firenze phd slides
Post on 29-Jun-2015
758 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
THE SCIENCE COMMUNICATION RESEARCH LITERATURE MAPPING PROJECT
LOOKING BACK AT A DECADE OF PCST RESEARCH, 2000-2009
Rick BorcheltNational Cancer Institute, US National Institutes of Health
rick.borchelt@nih.gov
2
PCST at an Inflection Point
• Has PCST matured into an independent field of enquiry?
• Is there an articulated research agenda with commonly agreed provocative questions to drive research?
• Who sets/controls the PCST research agenda?3/28/2012
3
UPDATING THE TRADITIONAL LITERATURE REVIEW USING DATA VISUALIZATION SOFTWARE
• Rapid growth of science communication research over the past ten years;
• Need to understand what has been accomplished and where future research should head;
• Traditional literature reviews seek to identify important patterns in research—research fronts, emerging issues;
• “Visual representations of data take advantage of the unique ability of visual perception to detect meaningful patterns that might otherwise remain hidden.” (Few, 2007)
4
OBJECTIVES OF THE SCIENCE COMMUNICATION RESEARCH LITERATURE MAPPING PROJECT
• Use data visualization software to map the landscape of recent science communication research (2000-2009);
• Identify the active countries, major methodologies, and research topical fronts during the past decade;
• Lay the foundation for a research agenda for the next decade of science communications research
5
Two PHASES OF PROJECT METHODOLOGY
Analyze the data using IN-SPIRE data visualization software
• Upload EndNote data into
IN-SPIRE
• Data refinement in IN-SPIRE; and
• Use of IN-SPIRE analytic tools (Galaxy View, Heat Map, Time, Correlation)
Construct the Research Literature Database:
• Define the parameters of the literature review (dates, inclusion and exclusion criteria);
• Select the search engine;
• Select the search terms;
• Import citation data into EndNote; and
• Clean the citation data.
6
CONSTRUCTING THE RESEARCH LITERATURE ON SCIENCE COMMUNICATION
Defining the parameters of the review:
Focus on reports of original science communication research that
– Were published in peer-reviewed scientific journals;
– Were available in English language;
– Were published between 2000 and 2009;
– Excluded research on formal science education and teaching; and
– Excluded research on health communication.
Inclusion / Exclusion Criteria
Included: Journal articles, historical articles, evaluation studies, meta-analyses and systematic reviews.
Excluded: Abstracts, bibliographies, books, commentaries, conference or symposia proceedings, editorials, essays, introductory articles, letters to editor, narrative reviews, responses and rejoinders, reports, and narrative literature reviews.
7
SELECTION OF GOOGLE SCHOLAR AS SEARCH ENGINE
Strengths of Google Scholar:
• Covers a wide range of social science, biomedical and natural science journals and sources;
• Convenience (speed, ease of use, free);
• Generates many results; and
• Can easily import citation information into bibliographic database (EndNote).
Limitations of Google Scholar:
• Absence of a controlled search vocabulary;
• Cannot restrict output to peer-reviewed journal articles;
• Cannot view more than the first 1,000 results (“hits”);
• Duplicate citations must be removed manually from successive searches;
• Unknown scope of coverage.
8
SELECTION OF GOOGLE SCHOLAR SEARCH TERMS
Search terms were generated from three sources:
• The Science Communication project team at the National Cancer Institute;
• Members of the PCST Scientific Committee; and
• Several terms suggested by Burns, O’Connor and Stocklmayer (2003) in their article on defining science communication research.
Final Google Scholar Search Terms
Science / Technology Communication
Public Understanding of Science / Technology
Public Engagement /Participation
Science / Technology Coverage in: mass media; print media; newspapers; television; film or movies
Science or Scientific Literacy
Science Journalism
Risk Communication
Risk Perception
Science / Technology and Culture
9
STEPS IN THE DATA CLEANING PROCESS (ENDNOTE)
Once the citation data were imported into EndNote, the following process was begun:
10
OVERVIEW: CHARACTERISTICS OF LITERATURE
• 1,237 papers from 2000-2009;
• 2,462 authors (mean of about two authors per paper);
• 471 Journals; and
• 199 Key Words;
11
SCI-COMM RESEARCH ARTICLES, 2000-2009(n=1,237)
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 20090
50
100
150
200
250
62 62
72
112
92
115
148 148
230
196
Number of Articles Published by Year
More than twice as many articles were published between 2005-2009 as between 2000-2004
12
TOP 10 JOURNALS PUBLISHING SCIENCE COMMUNICATION RESEARCH, 2000-2009
British Food Journal
Global Environmental Change
Health, Risk, and Society
New Genetics and Society
Journal of Science Communication
Journal of Risk Research
Risk Analysis
Science Communication
Public Understanding of Science
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
10
14
24
26
29
33
55
135
179
The top 10 journals accounted for 518 of 1,237 papers, or 42 percent.
