Public Communication Practices and Beliefs Among Conservation Scientists and Practitioners Free

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and other government agencies responsible for protecting wildlife and public lands, increasingly recognize the important role public communication plays in successful natural resource management (BLM 2009; USFWS 2011; Clarke and Leong 2016). Despite this recognition, little is known about practices in public communication within these agencies and the factors that may encourage or discourage their employees to participate. Research on public communication practices among individuals with expert knowledge in science-related domains has mostly focused on members of large multidisciplinary scientific organizations (Jensen 2011; Torres-Albero et al. 2011; Dudo and Besley 2016) or scientists working in academic settings (Royal Society 2006; Poliakoff and Webb 2007; Rose et al. 2020). This body of research might not represent natural resource agency employees particularly well. As with experts in any scientific field, the public communication practices of experts in natural resources will be uniquely influenced by the types of public visibility and controversy they encounter in their work. Similarly, the institutional and political context in which experts in government agencies work also have important implications for interacting with the public (Salmon et al. 2017).

To the best of our knowledge, researchers have not yet explored the degree to which the current data on scientist communication practices and beliefs apply to natural resource agency conservation scientists and practitioners. This study helps address this gap in empirical evidence with data from a survey of employees working for USFWS's Ecological Services program in the Midwest. Ecological Services is charged with implementing the Endangered Species Act, a responsibility that requires both applying conservation science as well as working and communicating with stakeholders and the public. Ecological Services includes employees who collect empirical data and publish research as well as employees who do not engage in research-driven work, but nonetheless are species and ecosystem experts and communicate the science of conservation with the public. Therefore, we refer to research-driven and nonresearch-driven experts working in conservation collectively as “conservation scientists and practitioners.” In the literature review below, we discuss findings from previous science communication studies and outline our research objectives.

Knowledge is rarely a dominant factor in predicting public attitudes toward science-related issues and particularly when the issue is controversial. Evidence points to factors such as value orientations and trust as key drivers of attitudes, rather than knowledge (Brossard and Nisbet 2007; Ho et al. 2008). Nonetheless, scientists tend to view informing the public as more important than other public communication objectives (Besley et al. 2015; Dudo and Besley 2016; Rose et al. 2020). Historically, scientists have tended to privilege a top-down, one-way model of communication designed to transfer factual knowledge from experts to the public, a model known as the knowledge “deficit model” of communication (Besley and Tanner 2011; Davies 2008; Simis et al. 2016). Even when scientists participate in communication activities involving two-way communication with the public, these activities often still have elements of the deficit model as their backbone, emphasizing informing members of the public over nonknowledge outcomes (Brossard and Lewenstein 2009; AAAS 2016).

Science communication experts now advocate a shift away from communication practices predicated on the deficit model (Decker et al. 2011; AAAS 2016; Nadkarni et al. 2019). In the field of human dimensions and wildlife conservation, sociologists are also encouraging scientists to shift communication away from an “inform and educate” model that assumes a predominantly one-way, hierarchical, linear flow of information from experts to lay individuals (Decker et al. 2011). These scholars instead advocate a more open-minded exchange between scientists and the public involving two-way engagement that emphasizes trust-building, mutual learning, perspective-seeking, and meeting people in their own communities (Decker et al. 2011; AAAS 2016; Nadkarni et al. 2019). In this study, our first two research objectives are to explore whether communication practices and beliefs among conservationists working for Ecological Services in the Midwest align with or move beyond the deficit model of communication. For our first research objective (Research Objective 1) we explore how Ecological Services employees communicate with the public. In particular, we examine how frequently they participate in several one-way (i.e., outreach) and two-way (i.e., engagement) communication activities, how often their one-on-one engagement involves in-person conversation, and whether they prioritize visiting communities. For our second research objective (Research Objective 2) we explore how Ecological Services employees understand public attitude formation and public communication processes. In particular, we examine their beliefs about the role of knowledge, values, and trust in public communication, and the degree to which they believe engagement contributes to their own knowledge and ideas.

Beyond research on factors related to how scientists communicate with the public, previous studies have also identified a range of factors to better understand scientist decisions about whether they choose to participate in public communication activities. Our final two research objectives in this study explore factors that may encourage or discourage participation in public communication among conservationists working for Ecological Services in the Midwest. Factors often explored to understand whether scientists step into the public arena or hang back include perceptions about colleagues' participation (social norms), motives, and barriers to participation such as time, and administrative and financial constraints (Poliakoff and Webb 2007; Dunwoody et al. 2009; Besley et al. 2012). For our third research objective (Research Objective 3) we examine respondents' perceptions about social norms, motivating factors, and potential barriers. Finally, researchers have found that scientist training in public communication is associated with increased confidence in communication abilities (self-efficacy) and increased willingness to engage (Dunwoody et al. 2009; Dudo 2013; Rodgers et al. 2020). Therefore, for our fourth research objective (Research Objective 4) we test whether attending in-person USFWS communication training is related to greater levels of self-efficacy and the degree to which respondents prioritize public communication.

In developing our survey instrument, we adapted questions from previous science communication studies and consulted with employees during a session on public communication held at a Midwest Ecological Services regional meeting in Madison, Wisconsin, August 2017 (Royal Society 2006; Poliakoff and Webb 2007; Dunwoody et al. 2009). We also consulted with Ecological Services Midwest Region employees in the External Affairs program and asked three employees who were either retired or worked outside the Midwest Region to pretest the survey and made adjustments to the questions on the basis of their feedback. Study approval was obtained from the University of Wisconsin Institutional Review Board and USFWS upper management and administration, which verified compliance with the agency's official policy on survey approval and process

We administered the survey using Qualtrics online survey software. We conducted a four-wave mailing (Dillman et al. 2014): an initial email inviting employees to participate in the survey, with three reminder emails. Recruitment emails inviting people to participate were sent over the course of 4 wk in May of 2018. The survey was distributed to all Ecological Services employees in the Midwest Region (N = 134). Response rate was 56%, including 71 complete responses (at least 80% of questions answered) and four partial responses (50–80% of survey questions answered: AAPOR 2016). We dropped respondents who completed less than 50% of the survey from the sample, resulting in a final sample of N = 75.

Before taking the survey, we provided respondents with definitions explaining audience-related and communication terms used in the survey including stakeholder, the public, outreach, engagement, and public communication. We defined stakeholder as anyone that significantly affects, or is significantly affected by, wildlife, wildlife management, or Ecological Services actions (Decker 2012). We defined the public as any members of general lay audiences and stakeholders who are not a part of USFWS. We defined outreach as any communication in which Ecological Services staff provides information to or educates lay audiences or stakeholders and engagement as any interactive communication in which Ecological Services staff and any member(s) of the public exchange information. Finally, we defined public communication as including both outreach and public engagement.

Of the respondents who completed the sociodemographic questions on the survey, 52% were female, 80% had a postgraduate degree, and 80% worked in field offices (n = 56), whereas the remaining 20% worked in the regional office (n = 14). On average, respondents reported working for USFWS for 13.57 y (SD = 9.73; median = 10 y). Respondents included 57 biologists, nine project leaders, and three administrators (one identified as other). Compared with USFWS employees working in natural resource management and biological sciences, our sample skewed more female and included a higher percentage of individuals with higher-level degrees. Among USFWS employees working in natural resource management and biological sciences (N = 1,762), 44% were female and 59% had a postgraduate degree (USOPM 2018).

In the results we provide a descriptive overview of survey responses followed by a limited set of statistical analyses using nonparametric tests. We test whether employees who have and have not attended in-person USFWS communication training differ in their levels of self-efficacy and in the degree to which they prioritize public communication. We used Mann–Whitney–Wilcoxon tests (the nonparametric equivalent to a two-sample t-test) to identify significant differences between respondents who have and have not attended in-person USFWS communication training on these measures. Summaries of survey responses are organized according to the four research objectives outlined in the introduction. Additional survey responses relevant but not central to our key research objectives are provided in the Supplemental Material (Tables S3 and S4).

Survey questions used to examine how respondents communicate with members of the public (Research Objective 1) included questions about participation in public communication activities, one-on-one conversations with stakeholders, and visiting communities. In response to five questions about public communication activities (Table 1), respondents reported most frequently participating in two engagement-related activities—communicating with stakeholders on an individual basis and providing information at a public event. Respondents reported lower participation in more outreach-oriented communication activities including sending materials to the External Affairs program for public dissemination, writing educational or informational materials for the nonspecialist public and answering questions from reporters. With respect to communicating with stakeholders (Table 1), respondents reported primarily communicating by email, phone, or video conference, rather than through in-person conversations. In response to a question about visiting communities, just 36% of respondents agreed that they go out of their way to meet people in the communities in which they live and work (Table S2, Supplemental Material).

Survey questions used to examine how respondents understand public attitude formation and public communication processes (Research Objective 2) included questions about knowledge, values, and trust building, as well as mutual learning and perspective seeking. Results for questions about knowledge, values, and trust building (Table 2) show that 82% of respondents agreed that lack of knowledge is an important factor explaining negative attitudes about efforts to protect species, and 74% agreed that people would be more supportive of Ecological Service's work if they knew enough about threatened and endangered species. At the same time, 80% indicated that they believe that effective conservation depends more on understanding individuals' values than on conveying facts and 85% agreed that individuals' values are the most important predictor of their attitudes toward species conservation. We also compared respondents' beliefs about the importance of informing and trust building as communication goals. More respondents agreed that the most important goal is to inform than those that agreed that the most important goal is to increase trust. With respect to mutual learning and perspective seeking (Table 3), 80% of respondents agreed that they often learn new things about the species and landscapes in which they work when talking with stakeholders and 89% agreed that they often use local stakeholder knowledge to think of solutions to conservation problems. A smaller majority (55%) agreed that their perspectives about conservation strategies often change when they talk with stakeholders.

Survey questions used to learn more about what factors may encourage and discourage respondents' participation in public communication (Research Objective 3) included questions about social norms, motivating factors, and perceived barriers and obstacles. We asked three questions to gauge respondent perceptions about their colleagues' participation in public communication—i.e., descriptive social norms (Table 4). Less than half of respondents agreed that Ecological Services employees prioritize public communication as a key part of their job or seek out public communication activities even when it is not necessarily expected. Few respondents agreed that Ecological Services employees frequently mentor one another on better public communication practices (15%). With respect to motivational factors (Table 5), respondents most strongly agreed that a desire to produce better conservation outcomes motivates them to communicate with stakeholders and the public. Some differences emerged in response to questions about motives for communicating with the public and stakeholders. More respondents agreed that personal enjoyment was a motivating factor for communicating with the public than for communicating with stakeholders. On the other hand, more respondents agreed that career impacts and job requirements were motivating factors for communicating with stakeholders than with the public. We asked participants two sets of questions relating to possible public communication barriers and obstacles (Table 6). Of four statements about communication barriers, two statements about public unfamiliarity—unfamiliarity with USFWS and unfamiliarity with “me personally and what I do” elicited the greatest majority agreement. In a second set of questions, we asked respondents about whether they turn down public engagement or outreach opportunities because of time constraints, funding constraints, or issues with securing permission. Results show the largest number of respondents perceive time, followed by funding, as constraints.

For our last research objective (Research Objective 4) we tested whether attending (versus not attending) a USFWS service training on public communication is related to 1) a greater sense of self-efficacy in being able to communicate with the public and 2) greater prioritization of public communication. To conduct these analyses, we created two multiquestion measures representing our two outcome variables. “Self-efficacy” in public communication was measured as the average of the responses to questions about five statements (Table S1, Supplemental Material), including three that were reverse coded (Cronbach alpha = 0.76; M = 4.73; SD = 1.11). “Prioritize public communication” was measured as the average of the responses to questions about five statements (Table S2, Supplemental Material), including two that were reverse coded (Cronbach alpha = 0.73; M = 4.51; SD = 1.11). Cronbach alpha is a measure of reliability, measuring the extent to which the responses to several questions contribute positively to the same construct. Although there is no universal standard for the appropriate level of reliability, a frequently cited acceptable range for Cronbach alpha is a value of 0.70 or above (Urdan 2016; Field 2018). Twenty-one percent of respondents reported having attended at least one in-person USFWS service training on public communication. Attending USFWS training was associated with more self-efficacy (W = 231, P < 0.01, r = 0.36) and greater prioritization of public communication (W = 339.5, P = 0.04, r = 0.20).

