|
|
|
|
Q1. What is
the Research
Councils
definition
for public
engagement?
FAQs
Public
Engagement
Other useful
definitions
used by the
Research
Councils
include:
(with
research) –
this is an
umbrella
term for any
activity
that engages
the
public with
research,
from science
communication
in science
centres or
festivals,
to
consultation,
to
public
dialogue.
Any good
engagement
activity
should
involve
two-way
aspects of
listening
and
interaction.
Science
communication
– a
one-way
process to
give
information
Opinion
research – a
process
whereby
opinions are
collected
for
consideration,
but without
in-depth
discussion
of the
issues (e.g.
opinion-polls).
Consultation
– a
formal
process
which allows
reaction and
response to
policies/proposals.
Public
dialogue – a
form of
deliberative
(i.e. over
time)
participatory
engagement
where the
outcomes are
used to
inform
decision-making.
Q2. What’s
the
difference
between a)
Science in
Society and
public
engagement,
and b)
between
public
engagement
and
Communications
and
Marketing?
a)
‘Science in
Society’ and
‘Science and
Society’ are
terms that
have been
widely used
by a
range of
organisations
in relation
to public
engagement
e.g. the
Wellcome
Trust, Royal
Society,
BIS etc. For
RCUK, this
definition
covers all
research
areas. Until
recently
Science in
Society was
the term
used by RCUK
for its work
in the area
of public
engagement.
RCUK has now
changed the
name of its
public
engagement
activities
to
"Public
Engagement
with
Research" as
we found
using the
term science
did not
reflect
our remit to
cover all
areas of
research
including
the arts,
humanities
and social
research.
The term
Public
Engagement
is also now
interchangeable
with Science
in Society.
b)
Public
Engagement
is not the
same as
either
Communications
or
Marketing,
though from
time to
time they
inevitably
overlap.
Most PE
activities
should
include
two-way
communication.
One way
communication
of
information
is generally
viewed as
being a
separate
activity to
public
engagement,
as that
carried out
by PR, media
or
communications
specialists.
For
instance,
the RCUK
Communications
team deals
primarily
with one-way
engagement.
It is their
responsibility
to represent
the Research
Councils
in a
positive
light with
regards to
what we are
doing via
press
releases and
statements
for example.
They may
promote the
work that
the Public
Engagement
with
Research
team is
undertaking
with regards
to Public
Engagement
with
research but
are not
responsible
for
undertaking
and
facilitating
this work
themselves.
There are
obviously
crossover
areas
between
communications
as described
here and
public
engagement,
as when,
for
instance, a
researcher
presents an
engaging
science
documentary
for a public
audience,
but it is
useful to
bear in mind
that many
communications
activities
align with a
deficit
model of
public
engagement.
Q3. Why
do people
sometimes
talk about
public
dialogue
when they
mean public
engagement?
Since
2000, public
dialogue has
emerged as a
more
developed
approach to
public
engagement
than
science
communication
alone. At
its
simplest,
it’s a
two-way form
of
communication
that
gives
interested
publics the
opportunity
to explore
issues
linking to
science and
make their
views
clearly
known. It
moves
towards
presenting
science in
its social
context,
valuing
public
knowledge
and
addressing
fundamental
questions
shaping
science in
society,
such as
control,
ownership,
ethical and
moral issues
etc. Public
dialogue
alone is
usually not
suitable for
most
public
engagement
strategies,
because
these
usually need
to engage
people on a
range of
different
levels.
As described
in the
response to
Q1, the
Research
Councils
definition
of public
dialogue is
a form
of
deliberative
(i.e. over
time)
participatory
engagement
where the
outcomes are
used to
inform
decision-making.
Q4.
What’s the
connection
between PE
and young
people?
In recent
years,
tensions in
the
perceived
relationship
between
science and
publics has
also
coincided
with a
steady
decline in
the take-up
of science
subjects in
schools and
higher
education
– while
it is
important to
note that
the two
trends are
not
necessarily
linked, this
decline has
also
driven
development
of public
engagement
with
Science,
Technology,
Engineering
and Maths
(STEM)
initiatives
for young
people. Q5.
