgation/popularization. Bakhtiniana, 11(2), 4–15.

  • Guerrero, M.F.C.R.N. (2016). Constructing knowledge societies: Public communication of science (PCS) as a cultural practice of the scientific community in Mexico. The Online Journal of Communication and Media, 2(3), 11–25.

  • Hamlyn, B., Shanahan, M., Lewis, H., O’Donoghue, E., Hanson, T., & Burchell, K. (2015). Factors affecting public engagement by UK researchers: A study on behalf of a consortium of UK public research funders. https://wellcome.ac.uk/sites/default/files/wtp060033_0.pdf. Accessed 20 Feb 2021.

  • Ho, S. S., & LooiGoh, J. T. J. (2020). Scientists as public communicators: Individual- and institutional-level motivations and barriers for public communication in Singapore. Asian Journal of Communication, 30(1), 155–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, P. (2011). A statistical picture of popularization activities and their evolutions in France. Public Understanding of Science, 20(1), 26–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, P., Rouquier, J. B., Kreimers, P., & Croissant, Y. (2008). Scientists connected with society are more active academically. Science and Public Policy, 35(7), 527–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jia, H., & Liu, L. (2014). Unbalanced progress: The hard road from science popularisation to public engagement with science in China. Public Understanding of Science, 23(1), 32–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jung, J., Shim, S. W., Jin, H. S., & Khang, H. (2015). Factors affecting attitudes and behavioural intention towards social networking advertising: a case of Facebook users in South Korea. International Journal of Advertising: the Review of Marketing Communications. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2015.1014777

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, C., & Fortner, R. W. (2008). Great lakes scientists’ perspectives on K-12 education collaboration. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 34(1), 98–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreimer, P., Levin, L., & Jensen, P. (2011). Popularization by Argentine researchers: The activities and motivations of CONICET scientists. Public Understanding of Science, 20(1), 37–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Llorente, C., Revuelta, G., Carrio, M., & Porta, M. (2019). Scientists’ opinions and attitudes towards citizens’ understanding of science and their role in public engagement activities. PLoS ONE, 14(11), e0224262. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loroño-Leturiondo, M., & Davies, S. R. (2018). Responsibility and science communication: Scientists’ experiences of and perspectives on public communication activities. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 5(2), 170–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lunsford, C. G., Church, R. L., & Zimmerman, D. L. (2006). Assessing Michigan State University’s efforts to embed engagement across the institution: Findings and challenges. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 11(1), 89–104.

  • Martin-Sempere, M. J., Garzon-Garcia, B., & Rey-Rocha, J. (2008). Scientists’ motivation to communicate science and technology to the public: Surveying participants at the Madrid Science Fair. Public Understanding of Science, 17(3), 349–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merino, N. S., & Navarro, D. H. T. (2019). Attitudes and perceptions of Conacyt researchers towards public communicating of science and technology. Public Understanding of Science, 28(1), 85–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neresini, F., & Bucchi, M. (2011). Which indicators for the new public engagement activities? An exploratory study of European Research Institutions. Public Understanding of Science, 20(1), 64–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, K. H., Kjaer, C. R., & Dahlgaard, J. (2007). Scientists and science communication: A Danish survey. Journal of Science Communication, 6(1), A01.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nisbet, M. C., & Scheufele, D. A. (2009). What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany, 96(10), 1767–1778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patairiya, M. (2003). Science communication in India: Perspectives and challenges. SciDev.Net. Retrieved March 12, 2022, from https://www.scidev.net/global/opinions/science-communication-in-india-perspectives-and-c/.

  • Peters, H. P., et al. (2008). Interactions with the mass media. Science, 321(5886), 204–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickens, J. (2005). Perceptions and attitudes of individuals. In N. Borkowski (Ed.), Organizational behavior in health care. Jones & Barlett Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poliakoff, E., & Webb, T. L. (2007). What factors predict scientists’ intentions to participate in public engagement of science activities? Science Communication, 29(2), 242–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Press Information Bureau, Government of India, Ministry of Science and Technology. (2017). http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=169646. Accessed 20 Feb 2021.