This study aimed to extend the research exploring public communication among scientists by assessing practices and beliefs among government conservation scientists and practitioners. Specifically, we surveyed conservation scientists and practitioners working for the USFWS Ecological Services program in the Midwest to evaluate 1) ways in which their communication practices and beliefs may conform or deviate from the “inform and educate” model (i.e., deficit model of communication) and 2) factors that may encourage or discourage their participation in public communication activities. Our first set of results suggests that government conservation scientists and practitioners do not strictly conform to an “inform and educate” model of communication that assumes a predominantly one-way, hierarchical, linear flow of information from experts to lay individuals. We identified two ways in which our respondents appeared to at least partially, but perhaps not entirely, deviate from this model.

First, our results suggest that few respondents subscribe to the idea that conveying information is the most important factor in effective communication. Instead, 80% of respondents indicated that they believe that effective communication depends more on understanding individuals' values than conveying facts (Table 2). However, when asked about communication goals, more respondents endorsed conveying information than building trust as the most important goal. Our results also revealed high levels of agreement among respondents that a lack of knowledge explains negative attitudes about efforts to protect species and that with enough knowledge people would be supportive of Ecological Services' work (Table 2). The assumption that a sufficiently informed public will view scientific issues the way the experts do conflicts with several decades of evidence (Allum et al. 2008; Nisbet and Scheufele 2009). In a meta-analysis, for example, researchers found that science literacy explained only a small fraction of the variance in public attitudes toward controversial science issues (Allum et al. 2008).

Second, respondents reported most frequently participating in two-way rather than one-way communication activities, and particularly communicating individually with stakeholders (Table 1). They also tended to view engaging with stakeholders as a two-way, mutual learning experience (Table 3). Despite these findings, it is not clear whether respondents' practices are fostering the types of quality dialogue that communication and engagement researchers advocate (Decker et al. 2011; AAAS 2016; Nadkarni et al. 2019). Although respondents reported frequent one-on-one communication with stakeholders, they also reported mostly communicating with stakeholders remotely, and particularly by email, with limited communication occurring in-person (Table 1). Furthermore, just 36% agreed that they go out of their way to meet people in their communities (Table S2, Supplemental Material). These findings align with concerns raised by Ted Koch, a former assistant regional director for Ecological Services in the Southwest who worked for USFWS for 30 y. Koch has identified “lack of effective communication” as one of Ecological Services' biggest challenges, lamenting that biologists no longer “kick the dirt” with stakeholders in a way that builds credibility with communities (Segerstrom 2019).

More recently, science communication scholarship has turned growing attention toward scientist engagement with the public through meaningful dialogue, with a focus on fostering respect and trust (Nisbet and Scheufele 2009; Balog-Way et al. 2020; Reincke et al. 2020). Reincke et al. (2020) contend that meaningful dialogue requires experts to listen, learn, and invest in relationships. Government agencies can help conservation scientists and practitioners engage in higher-quality dialogues with members of the public by ensuring that they have the training and support to equip them with appropriate skills. Regardless of our study respondents' appreciation for the role of values in public communication and public attitudes (Table 2), for example, they may not have the training on how to address values different from their own in effective communication. Agency managers could include reward structures that encourage more involvement between scientists and people trained in how to communicate with people with different backgrounds and values. This would require committing resources to hiring that expertise, including public information officers trained in science communication, and committing time for scientists to engage in those practices and build their capacity. Many organizations tend to hire scientists to communicate about science, rather than professionals with rigorous training in science communication (Bucchi and Trench 2014; VanDyke and Lee 2020). If agencies instead prioritize hiring public information officers with rigorous science communication training, they can help conservation scientists and practitioners understand how to communicate better with people from different backgrounds and be more prepared to “kick the dirt” with stakeholders.