13
TOP 11 MOST FREQUENT AUTHORS / CO-AUTHORS OF SCIENCE COMMUNICATION RESEARCH PAPERS, 2000-2009
Priest, S.H.
Poortinga, W.
Besley, J.C.
Siegrist, M.
McComas, K.A.
Brossard, D.
Nerlich, B.
Condit, C.M.
Rowe, G.
Frewer, L.J.
Pidgeon, N.
0 5 10 15 20 25
10
10
10
11
11
11
14
15
16
21
22
Number of Papers as Author or Co-Author, 2000-2009
404 authors (16 percent) published 2 or more papers between 2000-2009.
14
United States427
Canada77
Russia2
China14
Australia51
India11 Mexico
4
Brazil10
United Kingdom 270
Germany: 30Italy: 23
Portugal: 2
Morocco 2
Nigeria 1
Greece: 12France: 13Spain: 16
South Africa3
Japan 24
Columbia2
Netherlands: 35
New Zealand 25
Sweden: 23Denmark: 23
NUMBER OF SCIENCE COMMUNICATION RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS BY COUNTRY, 2000-2009
15
TOP FIVE COUNTRIES PUBLISHING SCIENCE COMMUNICATION RESEARCH, 2000-2009
Netherlands
Australia
Canada
United Kingdom
United States
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
35
51
77
270
427
16
TOP 5 MOST FREQUENT STUDY METHODS IN PUBLISHED SCIENCE COMMUNICATION RESEARCH, 2000-2009
Secondary Analyses of Surveys
Case Studies
Interviews
Content Analysis
Surveys or Questionnaires
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
78
149
159
290
331
17
SELECTED TOPICS IN SCIENCE COMMUNICATION RESEARCH
Nanotechnology
Natural Resources
Genetically Modified Foods
Environment
Climate Change
Public Engagement
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
62
64
83
91
93
100
Frequency of Publications on Selected Topics, 2000-2009
4/12/12
18
MAPPING OF THE SCIENCE COMMUNICATION RESEARCH LITERATURE, 2000-2009
• IN-SPIRE uses a mathematical clustering algorithm to calculate degrees of similarity and dissimilarity in most frequently occurring key words. Based on this algorithm, the software can create several visual representations of a dataset:
• Galaxy view: A plot of all of the documents contained in the dataset showing the topical relationships between them.
– Proximity implies relatedness; distant clusters are less topically related.
– Each document is represented by a dot, and the closer two dots are plotted, the more similar they are in topical content.
• ThemeView Classic (Heat Map): The ThemeView Classic is a form of Heat Map, which is a three-dimensional version of the Galaxy view.
– The height of a peak corresponds to the number of documents on a topic, and is further highlighted by a brighter color.
– Look for proximate peaks, valleys and spaces between formations as indicators of underlying topical patterns.
19
GALAXY VIEW, FULL SCI-COMM DATASET(n=1,237)
20
HEAT MAP VIEW, FULL SCI-COMM DATASET (n=1,237)
21
SCIENCE COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH LITERATURE
FIVE-YEAR HEAT MAP VIEW, 2000-2004(n=400)
22
SCIENCE COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH LITERATURE
FIVE-YEAR HEAT MAP VIEW, 2005-2009(n=837)
23
TWO-YEAR HEAT MAP VIEW, 2000-2001(n=124)
24
TWO-YEAR HEAT MAP VIEW, 2002-2003(n=184)
25
TWO-YEAR HEAT MAP VIEW, 2004-2005(n=207)
26
TWO-YEAR HEAT MAP VIEW, 2006-2007(n=296)
27
TWO-YEAR HEAT MAP VIEW, 2008-2009(n=426)
28
HEAT MAP VIEW, UNITED STATES STUDIES, 2000-2009
(n=427)
29
HEAT MAP VIEW,UNITED KINGDOM STUDIES, 2000-2009
(n=270)
30
HEAT MAP VIEW,CANADIAN STUDIES, 2000-2009
(n=77)
31
HEAT MAP VIEW,AUSTRALIAN STUDIES, 2000-2009
(n=51)
32
HEAT MAP VIEW,NETHERLANDS STUDIES, 2000-2009
(n=35)
33
ARTICLES ON SCIENCE COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TOPICS PUBLISHED IN TWO PRIMARY JOURNALS, 2000-
2009
Research Topic Public Understanding of Science
Science Communication
Total Articles on This Topic in
Dataset
Public Engagement 20 10 100
Climate Change 13 7 93
Environment 10 6 91
Genetically Modified Foods 12 3 83
Natural Resources 5 6 64
Nanotechnology 11 9 62
Food Safety 3 4 54
Emerging Infectious Diseases 1 5 53
Science Journalism 7 9 46
34
RESEARCH METHODS USED IN ARTICLES PUBLISHED IN TWO PRIMARY SCIENCE COMMUNICATION JOURNALS,
2000-2009
Research MethodPublic Understanding
of Science (n=179)
Science Communication
(n=135)
Total Articles Using This
Method in Dataset
Surveys or Questionnaires 17% 30% 331
Content Analysis 24% 31% 290
Interviews 13% 9% 159
Case Studies 18% 7% 149
Secondary Analysis of Surveys
7% 4% 78
Focus Groups 10% 4% 72
Evaluation Studies 3% 2% 56
35
THREE CASE STUDIES OF SCIENCE COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TOPICS
How are different Science Communication research issues investigated over time?
