scholarly journals Science on tap: effective public engagement or preaching to the choir?

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (01) ◽  
pp. A04 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cara Ocobock ◽  
Patricia Hawley
Keyword(s):  
Nature Of Science ◽  
Public Engagement ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
Efficacy Data ◽  
The Public ◽  
Open Discourse ◽  
Hearts And Minds

The goal of Science Cafés and Science on Taps is to encourage open discourse between scientists and the public in a casual setting (e.g., a bar) in order to improve the public understanding of, and trust in, science. These events have existed for over two decades, but there is no research studying their efficacy. Data presented here demonstrate that a yearlong Science on Tap series induced little change among the attendees with respect to attitudes, emotions, and knowledge about the nature of science. Ultimately, we found this event may be preaching to the choir rather than changing hearts and minds.

scholarly journals Researchers: share your passion for science!

2016 ◽  
Vol 44 (5) ◽  
pp. 1507-1515 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claire Concannon ◽  
Muriel Grenon
Keyword(s):  
Communication Skills ◽  
Public Engagement ◽  
Public Understanding Of Science ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
Time Constraints ◽  
The Public ◽  
Understanding Of Science ◽  
Positive Impacts

The promotion of the public understanding of science has many positive impacts on society, including expanding the reach of science to a broader range of individuals and having a favourable impact on the economy. It also results in many benefits for researchers involved, including the development of their communication skills and improvement in the quality of their research. Despite increased awareness of the importance of public engagement (PE), the involvement of researchers has only slightly increased in the last 10 years. Time constraints, lack of opportunity and lack of funding are the main barriers preventing their participation. We propose that joining an existing PE programme can be a good way for scientists to overcome these barriers. We list specific examples of established activities that are easy for researchers to get involved in, allowing them to share their enthusiasm for science.

Psychology and its publics

2017 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 3-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Pettit ◽  
Jacy L. Young
Keyword(s):  
Public Engagement ◽  
Public Understanding Of Science ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Engagement With Science ◽  
Understanding Of Science ◽  
The Relationship

This paper introduces the special issue dedicated to ‘Psychology and its Publics’. The question of the relationship between psychologists and the wider public has been a central matter of concern to the historiography of psychology. Where critical historians tend to assume a pliant audience, eager to adopt psychological categories, psychologists themselves often complain about the public misunderstanding of them. Ironically, both accounts share a flattened understanding of the public. We turn to research on the public understanding of science (PUS), the public engagement with science (PES) and communications studies to develop a rich account of the circuitry that ties together psychological experts and their subjects.

scholarly journals Challenges and facilitators of public engagement with water, sanitation, hygiene and other environmental health issues in Ghana and Uganda: perspectives of scientists, journalists and the public

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 16-26
Author(s):  
Bernard Appiah ◽  
Anubhuti Poudyal ◽  
David A. Anum ◽  
George Appiah ◽  
Andrew Christopher Wesuta ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Health ◽  
Public Engagement ◽  
Science Communication ◽  
Time Pressure ◽  
Public Information ◽  
Sub Saharan Africa ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
Health Issues ◽  
The Public ◽  
Sub Saharan

Abstract Despite many water, sanitation, hygiene (WASH) and other environmental health challenges in sub-Saharan Africa, little is known about interactions involving scientists, journalists and the public to aid public understanding of the relationship between WASH and health. Using purposive sampling, we conducted key informant interviews and focus group discussions with scientists, journalists and members of the public in Ghana and Uganda to identify issues associated with the promotion of public engagement with WASH and other environmental health issues. An inductive thematic analysis was used to explore the evidence, challenges and opportunities of public engagement. The effectiveness of public engagement was constrained by poor interactions between scientists and journalists and limited understanding among the public on WASH and other environmental health issues. Challenges identified included inadequate scientists–journalists collaborations, scientists' lack of time, pressure from media organizations and concerns about journalists' inadequate capacity to communicate environmental issues due to lack of training. Possible solutions included increased interactions, science communication training and using public information officers as knowledge brokers between scientists and journalists to boost public engagement with WASH and other environmental health issues. Our study contributes to the literature on the need to actively engage the public with WASH and other environmental health concerns.

scholarly journals Impacts of genre and access on science discussions: ‘The New Reddit Journal of Science’