  • Rajput, A. S. D. (2017). Science communication as an academic discipline: An Indian perspective. Current Science, 113(12), 2262–2267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rajput, A. S. D. (2018). India’s Ph.D. scholar outreach requirement. Science, 359(6382), 1343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rajput, A. S. D. (2019). India aims for national policy on scientific social responsibility. Nature, 574, 634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rajput, A. S. D., & Sharma, S. (2021). India: Draft science policy calls for public engagement. Nature, 574, 26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ransohoff, D. F., & Ransohoff, R. M. (2001). Sensationalism in the media: When scientists and journalists may be complicit collaborators. Effective Clinical Practice, 4(4), 185–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rinaldi, A. (2012). To hype, or not to(o) hype. EMBO Reports, 13(4), 303–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, K. M., Markowitz, E. M., & Brossard, D. (2020). Scientists’ incentives and attitudes toward public communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 117(3), 1274–1276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roten, F. C. V. (2011). Gender differences in scientists’ public outreach and engagement activities. Science Communication, 33(1), 52–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Royal Society. (1985). The public understanding of science. Royal Society.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Royal Society. (2006). Survey of factors affecting science communication by scientists and engineers. Royal Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salwi, D. M. (2002). Science in India media. Vigyan Prasar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle, S.D. (2011). Scientists’ communication with the general public—An Australian survey. PhD Thesis, Australian National University.

  • Shanley, P., & Lopez, C. (2009). Out of the loop: Why research rarely reaches policy makers and the public and what can be done. Biotropica, 41(5), 535–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharon, A. J., & Baram-Tsabari, A. (2014). Measuring mumbo jumbo: A preliminary quantification of the use of jargon in science communication. Public Understanding of Science, 23(5), 528–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shugart, E. C., & Racaniello, V. R. (2015). Scientists: Engage the public! Mbio, 6(6), e01989.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, H. C., Dixon, G. N., Bullock, O. M., & Amill, D. C. (2020). The effects of jargon on processing fluency, self-perceptions, and scientific engagement. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 39(5–6), 579–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. N. B., & Merkle, B. G. (2021). Meaning-making in science communication: A case for precision in word choice. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 102(1), e01794.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valinciute, A. (2020). Lithuanian scientists’ behaviour and views on science communication. Public Understanding of Science, 29(3), 353–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varner, J. (2014). Scientific outreach: Toward effective public engagement with biological science. BioScience, 64(4), 333–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watermeyer, R. (2015). Lost in the “third space”: The impact of public engagement in higher education on academic identity, research practice and career progression. European Journal of Higher Education, 8235, 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weigold, M. F. (2001). Communicating science: A review of the literature. Science Communication, 23(2), 164–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welcome Trust. (2001). The role of scientists in public debate. Wellcome Trust.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yuan, S., Oshita, T., AbiGhannam, N., Dudo, A., Besley, J. C., & Koh, H. E. (2017). Two-way communication between scientists and the public: A view from science communication trainers in North America. International Journal of Science Education Part B, 7(4), 341–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, J. Y. (2015). The ‘credibility paradox’ in China’s science communication: Views from scientific practitioners. Public Understanding of Science, 24(8), 913–927.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank all the scientists—elected fellows of the three Indian national science academies (IASc, NASI and INSA)—who participated voluntarily in this study. The authors also wish to thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions that helped improved the manuscript.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Birla Institute of Technology & Science (BITS)-Pilani, Pilani, 333031, India

    Abhay S. D. Rajput & Sangeeta Sharma

  2. Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology, Pune, 411008, India

    Abhay S. D. Rajput

Authors
  1. Abhay S. D. Rajput
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sangeeta Sharma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

ASDR designed research; ASDR performed research and data analysis; SS supervised research; and ASDR and SS wrote the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abhay S. D. Rajput.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rajput, A.S.D., Sharma, S. Top Indian scientists as public communicators: a survey of their perceptions, attitudes and communication behaviors. Scientometrics 127, 3167–3192 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04405-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04405-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation