Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Public engagement (PE) activities have become a regular feature for several research institutions in Europe. However, while research and teaching functions can count on established indicators, PE functions are often performed as a sort of “goodwill exercise.” Few studies have focused on defining appropriate indicators and standards, particularly at the organizational level. An exploratory study was carried out on a sample of 40 European research institutions with a view to understanding whether the diffusion of PE activities has led to incorporating the PE perspective into “routine” activities of organizations. The results point to quite unequal performances among European research institutions. Also, while most research institutions examined have dedicated resources for PE activities, the study suggests that such activities are not yet considered essential. Performance indicators and standards might prove of great support for institutions and policy actors that wish to take seriously the challenge of public engagement and societal dialogue.

Keywords

evaluation indicators public engagement science communication

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Argyris, C. and Schon, D.A. ( 1996) Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method, and Practice . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Ashby, W.R. ( 1952) Design for a Brain. London: Chapman & Hall.

Bateson, G. ( 1972) Steps to an Ecology of Mind. San Francisco : Chandler Publishing Company.

Bucchi, M. ( 1996) "When Scientists Turn to the Public: Alternative Routes in Science Communication," Public Understanding of Science 5(4): 375-94.

Bucchi, M. ( 1998) Science and the Media: Alternative Routes in Scientific Communication. London and New York : Routledge.

Bucchi, M. ( 2008) "Of Deficits, Deviations and Dialogues: Theories of Public Communication of Science," in M. Bucchi and B. Trench (eds) Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology, pp. 57-76. London: Routledge.

Bucchi, M. ( 2009) Beyond Technocracy: Citizens, Politics, Technoscience . New York: Springer.

Davies, S.R. ( 2008) "Constructing Communication: Talking to Scientists about Talking to the Public," Science Communication 29(4): 413-34.

Edwards, C. ( 2004) "Evaluating European Public Awareness of Science Initiatives: A Review of the Literature," Science Communication 25(3): 260-71.

10.

European Charter for Researchers (2005) Brussels : European Commission. URL: http://ec.europa.eu/eracareers/pdf/am509774CEE_EN_E4.pdf

11.

Gascoigne, T. and Metcalfe, J. ( 1997) "Incentives and Impediments to Scientists Communicating through the Media," Science Communication 18(3): 265-82.

12.

Gascoigne, T. and Metcalfe, J. ( 2001) "Report: The Evaluation of National Programs of Science Awareness," Science Communication 23(1): 66-76.

13.

Irwin, A. ( 2006) "Public Deliberation and Governance: Engaging with Science and Technology in Contemporary Europe," Minerva 44(2): 167-84.

14.

Jensen, P. , Roquier, J.B. , Kreimer, P. and Croissant, Y. ( 2008) "Scientists Who Engage with Society Perform Better Academically ," Science and Public Policy 35(7): 527-41.

15.

Lévy-Leblond, J.M. ( 1992) "About Misunderstandings about Misunderstandings," Public Understanding of Science 1(1): 17-21.

16.

Martín-Sempere, M.J. , Garzón-García, B. and Rey-Rocha, J. (2008) "Scientists’ Motivation to Communicate Science and Technology to the Public: Surveying Participants at the Madrid Science Fair," Public Understanding of Science 17(3): 349-67.

17.

Michael, M. ( 1992) "Lay Discourses of Science: Science-in-General, Science-in-Particular, and Self," Science, Technology & Human Values 17(3): 313-33.

18.

Miller, S. ( 2001) "Public Understanding of Science at the Crossroads," Public Understanding of Science 10(1): 115-20.

19.

Neresini, F. and Pellegrini, G. ( 2008) "Evaluating Public Communication of Science and Technology," in M. Bucchi and B. Trench (eds) Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology, pp. 237-51. London: Routledge .

20.

Neresini, F. , Dimopoulos, K. , Kallfass, M. and Peters, H.P. ( 2009) "Exploring a Black Box: Cross-national Study of Visit Effects on Visitors to Large Physics Research Centers in Europe," Science Communication 30(4): 506-33.

21.

Pearson, G. ( 2001) "The Participation of Scientists in Public Understanding of Science Activities: The Policy and Practice of the U.K. Research Councils ," Public Understanding of Science 10(1): 121-37.

22.

Peters, H.P. et al. (2008) "Science Communication: Interactions with the Mass Media," Science 321(5886): 204-5.

23.

Peterson, A. , Anderson, A. , Allan, S. and Wilkinson, C. ( 2009) "Opening the Black Box: Scientists’ Views on the Role of the News Media in the Nanotechnology Debate," Public Understanding of Science 18(5): 512-30.

24.

Pew Research Center for the People and the Press ( 2009) "Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media," URL: http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/528.pdf

25.

Poliakoff, E. and Webb, T.L. ( 2007) "What Factors Predict Scientists’ Intentions to Participate in Public Engagement of Science Activities?," Science Communication 29(2): 242-63.

26.

Rowe, G. and Frewer, L. ( 2004) "Evaluating Public Participation Exercises: A Research Agenda," Science, Technology & Human Values 29(4): 512-56.

27.

Rowe, G. , Horlick-Jones, T. , Walls, J. and Pidgeon, N. ( 2005) "Difficulties in Evaluating Public Engagement Initiatives: Reflections on an Evaluation of the UK GM Nation? Public Debate about Transgenic Crops," Public Understanding of Science 14(3): 331-52.

28.

Rowe, G. , Horlick-Jones, T. , Walls, J. , Poortinga, W. and Pidgeon, N. ( 2008) "Analysis of a Normative Framework for Evaluating Public Engagement Exercises: Reliability, Validity and Limitations," Public Understanding of Science 17(4): 419-41.

29.

Royal Society (1985) The Public Understanding of Science. London: Royal Society.

30.

Royal Society (2006) Factors Affecting Science Communication: A Survey of Scientists and Engineers. URL: http://www.2.royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=3180

31.

Turney, J. (ed.) (2006) Engaging Science: Thoughts, Deeds, Analysis and Actions. London : Wellcome Trust.

32.

Wolfendale Committee (1995) Final Report. London: Office of Science and Technology. URL: http://www.dti.gov.uk/ost/ostbusiness/puset/report.htm

33.

Wynne, B. et al. (2007) Taking Knowledge Society Seriously. Report of the Expert Group on Science and Governance. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

34.

Young, N. and Matthews, R. ( 2007) "Experts’ Understanding of the Public: Knowledge Control in a Risk Controversy," Public Understanding of Science 16(1): 123-44.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.07 MB