Recently, the literature has emphasized the aims and logistics of public engagement, rather than its epistemic and cultural processes. In this conceptual article, we use our work on surgical simulation to describe a process that has moved from the classroom and the research laboratory into the public sphere. We propose an innovative shared immersion model for framing the relationship between engagement activities and research. Our model thus frames the public engagement experience as a participative encounter, which brings visitor and researcher together in a shared (surgical) experience mediated by experts from a range of domains.
HM Treasury/Department for Trade and Industry/Department for Education and Skills. (2004). Science and Innovation Investment Framework 2004-2014. London, England: HM Treasury.
9.
HorstM.MichaelM. (2011). On the shoulders of idiots: Re-thinking science communication as “event.”Science as Culture, 20, 283-306.
JacobsonN.ButterillD.GoeringP. (2004). Organizational factors that influence university-based researchers’ engagement in knowledge transfer activities. Science Communication, 25, 246-259.
12.
JossS. (1999). Introduction. Public participation in science and technology policy- and decision-making—ephemeral phenomenon or lasting change?Science and Public Policy, 26, 290-293.
13.
KassabE.TunJ. K.AroraS.KingD.AhmedK.MiskovicD.. . . KneeboneR. (2011). Blowing up the Barriers” in surgical training: Exploring and validating the concept of Distributed Simulation. Annals of Surgery, 254(6), 1059-1065.
KyvikS. (2005). Popular science publishing and contributions to public discourse among university faculty. Science Communication, 26, 288-311.
16.
LatourB. (1987). Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
17.
OpenScience. (2010). The OpenScience project. Retrieved from www.openscience.org
18.
PhaneufM. R.LomasJ.McCutcheonC.ChurchJ.WilsonD. (2007). Square pegs in round holes: The relative importance of traditional and nontraditional scholarship in Canadian universities. Science Communication, 28, 501-518.
19.
RosenerJ. (1975). A cafeteria of techniques and critiques. Public Management, 57(12), 16-19.
20.
RoweG.FrewerL. (2005). A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology & Human Values, 30, 251-290.
21.
Royal Society Working Group on Nanotechnology and Nanoscience. (2004). Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties. London: The Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering.
22.
WardV.HowdleP.HamerS. (2008). You & your body: A case study of bioscience communication at the University of Leeds. Science Communication, 30, 177-208.