Is there
evidence of
an
anti-science
and
engineering
culture in
the UK?
Although a
commonly
cited
perception,
the research
evidence
does not
necessarily
support the
view
that there
is a general
anti-science
culture in
the UK 1
. Publics
obviously
have
concerns
about
specific
technologies
or areas of
science and
may have
more general
concerns,
however. For
example
in the ESRC
study 2
35-45%
typically
express
concerns
that science
and
technology
is
developing
'too fast',
and 55-75%
that
scientists
pay
insufficient
attention to
potential
risks. The
BIS PAS
surveys 3
According to
ESRC
research,
one of the
reasons for
the
perception
of an
anti-science
culture
might
instead be a
general
decrease in
deference to
authority,
institutions
and
professions
in
general and
a decline in
the
willingness
of publics
to
uncritically
accept
scientific
opinion or
new
technologies
have also
found that
there are
particular
issues
giving rise
to public
concern,
but that
attitudes to
individual
issues also
change over
time (e.g.
computers/the
internet/email
were
more widely
seen as
being
beneficial
in 2005 than
in 1989/99 –
41% vs.
28%). 4
The 'deficit
model' (see
section
above)
approach to
public
engagement
tends to
oversimplify
the
issues and
lead to
solutions
focused on
scientific
communication.
This
approach can
fail to
address core
underlying
issues such
as attitudes
to
governance
or a wide
range of
other
factors
that give
rise to
dissident
voice or
disengagement,
many of
which can
obscure or
become
overlaid
onto
attitudes to
science
itself.
. Q6.
Should the
Councils
think about
making it
compulsory
for all
researchers
to carry out
public
engagement
activities?
RCUK
support the
idea that
public
engagement
should be a
part of
every
skilled
researcher’s
portfolio
alongside
teaching,
thinking
about
knowledge
transfer,
international
working etc.
However,
RCUK doesn’t
consider
that
researcher’s
PE
contributions
should take
place
through
front line
public
engagement
in every
instance –
there will
be
individuals
not
naturally
suited to
engaging
public
audiences
directly,
who
nevertheless
are
excellent
researchers,
and ways to
accommodate
this need to
be found in
the longer
term within
e.g. impact
reporting on
research
grants or
career
progression
criteria.
1
The Public
Attitudes to
Science
survey
(http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/per/Pages/PublicAttitudes2008.aspx)
conducted by
BIS in 2011
showed the
opposite in
most cases.
Overall,
attitudes to
science are
positive and
interest
in science
has
increased
since 2000.
‘I am amazed
by the
achievements
of science’
– up to 86%
from 75%
in 2000;
Science is
such a big
part of our
lives we
should all
take an
interest’ –
up to 82%
from 74% in
2000.
The 2011
survey also
found that
nine in ten
(88%) think
“scientists
make a
valuable
contribution
to
society”,
while eight
in ten (82%)
think they
“want to
make life
better for
the average
person”. The
proportion
agreeing
that
scientists
want to make
lives better
has
increased
consistently
since 2000,
suggesting
public
perceptions
of
scientists
have
improved. In
the same
survey 83%
respondents
trusted
university
scientists
to
follow rules
and
regulation.
2 The
ESRC study
"Towards a
better map:
Science, the
public and
the media"
(http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/Images/Mapdocfinal_tcm6-5505.pdf)
found that
70%
agreed with
the
statement
that most
scientific
research was
aimed at
improving
human life
3 BIS
Public
Attitudes to
Science
(PAS)
surveys -
there have
been four of
these since
2000, all
essentially
designed
to assess
the attitude
of UK
publics to
science and
engineering.
Each had a
sample size
of
approximately
2000. RCUK
commissioned
the 2008
survey on
BIS’s
behalf.
4 One of
the findings
from ESRC's
Science in
Society
Research
Programme
(http://piink.ru/SciSoc/) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|