以新制度理论为指导,这项研究比较了来自科学的研究人员,技术,工程,数学学科与艺术研究人员不同,人文学科,以及社会科学领域的宏观和中观层面的关注如何塑造了他们进行公众参与的意愿。在新加坡的研究人员中进行的焦点小组讨论表明,科学,技术,工程,数学和艺术,人文学科,社会科学研究人员持有不同的宏观层面关注。特别是,科学,技术,工程,数学研究人员对媒体的虚假陈述提出了更多的担忧,而艺术,人文学科,社会科学研究人员更担心受到政治影响和公众的强烈反对。关于中观层面的考虑,来自所有学科的研究人员都引用了类似的公共参与制度约束;但是,他们拥有不同的公共参与能力,并且对参与公众的社会责任持有不同的看法。因此,不同学科的研究人员需要不同类型的媒体培训。提供了政策和管理意义以及未来研究的方向。
Guided by neo-institutional theory, this study compares how researchers from science, technology, engineering, and math disciplines differ from researchers from the arts, humanities, and social sciences fields in terms of how macro- and meso-level concerns shaped their willingness to conduct public engagement. Focus group discussions conducted among researchers based in Singapore revealed that science, technology, engineering, and math and arts, humanities, and social sciences researchers held different macro-level concerns. Particularly, science, technology, engineering, and math researchers raised more concerns about media misrepresentation, while arts, humanities, and social sciences researchers were more concerned about receiving political repercussions and public backlash. With regard to meso-level considerations, researchers from all disciplines cited similar institutional constraints for public engagement; however they possessed varying public engagement competencies and held differing perceptions of their social duty to engage the public. Hence, researchers of different disciplines desired different kinds of media training. Policy and managerial implications as well as directions for future research were provided.