by

Nieske Vergunst

Public engagement: what, why, and for whom

If you haven’t read my introductory entry, I’d recommend to do so before you continue. And now, for a proper start, it’s important to get some context on my research into the effectivity of public engagement on different target groups. Starting with a basic question: what is public engagement?

Evidence-based public engagement

Public engagement (PE) is a term with a wide range of meanings (Bucchi & Trench, 2016), but I’m defining it as an interaction between a researcher and one or more people outside their research field, involving some form of experience broader than only intellectual exchange, such as music, theatre, a situational experience, interaction with physical objects, etc.

An important reason to focus on public engagement rather than science communication is to amend several shortcomings that are often present in traditional science communication, mostly associated with the so-called ‘deficit model’. This model is based on two assumptions: that non-academics are misinformed about science, and that this is caused by inadequate and sensationalist media coverage of scientific topics (Bucchi & Trench, 2016). The deficit model has received ample criticism, mostly surrounding the – since disproven – assumption that filling the ‘knowledge gaps’ of non-academics by (one-way) transmission of scientific knowledge is enough to increase positive attitudes towards science. Another point of criticism is the model’s implicit assumption that scientific knowledge is superior to other forms of knowledge, such as cultural and experiential knowledge (Reincke et al., 2020).

Although knowledge gaps may indeed exist across non-academic publics, the deficit model focuses too much on these knowledge gaps, rather than on what audiences do know, and on their questions and concerns (Wynne, 2006, Bucchi & Trench, 2016). The past few decades have seen the rise of a more humble two-way science communication, which actively involves the target audience and expands the responsibilities of experts to “sharing input that is well received by others; listening to and learning from the input of others; and investing in relationships with others” (Reincke et al., 2020).

Another good reason to engage in public engagement rather than one-way science communication is that it can have many benefits for academics, not in the least inspiration and enjoyment (Hendriks & Bromme, 2022), as shown in this brief video about ‘Even over morgen’, or in English, ‘A word about tomorrow’:

Different audiences

My research has its roots in questions I’ve been asking myself for a while. As academics and science communicators, we tend to focus much of our efforts on groups that are relatively close to academia. But does that mean we’re preaching to the choir? On the other hand: if we try to engage with people that are furthest away from academia, who may have lost trust in science altogether, do we even stand a chance to have an open conversation with them? Or is there a ‘sweet spot’ somewhere halfway, where we can invest a reasonable amount of effort and still make a real connection and impact?

Just to be clear, I’m not criticising any science communication or public engagement efforts aimed at people close to academia. (I’d be shooting myself in the foot: I’m a big fan of nerdy podcasts and science events like Nerdland, The Infinite Monkey Cage and Betweter Festival.) I’m not saying any audience is more or less valuable than another. But with limited resources, more evidence-based science communication and public engagement will help us make conscious choices about how to spend our time, money, and energy. Even though it may be almost impossible to answer the question ‘is public engagement worth it?’, the quest for high-quality public engagement is still a valid one, since it is often public money and legitimacy of academia that’s on the line (Stilgoe et al., 2014).

So, this is what I’m focusing on in my research. I’m designing a PE activity about sea level rise that I’ll implement on three different occasions, to include audiences with a wide range of scientific literacy. I’ll be measuring how much impact the activities have made on participants and what their level of scientific literacy is, and see if there is a correlation between these factors. I’ll go into more detail about my plans in a future notebook entry.

Research in progress

Wynne (2006) notes that even though the deficit model is widely rejected, its underlying assumptions are still present in plenty of science communication practices, even ones that claim to do better. Shockingly, that actually shows in my own research question! All of a sudden, I’m realising that the term ‘target groups’ sounds quite one-directional. Also, I’m only planning to measure impact on these audiences rather than including impact on the researchers taking part in the PE activities, clearly bringing to light my own bias towards sending information rather than truly listening.

On the other hand, my research is not about measuring impact in the sense of knowledge gain, but rather attitude change. Sneak peek: what I have in mind at the moment is aiming to increase the public’s feeling that sea level rise is relevant to them personally and not just some abstract, remote, distant thing. More about that later.

Do you, as a reader of this open research notebook, think I should amend my research question to be more inclusive of a two-way attitude towards public engagement? And turning the lens on you: do you catch yourself thinking in terms of knowledge gaps as well? Share your views in the comments.

If you’re interested in following along, send me a brief e-mail and I’ll let you know whenever I publish a new blog entry.