Measuring the Professional Value and Impact of Science Communication 

Alicia A. Dahl, PhD, MS¹; Liao Yue, MPH, PhD²; Marleah Dean, PhD³; Rebecca A. Krukowski, PhD⁴; Claire C. Conley, PhD⁵; & the Public Education Committee

In 2022, SBM launched the Science Communication Toolkit, along with messaging, encouraging members to share their science beyond traditional academic outlets (e.g., peer-reviewed journals) and to join public conversations in their areas of expertise. Recommendations for sharing research findings and expertise in a complementary way include publishing op-eds, infographics, and public-facing articles featured in accessible spaces like SBM's Healthy Living website; maintaining an active social media presence; and providing guest commentary on podcasts or news broadcasts. Then, this summer, a new section of the Science Communication Toolkit was launched featuring content on Search Engine Optimization for behavioral scientists.

It’s been encouraging to hear how people use the toolkit, from building professional communication skills (Goldstein et al., 2023) to integrating these resources into courses or training at academic institutions (Parella et al., 2022). Others are using the toolkit as a resource to spark conversations with industry partners.

But compared to traditional metrics like publications and grants, science communication is a less common benchmark of professional achievement. For many people, it’s not clear if or how science communication “counts” towards achieving professional goals. At the most recent annual meeting in Phoenix, members of the Public Education Committee (PEC) engaged in a conversation about how to capture the effort and value of science communication in professional spaces. After all, developing and disseminating science communication materials takes time, skill, personal investment, and strategy (Goldstein et al., 2020). Thus, capturing the professional contribution in a meaningful way is warranted. For example, when preparing dossier materials for tenure and promotion, is there a designated space for academics to articulate their efforts and impact around science communication beyond the number of peer-reviewed publications achieved? How do we get institutions to see the value in efforts outside of published articles in high-impact, peer-reviewed journals? For non-academic areas, how can someone highlight their science communication skills on the job market or leverage this valuable skill during annual performance reviews?

This fall, the PEC will be developing toolkit guidance around these questions. We will interview SBM members from different career levels and spaces to inform best practices and provide strategic recommendations. To preview the upcoming content, we share personal anecdotes from members of our committee that highlight the impact and value of science communication efforts in our respective professional spaces.

Alicia A. Dahl, PhD, Assistant Professor in Public Health Sciences, UNC Charlotte: I recently submitted my dossier for tenure and promotion. I reported all of my peer-reviewed publications and journal impact factors as expected, but there were a handful of sci comm contributions that did not fit into the required report tables. I demonstrated the value of my non-academic efforts with the narrative, describing how my grant-funded research resulted in a publicly available website with open access to health promotion materials like podcasts that my team developed. To describe the impact of something like this, it's helpful to share the number of website subscribers, unique website visits, or podcast downloads. I think it's important to connect these efforts back to a professional context. For me, this work supports my discipline's commitment to health education, equity, and improving health literacy.

Liao Yue, MPH, PhD, Assistant Professor in Kinesiology, UT Arlington: I try to maintain a somewhat active social media presence showcasing my professional activities (e.g., publications, conference attendance, study updates, student accomplishments). I connect with colleagues in my field on social media, including many SBM members. Recently, I have been more active on Instagram after realizing most of my students use this platform; I share my teaching and mentoring-related activities there to better connect with my students. One thing about sharing your professional activities on social media is that you never know who might be reading it. For example, I received an email from my institution asking me to recommend students for leadership opportunities because of a recent post I shared highlighting research with a student at a professional conference. For early career professionals, I think social media is a great platform for self-advocacy.

Marleah Dean, PhD, Associate Professor in Health Communication, University of South Florida: As a health communication scientist and a patient a part of the community I work with, I have long been invested in translating research into practice. For me, this means utilizing the knowledge gained in research and integrating it into my teaching, developing training programs for different healthcare stakeholders, sharing research results with study participants and the general public, and volunteering in the hereditary cancer community. For example, I participated in the CDC’s Bring Your Brave Breast Campaign designed to educate about young women and breast cancer – sharing my family’s history of breast cancer, my own genetic counseling and testing experience, my cancer risk management behaviors, and my research on cancer communication and genetics. Another example is an article I wrote with a colleague detailing “best practices” for sharing research results with participants (Hintz & Dean, 2020). Conducting this study enabled us to “count” the translational efforts that we value. Integrating my researcher and patient “hats” has been personally and professionally rewarding.

If you have an experience relevant to this topic, please email the PEC Chair, Alicia Dahl (adahl3@charlotte.edu). We are particularly interested in hearing from SBM members in industry about the ways that they “count” their sci comm efforts. The SBM sci comm toolkit is 100% donor-supported. Thank you to the generous contributors to SBM’s Science Communication Fund who made this toolkit possible.

Affiliations

1. University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Department of Public Health Sciences
2. University of Texas at Arlington, Department of Kinesiology
3. University of South Florida; Health Outcomes & Behavior Program, Moffitt Cancer Center
4. University of Virginia, Department of Public Health Sciences
5. Georgetown University, Department of Oncology

References

1. Goldstein, C. M., & Krukowski, R. A. (2023). The Importance of Lay Summaries for Improving Science Communication. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 57(7), 509-510. https://doi.org/10.1093/abm/kaad027
2. Parrella, J.A., Koswatta, T.J., Leggette, H.R., Ramasubramanian, S., & Rutherford, T. (2022) Teaching scientists to communicate: developing science communication training based on scientists’ knowledge and self-reflectiveness, International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 12:3, 235-253, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21548455.2022.2068809
3. Goldstein, C.M. Murray, E.J., Beard, J., Schnoes, A., & Wang, M.L. (2020), Science Communication in the Age of Misinformation, Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 54(12), 985–990, https://doi.org/10.1093/abm/kaaa088
4. Hintz, E. A., & Dean, M. (2020). Best practices for returning research findings to participants: Methodological and ethical considerations for communication researchers. Communication Methods and Measures, 14(1), 38-54. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19312458.2019.1650165