Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Oct 3;17(10):e0274840.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0274840. eCollection 2022.

How do STEM graduate students perceive science communication? Understanding science communication perceptions of future scientists

Tessy S Ritchie  1 , Dione L Rossiter  2 , Hannah Bruce Opris  3   4 , Idarabasi Evangel Akpan  3   4 , Simone Oliphant  3   4 , Melissa McCartney  3   4
Affiliations

How do STEM graduate students perceive science communication? Understanding science communication perceptions of future scientists

Tessy S Ritchie et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Increasingly, communicating science to the public is recognized as the responsibility of professional scientists; however, these skills are not always included in graduate training. In addition, most research on science communication training during graduate school, which is limited, has been program evaluation or literature reviews and does not report on or seek to understand graduate student perspectives. This research study provides a comprehensive analysis of graduate-level science communication training from the perspective of STEM graduate students. Using a mixed-methods approach, this study aimed to investigate where graduate students are receiving science communication training (if at all), what this training looks like from the student's point of view, and, for graduate students that are engaging in science communication, what do these experiences look like. This study also explores how graduate students define science communication. Taken together, these results will give graduate students a voice in the development of science communication trainings and will remove barriers and increase equity in science communication training.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. TSR is an employee of the United States government. This manuscript and its findings are in no way a reflection of the United States Department of Defense, Department of the Army, Department of the Navy or United States Government. All information and conclusions presented herein belong to the authors alone who contributed to this manuscript. This affiliation does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. A full list of represented institutions can found in S1 File (S1 Table).
A. Participants time completed in graduate school, in years, shown as percent responding. B. Participants subject-specific disciplines binned based on their branch of science following an existing organizational chart (https://www.mindmeister.com/1023614692/branches-of-science?fullscreen=1).
Fig 2
Fig 2. Word clouds highlight the complexity of participant definitions of science communication.
The size of each of the words within the categorical word clouds correlates to its frequency in the coded responses. The words “science,” “scientific,” “communication,” and “communicating” have been removed in order to showcase more representative words.
Fig 3
Fig 3. Participants report on whether their institution offers formal science communication training.
Participant responses to the question “Did you have formal science communication training, for a public audience, at your graduate institution?” Data is shown as percent responding, with 72% responding no and 28% responding yes.
Fig 4
Fig 4. Participants previous training in specific science communication skills.
Participant responses when asked where, if at all, they received training in 11 core skills in science communication, listed A-K [33]. Data are shown as percent responding.
Fig 5
Fig 5. What do participants consider to be science communication? participants were asked “which of the following do you consider to fall within the category of science communication?” and directed to select all that apply.
Data is shown as percent responding.
Fig 6
Fig 6. Participant performance/competence and interest and in science communication.
Further statistical tests were done to examine relationships between interest and competence/performance in science communication, gender, and previous teaching experience. Bars with asterisks and hashtags indicate a statistically significant difference between two groups, gender and teaching experience, respectively. A corresponding data chart is found in S1 File (S3 Table).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Burns TW, O’Connor DJ, & Stocklmayer SM. (2003). Science Communication: A Contemporary Definition. Public Understand. Sci. 2003;12: 183–202. doi: 10.1177/09636625030122004 - DOI
    1. Rios JA, Ling G, Pugh R, Becker D, Bacall A. Identifying Critical 21st-Century Skills for Workplace Success: A Content Analysis of Job Advertisements. Educ Res. 2020;49: 80–89. doi: 10.3102/0013189X19890600 - DOI
    1. Cui Q, Harshman J. Qualitative Investigation to Identify the Knowledge and Skills That U.S.-Trained Doctoral Chemists Require in Typical Chemistry Positions. J Chem Educ. 2020;97: 1247–1255. doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b01027 - DOI
    1. Kondo AE, Fair JD. Insight into the Chemistry Skills Gap: The Duality between Expected and Desired Skills. J. Chem. Ed. 2017; 94: 304–310. doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00566 - DOI
    1. McLaughlin JE, Minshew LM, Gonzalez D, Lamb K, Klus NJ, Aubé J. et al.. Can they imagine the future? A qualitative study exploring the skills employers seek in pharmaceutical sciences doctoral graduates. PLoS One 2019; 14, e0222422. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0222422 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types