The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
What's next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions
Abstract
In this essay, we review research from the social sciences on how the public makes sense of and participates in societal decisions about science and technology. We specifically highlight the role of the media and public communication in this process, challenging the still dominant assumption that science literacy is both the problem and the solution to societal conflicts. After reviewing the cases of evolution, climate change, food biotechnology, and nanotechnology, we offer a set of detailed recommendations for improved public engagement efforts on the part of scientists and their organizations. We emphasize the need for science communication initiatives that are guided by careful formative research; that span a diversity of media platforms and audiences; and that facilitate conversations with the public that recognize, respect, and incorporate differences in knowledge, values, perspectives, and goals.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics
Pielke, Jr. (2007) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511818110 · Cited by 2,020
Misunderstood misunderstanding: social identities and public uptake of science
Wynne, B. (1992) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1088/0963-6625/1/3/004 · Cited by 1,675
Mass Media Flow and Differential Growth in Knowledge
Tichenor, P. J., Donohue, G. A., & Olien, C. N. (1970) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1086/267786 · Cited by 1,537
A widening gap: republican and democratic views on climate change.
Dunlap, R. E., & McCright, A. M. (2008) · Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development · doi:10.3200/envt.50.5.26-35 · Cited by 780
Cited by
Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection
Kahan, D. M. (2013) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500005271 · Cited by 1,302
Public understanding of climate change in the United States.
Weber, E. U., & Stern, P. C. (2011) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/a0023253 · Cited by 841
A public health frame arouses hopeful emotions about climate change: A Letter
Myers, T. A., Nisbet, M. C., Maibach, E. W., & Leiserowitz, A. A. (2012) · Climatic Change · doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0513-6 · Cited by 632
Self-citationIdeology, Motivated Reasoning, and Cognitive Reflection: An Experimental Study
Kahan, D. M. (2012) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2182588 · Cited by 331
Kreps, S. E., & Kriner, D. L. (2020) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abd4563 · Cited by 328
Metadata
- Authors
- Nisbet, M. C., & Scheufele, D. A.
- Venue
- American Journal of Botany
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2009-10
- Volume
- 96
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1767-1778
- ISSN
- 0002-9122 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-2197
- OpenAlex
- W2156696311
- Cited by
- 1,032
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 83.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: What's next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3732/ajb.0900041
- The paper
- Nisbet, M. C., & Scheufele, D. A. (2009). What's next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.0900041
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