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (05) ◽  
pp. A04
Author(s):  
Ehren Helmut Pflugfelder ◽  
Alexander Mahmou-Werndli
Keyword(s):  
Public Engagement ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
Science Writing ◽  
Discussion Boards ◽  
Science Content ◽  
The Public ◽  
Research Article ◽  
Public Engagement With Science ◽  
Science News ◽  
Science In Society

Which genre of science writing contributes most to public understanding, and how does that understanding happen? Working within a science in society approach, this paper examines public engagement with science as it occurs in the comments and discussion boards of r/science. Researchers use content analysis to identify relevant concept categories and code comments for interaction with science content. The resulting data are analyzed by genre (scientific news journalism, press release, and research article) and open access status, revealing differences in public engagement with implications for science communicators and scholars seeking to understand how the public interacts with science news.

Brahmins as scientists and science as Brahmins’ calling: Caste in an Indian scientific research institute

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 306-318 ◽  
Author(s):  
Renny Thomas
Keyword(s):  
Nature Of Science ◽  
Public Engagement ◽  
Scientific Practice ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Scientific Research Institute ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
Ethnographic Methods ◽  
Indian Science ◽  
Scientific Institutions ◽  
Practice Of Science

The domination of Brahmin and the upper caste scientists have given a Brahmanical identity to science in India. They have been perceived to be the natural inheritors of scientific practice, an assertion reaffirmed by scientists and researchers during my fieldwork in Bangalore, India. Furthermore, merit and passion for doing science was reinscribed and calibrated to denote the alleged castelessness and objectivity of science, obfuscating the deep hierarchies of caste in the practice of science in India. By using ethnographic methods, the article attempts to demonstrate how Indian scientists constructed their identities as casteless beings. The article calls for a public understanding of caste in Indian science, and suggests that public engagement has the potential to democratise the nature of science by addressing the question of exclusion and discrimination in Indian scientific institutions and universities.

Mundane science use in a practice theoretical perspective: Different understandings of the relations between citizen-consumers and public communication initiatives build on scientific claims

2016 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 40-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bente Halkier
Keyword(s):  
Public Engagement ◽  
Theoretical Perspective ◽  
Public Understanding Of Science ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
Public Communication ◽  
Science Literature ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Engagement With Science ◽  
Scientific Claims ◽  
Understanding Of Science

Public communication initiatives play a part in placing complicated scientific claims in citizen-consumers’ everyday contexts. Lay reactions to scientific claims framed in public communication, and attempts to engage citizens, have been important subjects of discussion in the literatures of public understanding and public engagement with science. Many of the public communication initiatives, however, address lay people as consumers rather than citizens. This creates specific challenges for understanding public engagement with science and scientific citizenship. The article compares five different understandings of the relations between citizen-consumers and public issue communication involving science, where the first four types are widely represented in the Public Understanding of Science discussions. The fifth understanding is a practice theoretical perspective. The article suggests how the public understanding of and engagement in science literature can benefit from including a practice theoretical approach to research about mundane science use and public engagement.

scholarly journals Tension between visibility and invisibility: Science communication in new information environments

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia Metag
Keyword(s):  
Public Engagement ◽  
Scientific Knowledge ◽  
Science Communication ◽  
Public Understanding Of Science ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
Digital Information ◽  
The Public ◽  
New Information ◽  
Public Engagement With Science ◽  
Understanding Of Science

The visibility and invisibility of scientific knowledge, its creation, and of scientists are at the core of science communication research. Thus, prominent paradigms, such as the public understanding of science or public engagement with science and technology, have implications for the visibility of scientific knowledge in the scientific community and among the public. This article posits that visibility in science communication is achieved with the availability of scientific knowledge, the approval of its dissemination, and its accessibility to third parties. The public understanding of science and public engagement with science paradigms emphasize different aspects of visibility with the latter focusing on the visibility of the creation of scientific knowledge more than public understanding of science which focuses on the knowledge itself. The digital information environment has engendered new formats and possibilities for visibility but also new risks, thereby creating tensions in science communication.

scholarly journals Panel Session toward Improved Communication and Engagement with the Public after the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident: Study Reports and Discussion with Specialists from Relevant Fields

