1. Scientists and public communication: A survey of popular science publishing across 15 countries EMA Thematic Conference, Bordeaux March 29-30, 2010 Peter Bentley NIFU STEP Norwegian Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education

2. Norwegian Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education Background Greater emphasis is now being placed on the dissemination of research Science popularisation has received little attention Comparable lack of data on popular science output Co-authored journal article with Svein Kyvik (NIFU STEP) for Public Understanding of Science

3. Norwegian Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education Purpose of the study Examine the extent of popularisation of research across 15 countries:  Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Finland, Germany, Hong Kong, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Norway, the United Kingdom, and the United States Professional articles in newspapers and magazines Relationship between popular and scientific publishing Why might popularisation be secondary?  A lack of interest, time, rewards, incentives, communication channels, and negative attitudes by peers Cross-national differences  Norms/traditions, benefits in research funding competition, professionalism in science journalism, and general public interest

4. Norwegian Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education Data and methodology The Changing Nature of the Academic Profession (CAP) project survey of academics across 18 countries Subset for this study:  full-time academic staff (with 30 hours or more per week), at research universities in 15 countries Response rates, mostly below 40 percent National samples were found to be broadly representative of the respective populations on strata:  gender, academic rank and institutional type. A risk of non-response bias in the sample  In particular, non-response to research questions

5. Norwegian Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education Response rates and sample sizes All countries: response rate 28%, 10,674 respondents CountryResp.N rate Hong Kong 13% 596 Italy 35% 1,466 Japan 23% 1,185 Malaysia 33% 480 Mexico 69% 429 Norway 35% 535 UK 15% 613 USA 23% 671 CountryResp.N rate Argentina 24% 378 Australia 25% 660 Brazil26% 368 Canada 17% 897 China 86% 1,106 Finland 29% 629 Germany 32% 661 Faculty were re-classified from 11 disciplinary categories into five academic fields of learning: the social sciences; humanities; natural sciences; technology and medical sciences

6. Norwegian Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education Measuring publication Number of scholarly contributions, including non-peer reviewed publications, over the previous three years Scientific publications/”article equivalents”:  journal/book articles (1 point per article, maximum 99)  books edited (2 points, maximum 20 books)  books authored (5 points, maximum 20 books) Popular publications:  Professional articles in newspapers and magazines Problems:  Lack of peer review  Multiple authorship  Overlapping categories

7. Norwegian Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education Results: research participation by field Percentage of academic staff members with books authored, books edited, journal/book articles, article equivalents, and professional articles, 2005- 2007, by field of learning Soc. Sci.Hum.Nat. Sci.Tech.Med. Sci. All Books authored424927293536 Books edited30391719 24 Journal/Book articles88 91859189 Article equivalents9293 8892 Professional articles363525273531

8. Norwegian Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education Results: Publications by field Soc. Sci. Hum.Nat. Sci. Tech.Med. Sci. All Books authored0.8 0.5 0.90.7 Books edited0.60.70.3 0.40.5 Journal/book articles5.95.89.18.210.57.8 Article equivalents10.911.512.411.716.112.3 Professional articles1.91.51.11.01.61.5 Mean number of books authored, books edited, journal/book articles, article equivalents, and professional articles per academic staff member, by field of learning

9. Norwegian Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education Results: Publications by country

10. Norwegian Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education Results Academics with popular publications publish more scientific publications  15.2 article equivalents versus 10.7 article equivalents  statistically significant in 11 countries  positive but insignificant in Brazil, Hong Kong, Mexico and USA Academics with the highest level of scientific publishing:  Average more professional articles  More likely to publish at least one professional article Academics with low levels of scientific publishing:  Least likely to publish professional articles

11. Norwegian Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education Results National differences  No noticeable relationship between the two activities in USA  In China, Canada and Australia, the least productive scientific publishers publish more professional articles than the medium-level group. Weak linear correlation  Popular publishing increases mostly at the highest level of scientific publishing  No negative correlation in any country or discipline

12. Norwegian Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education Results Senior ranking academics publish more than juniors  Consistent across all publication types and countries (except Argentina for professional articles) Lower ranked academics are less likely to have published at least one professional article (28 versus 34 percent)  Mostly reflects an overall lower level of research participation

13. Norwegian Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education Discussion To what extent are the survey results representative for the total population of academic staff in universities in each country? To what degree does our indicator on popular science dissemination resemble the view held by scientists themselves on what constitutes popular science publishing?  Results are consistent previous studies in Norway and to a lesser extent the UK and France.

14. Norwegian Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education Discussion How can the relatively low levels and individual differences in popular science publishing be explained?  Lack of interest  No evidence of this from the data, academics with high commitment to scientific research publish more popular articles  Lack of time  Full-time staff worked 49 hours per week.  Academics without popular publications work similar hours.  Lack of rewards and incentives  No direct information in the CAP data, but academics with popular publications are: More likely in higher ranks More likely to report being “very satisfied” with their job Report higher percentage of external research funding

15. Norwegian Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education Discussion  Negative attitudes by peers  No information in the CAP data  Negative attitudes appears unjustified, given association with rank, scientific publishing, etc.  Inability to communicate their research  Natural sciences are least likely to report a popular article.  Basic/theoretical researchers were less likely to report a professional article (29 percent) compared to those whose research was not theoretical (38 percent)  Lack of communication channels  No information in the CAP data.

16. Norwegian Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education Discussion Why do we find differences in popular science publishing between individual countries? Publishing norms  Dissemination of research to the public may be included as one of the tasks of universities, in addition to teaching and research Role of journalists  Less space for publishing