Are particular research methods more likely to be applied at different times in the investigation of a science communication research issue?
We selected three research issues (Public Engagement, Climate Change and Genetically Modified Foods) to examine in greater detail.
These cases met the following criteria:
– Actively investigated over entire 10-year period; and
– Reasonable number of papers published on each in the dataset.
36
FREQUENCY OF PUBLISHED ARTICLES BY YEAR FOR THREE RESEARCH CASES
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 20090
5
10
15
20
25
30
23
45
3
6
1517
2223
9
2 23
5
98
11
18
26
2
6
3
79
11
15
11
15
4
Public Engagement Climate ChangeGenetically Modified Foods
37
HEAT MAP VIEW
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ARTICLES, 2000-2009(n=100)
38
HEAT MAP VIEW, CLIMATE CHANGE ARTICLES, 2000-2009
(n=93)
39
HEAT MAP VIEW:ARTICLES ON GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS, 2000-2009
(n=83)
40
RESEARCH METHODS IN SCIENCE COMMUNICATION RESEARCH STUDIES BY TIME PERIOD, 2000-2009
Content Anal-ysis
Surveys or Questionnaires
Case Studies Interviews Secondary Analyses
Focus Groups0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
25%27%
9%
13%
7%6%
23%
27%
13% 13%
6% 6%
2000-2004 2005-2009
41
PROPORTIONS OF PUBLISHED STUDIES ON PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT USING VARIOUS RESEARCH METHODS
BY TIME PERIOD
2000-2004 2005-20090%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
0
0.05
0.18
0.43
0.24
0.17
0.12 0.12
Content Analysis Case Studies Surveys or Questionnaires Interviews
42
PROPORTIONS OF PUBLISHED STUDIES ON CLIMATE CHANGE USING VARIOUS RESEARCH METHODS
BY TIME PERIOD
2000-2004 2005-20090%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%0.81
0.31
0.05 0.03
0.52
0.29
0.05
0.15
Content Analysis Case Studies Surveys or Questionnaires Interviews
43
PROPORTIONS OF PUBLISHED STUDIES ON GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS USING VARIOUS RESEARCH METHODS
BY TIME PERIOD
2000-2004 2005-20090%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
0.15
0.13
0.04
0.23
0.260.25
0.04 0.04
Content Analysis Case Studies Surveys or Questionnaires Interviews
44
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
HEAT MAP VIEW, 2000-2004(n=17)
45
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
HEAT MAP VIEW, 2005-2009(n=83)
46
CLIMATE CHANGEHEAT MAP VIEW, 2000-2004
(n=21)
47
CLIMATE CHANGE
HEAT MAP VIEW, 2005-2009(n=72)
48
GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS
HEAT MAP VIEW, 2000-2004(n=27)
49
GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS
HEAT MAP VIEW, 2005-2009(n=56)
50
Ramifications
• What do these data say about us as a research community?
• What do these data say about us as a publishing community? (and about access to research findings by practitioners)?
• What do these data say about who sets the agenda for PCST research?
3/28/2012
51
What do these data say about us as a research community?
• That we are generally more closely aligned with science/technology focus areas that with communication research per se
• Is there life beyond content analysis and attitude surveys?
3/28/2012
52
What do these data say about us as a publishing community?
• We favor publications in “gray lit” rather than peer-reviewed journals (esp. books and monographs)
• This might be okay for the small community of researchers, but puts our research out of the reach of most practitioners
• Need a more robust “open access” approach to PCST research
3/28/2012
53
What do these data say about who sets the agenda for PCST research?
• Seems primarily driven by “utilitarian” approach, emerging issue by issue
• Sustained funding is not available to address fundamental questions in PCST research not tied to utilitarian model
• PCST requires a new agenda driven by provocative questions and a funding stream to support it
3/28/2012
54
Acknowledgments
Margaret Ames, Karl PoonaiNCI Office of Science Planning and Assessment
Jack Scott, Margaret BlasinksyThe Madrillon Group, Inc.
Ben CarolloNCI Office of Public Affairs and Research Communication3/28/2012
top related