2021 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 134-142
Author(s):  
Hiroko Yoshida ◽  
Yujiro Kuroda ◽  
Takahiko Kono ◽  
Wataru Naito ◽  
Akihiro Sakoda
Keyword(s):  
Public Engagement ◽  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
Study Group ◽  
Health Physics ◽  
Fukushima Accident ◽  
The Public ◽  
Fukushima Daiichi ◽  
Understanding Of Science ◽  
Expert Study

Background: From 2018 to 2020, the Expert Study on Public Understanding after the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident (the Expert Study Group) identified and analyzed activities designed to promote public understanding of science and radiation since the Fukushima accident, and held discussions on how to achieve public understanding in the situation where public confidence has been lost, and how experts should prepare for dealing with the public. This panel session was held at the 53rd meeting of the Japan Health Physics Society on June 30, 2020.Materials and Methods: First, three subgroup (SG) leaders reported their research methods and results. Then, two designated speakers, who participated as observers of the Expert Study Group, commented on the activities. Next, the five speakers held a panel discussion. Finally, the rapporteur summarized.Results and Discussion: SG leaders presented reports from researchers and practitioners in health physics and environmental risks who provided information after the Fukushima accident. During the discussion, experts in sociology and ethics discussed the issues, focusing on the overall goals of the three groups, local (personal) and mass communication, and ethical values. Many of the activities instituted by the experts after the accident were aimed at public understanding of science (that is, to provide knowledge to residents), but by taking into account interactions with residents and their ethical norms, the experts shifted to supporting the residents’ decision-making through public engagement. The need to consider both content and channels is well known in the field of health communication, and overlaps with the above discussion.Conclusion: How to implement and promote the public engagement in society was discussed in both the floor and designated discussions. Cooperation between local communities and organizations that have already gained trust is also necessary in order to develop relationships with local residents in normal times, to establish an information transmission system, and to make it work effectively.

scholarly journals Mapping mental models of science communication: How academics in Germany, Austria and Switzerland understand and practice science communication

2022 ◽  
pp. 096366252110657
Author(s):  
Sabrina Heike Kessler ◽  
Mike S. Schäfer ◽  
David Johann ◽  
Heiko Rauhut
Keyword(s):  
Mental Models ◽  
Public Engagement ◽  
Science Communication ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Communication Theory ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
Communication Model ◽  
The Public ◽  
Understanding Of Science ◽  
The Way

The mental models that individual scholars have of science communication – how it works, what it is supposed to achieve and so on – shape the way these academics actually communicate to the public. But these mental models, and their prevalence among scholars, have rarely been analysed. Drawing on a large-scale, representative web survey of academics at universities in Germany, Austria and Switzerland ( n = 15,778) from 2020, we identify three mental models that are prevalent among scholars, and that correspond to conceptual models found in science communication theory: ‘Public Understanding of Science’, ‘Public Engagement with Science’ and ‘Strategic Science Communication’. The results suggest that the ‘Strategic Science Communication’ model is particularly prevalent among academics in precarious employment and female scholars. Extrinsically motivated academics, that is, those under pressure to win grants, also seem to use science communication more strategically. The ‘Public Engagement’ model is prevalent among older and female scholars, while ‘Public Understanding’ is particularly prevalent among scholars who find their work especially meaningful. Findings also reveal that academics’ mental models largely align with the way they practice science communication.

scholarly journals The crisis of the "Public Understanding of Science" in Great Britain

2003 ◽  
Vol 02 (01) ◽  
pp. F01 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nico Pitrelli
Keyword(s):  
Public Engagement ◽  
Social Effects ◽  
Public Understanding Of Science ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
New Approach ◽  
The Public ◽  
Science Technology ◽  
Public Engagement With Science ◽  
Understanding Of Science ◽  
The Relationship

In a brief article published by Science1 last October, British scientists stated that the expression "Public Understanding of Science" (PUS), which was traditionally employed in Anglosaxon societies to refer to the issue of the relationship between science, technology and society, is out-of-date. It should be replaced by "Public Engagement with Science and Technology" (PEST), a new acronym that clearly invites to reconceptualise the relationship between science and the public. The new approach involves the engagement of the public or rather the publics of science, through dialogue, in particular through an open and equal-to-equal discussion between scientists and non-experts that would enable non-experts to become the actual protagonists in the scientific decisions producing social effects.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document