We also believe there is an additional role for researchers to play. In particular, research collecting data through interviews and field observation might be used to better understand and provide tailored guidance on higher-quality, face-to-face dialogue for agency conservation scientists and practitioners. Researchers might, for example, develop a study similar to that conducted by Rickard et al. (2011). Rickard et al. (2011) used interviews and observational data to examine how National Park Service staff evaluate visitors during face-to-face interactions, and how they used those evaluations to inform how they talked with a visitor about risks.

Before we continue, there are several study limitations that should be addressed with our first set of survey questions. In our questions about conveying knowledge and trust we asked respondents to indicate their agreement with two statements, each identifying increasing trust or informing as the most important communication goal (Table 2). Asking two questions about what is “most important” independently of each other may not accurately portray respondent beliefs about what is most important. It seems many simply agreed with each statement if they thought increasing trust and informing was important, which may explain the high agreement on both questions. Our use of the terms “stakeholder” and “public” in these two questions may have introduced additional error. Each question asked respondents about communication with both stakeholders and the public. A better approach would be to ask separate questions about the public and stakeholders, as respondents may have answered these questions differently if they were asked to evaluate communication goals in relation to the public and stakeholders separately. This same limitation applies to two survey questions about communication barriers (Table 6), including one of which we highlight in our results and discussion below. In this question, respondents were asked whether a lack of familiarity among “the public and stakeholders” with “me and what I do” presents a communication barrier. These limitations should be taken into account in interpreting the results of this study.

We would also like to note some sample-related limitations. In particular, we cannot say to what degree our results represent the broader community of government conservation scientists and practitioners. Our respondents represent one program in a single region (Ecological Services in the Midwest) within USFWS. We compared our sample with employees throughout USFWS that fall under the same administrative scientific classification as Ecological Services employees and found that a higher percentage of our respondents held higher-level degrees and were female. Also, how often and what kind of public communication activities government conservation scientists and practitioners engage in may differ from agency to agency depending on administrative expectations. Within Ecological Services, employees are not necessarily expected to engage in public communication activities beyond what is required of them in relation to formal agency decisions and statements. Formal decision processes, such as a species listing, mandate the development of a communication plan. As part of this plan, a conservation scientist or practitioner may be required to participate in a public hearing as part of a broader planning team, help develop outreach materials, and respond to questions from reporters and the public about the agency decision.

We now turn our attention to the second part of our study, in which we explored factors that may encourage or discourage participation in public communication activities. Previous research suggests that enjoyment, feelings of accomplishment, and doing meaningful work (intrinsic factors) are more important in motivating scientist participation in public communication than overt rewards (extrinsic factors) such as personal recognition or career benefits (Dunwoody et al. 2009; Poliakoff and Webb 2009; Entradas et al. 2019). Consistent with these findings, we found that making a meaningful difference in conservation outcomes was an important factor motivating respondents to communicate with the public and stakeholders. Additionally, more respondents identified enjoyment as a motivating factor for communicating with the public than job and career-related factors. This pattern was reversed, however, when respondents were asked about motivations for communicating with stakeholders (Table 5). These results suggest that including reward structures in job descriptions may be most effective in motivating communication activities involving stakeholders. Our data also suggest that in-person training may also be a useful tool for increasing participation in public communication activities. We found that attending in-person USFWS training was associated with more self-efficacy and greater prioritization of public communication. These results are correlational and, consequently, we cannot be certain of the direction of causation. It could be that survey respondents who already had a greater sense of self-efficacy and prioritize communication were more likely to attend USFWS training. However, these results are consistent with other correlational and experimental research findings. In a survey of U.S. scientists, for example, training in communication was one of the strongest predictors of how frequently the scientists interacted with the media (Dunwoody et al. 2009).

In an examination of factors that may discourage or represent barriers to public communication, three findings stood out. First, our results suggest that a minority of respondents view public communication as a normative activity among their Ecological Services colleagues (Table 4). These results might be explained in part by a second finding showing that 68% of respondents indicated that they sometimes turned down public communication activities because of a lack of time (Table 6). For agency employees to prioritize public communication activities, upper management may need to relieve them of other time burdens and examine whether current job descriptions include room for this kind of work. Reworking job expectations to commit time to public communication activities could help relieve conservation scientists and practitioners with figuring out how to work these activities into already stretched work plans. In addition to addressing time constraints, upper management might also increase perceptions of public communication as a normative activity within an agency by encouraging employees to report on public communication activities at meetings and to engage in more peer-to-peer mentoring (Table 4).

