Universities are beginning to recognize that failing to engage with local communities can result in decreased public confidence, decreased credibility, and the slow uptake and implementation of research. This has led to significant interest in the concept and practices of public engagement, particularly within science. This article presents a case study of a biomedical public engagement project at the University of Leeds, United Kingdom. The authors discuss how the project has highlighted the barriers and facilitators to engaging the adult public with biomedical research and university communities.
Anderson, J.G. (2004). Consumers of e-health: Patterns of use and barriers . Social Science Computer Review, 22, 242-248.
2.
Baker, L., Wagner, T.H., Singer, S., & Bundorf, M.K. (2003). Use of the Internet and e-mail for health care information: Results from a national survey. Journal of the American Medical Association, 289, 2400-2406.
3.
Brehaut, J., & Simonsson, E. (2006). Dana Centre audience profile: November 2005-July 2006. London: Science Museum.
4.
Currie, G., & Suhomlinova, O. (2006). The impact of institutional forces upon knowledge sharing in the UK NHS: The triumph of professional power and the inconsistency of policy. Public Administration, 84, 1-30.
5.
Diaz, J., Griffith, R., Ng, J., Reinert, S., Friedmann, P., & Moulton, A. (2002). Patients' use of the Internet for medical information . Journal of General Internal Medicine, 17, 180-185.
6.
Edwards, C. (2004). Evaluating European public awareness of science initiatives. Science Communication, 25, 260-271.
7.
Goodman, S.R., & Blake, C.A. (2006). The future of interdisciplinary research and training: How to conquer the silo guardians. Experimental Biology and Medicine, 231, 1189-1191.
8.
Haines, A., Kuruvilla, S., & Borchert, M. (2004). Bridging the implementation gap between knowledge and action for health. Bulletin of the World Health Organization , 82, 724-732.
9.
Heading, R.C. (1999). Prevalence of upper gastrointestinal symptoms in the general population: A systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology, 34(Suppl. 231), 3-8.
10.
Houston, T.K., & Allison, J.J. (2002). Users of Internet health information: Differences by health status. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 4(2), E7.
11.
Jacobson, N., Butterill, D., & Goering, P. (2004). Organizational factors that influence university-based researchers' engagement in knowledge transfer activities. Science Communication, 25, 246-259.
12.
Jones, R.H., Lydeard, S.E., Hobbs, F.D., Kenkre, J.E., Williams, E.I., Jones, S.J., et al. (1990). Dyspepsia in England and Scotland. Gut, 31, 401-405.
13.
Kaplan, P.W., & Schachter, S.C. (1996). The role of the neurologist in the management of epilepsy: Guidelines and tools for patient care. Neurologist, 2, 302-314.
14.
Kyvik, S. (2005). Popular science publishing and contributions to public discourse among university faculty. Science Communication , 26, 288-311.
15.
Wood, M. (2007). Changing the rules of engagement. Research Fortnight. Retrieved February 2, 2007, from http://www.researchresearch.com/news.cfm?pagename=newsStory&lang=EN&type=default&elementID=70414&noSearch=true, accessed 04/07
16.
Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education , 25, 1049-1079.
17.
Phaneuf, M.-R., Lomas, J., McCutcheon, C., Church, J., & Wilson, D. (2007). Square Pegs in Round Holes: The relative importance of traditional and nontraditional scholarship in Canadian universities. Science Communication, 28, 501-518.
18.
Picavet, H.S.J., & Schouten, J.S.A. G. (2003). Musculoskeletal pain in the Netherlands: Prevalences, consequences and risk groups, the DMC3-study . Pain, 102, 167-178.
19.
Pooley, C.G., Gerrard, C., Hollis, S., Morton, S., & Astbury, J. (2001). "Oh it's a wonderful practice . . . you can talk to them": A qualitative study of patients' and health professionals' views on the management of type 2 diabetes. Health & Social Care in the Community, 9, 318-326.
20.
Roberts, G. (2002). SET for success: The supply of people with science, technology, engineering and mathematics skills. London : HM Treasury.
21.
Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. (2005). A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology & Human Values, 30, 251-290.
22.
Rowe, G., Horlick-Jones, T., & 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, 331-352.
23.
Science for all: Is public engagement engaging the public? ( 2006, April). Paper presented at the Engaging Science Conference, Manchester Conference Centre.
24.
Science teaching in schools. (2007). London : House of Lords Science and Technology Committee.
25.
Sheridan, D. (2006). Reversing the decline of academic medicine in Europe. Lancet, 367, 1698-1701.
26.
Simonsson, E. (2007). Dana Centre annual audience research report. London: Science Museum.
27.
Wallerstein, N., & Bernstein, E. (1988). Empowerment education: Freire's ideas adapted to health education. Health Education and Behavior, 15, 379-394.
28.
Wilsdon, J., & Willis, R. (2004). See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. London: Demos .
29.
Wilson, T. (1997). Information behaviour: An interdisciplinary perspective . Information Processing & Management, 33, 551-572.
30.
Woolf, A., & Pfleger, B. (2003). Burden of major musculoskeletal conditions. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 81, 646-656.
31.
Worcester, R. (2006). Public attitudes to science: What do we know? In J. Turney (Ed.), Engaging science: Thoughts, deeds, analysis and action. London: Wellcome Trust.
32.
Wynne, B. (2006). Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science-hitting the notes, but missing the music?Community Genetics, 9, 211-220.
