Lithuanian scientists’ behavior and views on science communication

Abstract

This article provides a snapshot on the state of thinking about science communication among Lithuanian scientists. It measures scientists’ views on public engagement, tests a set of engagement predictors, and explores perceived benefits and barriers to more frequent science–public interactions. Lithuanian scientists are similarly active participants in science communication as their counterparts abroad, but appear to have an understanding of science–public interactions focused on information dissemination. Age, career stage and attitudes to science communication are found to be slightly related to science communication frequency, which is consistent with similar studies conducted across different cultural contexts. Among the perceived barriers to more frequent engagement, Lithuanian scientists cite lack of time and lack of science communication traditions for such activities in the national academic environment. Implications for science communication in Lithuania are discussed.

How do researchers approach societal impact?

“…Others have pointed to the increased legitimation pressure exerted by research organizations and the increase in PR and marketing [ 40 ]. When it comes to researchers’ dealings with the public, scholars have focused on a) the relationship between science and specific publics—for instance, the media [ 41 , 42 ] or politics [ 41 ], b) the relationship between science and the broader public [ 41 , 43 – 45 ] or c) the communication practices of single disciplines [ 46 , 47 ]. Here, recurring themes include researchers motivations for engaging with the public [ 48 , 49 ], teaching and training [ 50 , 51 ], and institutional conditions [ 52 , 53 ].…”

Societal impact of university research in the written press: media attention in the context of SIUR and the open science agenda among social scientists in Flanders, Belgium

“…Obviously, their motivations to do so may vary. Presumably, some academics pursue visibility in mainstream media to achieve a degree of celebrity outside of their field of research (Fahy, 2017 ), whereas others seek to reach out to the general public in order to convey a sense of urgency brought by recent scientific insights (Cox, 2013 ).Scientists can also participate in the public debate because they consider it an inherent responsibility (Valinciute, 2020 ).…”

“…A prominent strategy among researchers is to rely on attention from mainstream media, this provides non-academic benefits which complement scientific recognition (Fecher & Hebing, 2021 ). Many feel that using their privileged insights to weigh on the public debate is a key responsibility (Valinciute, 2020 ), and that research-based opinions benefit societal debates. Public debate requires factual information, and researchers are especially well-placed to provide the public with the most up-to-date insights (Burns & Medvecky, 2018 ; Peters, 2008 ).…”

“…Consequently, arguments for researchers to explore non-scholarly media as an outlet to discuss investigations and their findings tend to emphasize that doing so will have beneficial results in society (Besley et al, 2016 ). Many researchers refer to achieving societal impact through their work as a core motivation to engage in popular communication (Valinciute, 2020 ), and illustrates that non-scholarly communication is at least one pathway for university researchers to pursue broader public benefits through their work.…”

Researchers’ Public Engagement in the Context of Interdisciplinary Research Programs: Learning and Reflection from Boundary Crossing

“…Yet only few surveys have touched on such aspects of researchers' public engagement. For example, in a survey of Lithuanian researchers, 67% agreed that science communication would not only benefit the public but also scientists themselves, and about 21% agreed that it would even improve the quality of research (Valinciute, 2020). In a study in the United States, 82% scientists saw positive outcomes from public engagement for themselves as audiences gave them "food for thought" (Rose et al, 2020(Rose et al, , p. 1276.…”