In a final set of findings, responses to our survey questions about communication barriers suggest that agency conservation scientists and practitioners, and USFWS more generally, might not be connecting with the public. Eighty-six percent of survey respondents indicated that public unfamiliarity with the USFWS presented a public communication barrier. Similarly, 62% indicated that low levels of public and stakeholder familiarity with themselves and their work also presented a public communication barrier. To overcome this issue, government agencies responsible for protecting wildlife and public lands may want to assess whether agency and employee-level communication activities adequately foster public familiarity with the agency and its employees. Public unfamiliarity could likely be addressed by some of the same changes in communication behaviors highlighted earlier in this discussion—spending more time communicating with stakeholders in person, rather than remotely, and putting greater effort into visiting the communities in which they live and work. Familiarity built on boots-on-the ground face-to-face communication may also better foster the kind of relationship building needed to support the USFWS mission to achieve conservation goals by working with others.

Please note: The Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supplemental material. Queries should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.

Table S1. Self-efficacy in public communication among respondents to a survey distributed to Ecological Services employees in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Midwest Region in May 2018. The table shows the percentage of respondent agreement with five statements used to measure self-efficacy.

Available: https://doi.org/10.3996/JFWM-20-077.S1 (17 KB DOCX)

Table S2. Prioritization of public communication activities among respondents to a survey distributed to Ecological Services employees in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Midwest Region in May 2018. The table shows the percentage of respondent agreement with five statements used to measure prioritization of public communication.

Available: https://doi.org/10.3996/JFWM-20-077.S2 (17 KB DOCX)

Table S3. Perceived opportunities to learn and receive training in public communication among respondents to a survey distributed to Ecological Services employees in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Midwest Region in May 2018. The table shows the percentage of respondent agreement with three statements.

Available: https://doi.org/10.3996/JFWM-20-077.S3 (17 KB DOCX)

Table S4. Perceived understanding of communication expectations among respondents to a survey distributed to Ecological Services employees in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Midwest Region in May 2018.

Available: https://doi.org/10.3996/JFWM-20-077.S4 (18 KB DOCX)

Reference S1.[BLM] Bureau of Land Management. 2009. Bureau of Land Management National Natural Resources Policy for Collaborative Stakeholder Engagement and Appropriate Dispute Resolution.

Available: https://doi.org/10.3996/JFWM-20-077.S5 (2.39 MB PDF) and https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/Services_CADREngagementandADRGuide.pdf

Reference S2. Clarke MM, Leong KM. 2016. Building capacity for civic engagement and natural resource management in the National Park Service. Natural Resource Report NPS/NRSS/BRD/NRR—2016/1292.

Available: https://doi.org/10.3996/JFWM-20-077.S6 (538 KB PDF)

Reference S3.[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Conserving the future, wildlife refuges and the next generation. Washington, D.C.: National Wildlife Refuge System, Department of the Interior.

Available: https://doi.org/10.3996/JFWM-20-077.S7 (5.55 MB PDF) and https://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/Region_8/NWRS/Zone_1/Stone_Lakes/Images/PDFs/Final-Document-Conserving-the-Future.pdf

We gratefully acknowledge support for P.K. by National Science Foundation Integrative Graduate Education and Research Training award DGE 1144752. We also note that P.K. was affiliated with the University of Wisconsin-Madison when data for this study were collected. We are grateful to USFWS Georgia Parham, Joel Trick, Billy Brooks, Dave Warburton, and Pete Fasbender for reviewing earlier versions of the survey questions and drafts of the report. In addition, USFWS Midwest Region office upper management and staff provided constructive feedback on the survey and assisted with survey dissemination. Finally, we thank the Associate Editor and reviewers for their many useful comments in helping us refine this manuscript.

Any use of trade, product, website, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.