Public engagement scholarship has explored science-policy settings at length. This work is being complemented by growing scholarly attention to engagement outside of policy spaces. As this expanding focus indicates, these spaces, where publics engage science with lower stakes and less confrontation, should be taken seriously. We explore what engagement in such contexts can look like, offering insights from one site, the planetarium. When coupled with a commitment to fostering public-science conversations, engagement strategies like dialogue, storytelling, analogy, and fostering agency can be instrumental for publics to be heard, which can enrich the efforts of nonpolicy venues. In turn, studying nonpolicy contexts can broaden our understanding of engagement.
BellL. (2008). Engaging the public in technology policy: A new role for science museums. Science Communication, 29, 386-398.
2.
BraunK.SchultzS. (2010). “. . . a certain amount of engineering involved”: Constructing the public in participatory governance arrangements. Public Understanding of Science, 19, 403-419.
3.
CallonM.LascoumesP.BartheY. (2010). Acting in an uncertain world. Cambridge: MIT Press.
4.
CollinsH.EvansR. (2007). Rethinking expertise. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
5.
CreightonJ.DeVastoD.GallagherS. (2017). Illuminating aurora: Exploring science communication in the planetarium. Planetarian, 46(3), 8-12, 36.
DahlstromM. (2014). Using narratives and storytelling to communicate science with nonexpert audiences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U S A, 11, 13614-13620.
8.
DaviesS.McCallieE.SimonssonE.LehrJ. L.DuensingS. (2009). Discussing dialogue: Perspectives on the value of science dialogue events that do not inform policy. Public Understanding of Science, 18, 338-353.
9.
DelgadoA.KjolbergK. L.WicksonF. (2011). Public engagement coming of age: From theory to practice in STS encounters with nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 20, 826-845.
10.
DruschkeC. G. (2014). With whom do we speak? Building transdisciplinary collaborations in rhetoric of science. Poroi, 10(1). doi:10.13008/2151-2957.1175.
11.
FrewerL. J.SalterB. (2007). Societal trust in risk analysis: implications for the interface of risk assessment and risk management. In SiegristM.EarleT. C.GutscherH. (Eds.), Risk management and public trust (pp. 143-158). London, England: Earthscan.
12.
GeigerN.SwimJ. K.FraserJ.FlinnerK. (2017). Catalyzing public engagement with climate change through informal science learning centers. Science Communication, 39, 221-249.
13.
GreenwoodM. R. C.RiordanD. G. (2001). Civic scientist/civic duty. Science Communication, 23, 28-40.
14.
International Planetarium Society. (2017). IPS official statement on the role of planetariums in education. Retrieved from www.ips-planetarium.org/?edstatement
15.
JensenE.BuckleyN. (2012). Why people attend science festivals: Interests, motivations and self-reported benefits of public engagement with research. Public Understanding of Science, 23, 557-573.
16.
KrabbenborgL.MulderH. A. J. (2015). Upstream public engagement in nanotechnology. Science Communication, 37, 452-484.
17.
LeshnerA. I. (2003). Public engagement with science. Science, 299, 997.
18.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Communicating science effectively: A research agenda. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
19.
PlummerJ. D.GhentC.CrowlM.CallananM.GurtonS.HurstA.JipsonJ.PalmquistS. (2016). Inspiring and engaging activities for 3- to 5-year-old audiences. Planetarian, 45(4), 40-43.
20.
RoseK. M.KorzekwaK.BrossardD.ScheufeleD. A.HeislerL. (2017). Engaging the public at a science festival: Findings from a panel on human gene editing. Science Communication, 39, 250-277.
21.
RoweG.FrewerL. J. (2004). Evaluating public participation exercises: A research agenda. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 25, 3-29.
22.
RoweG.FrewerL. J. (2005). A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 30, 251-290.
23.
SmallK. J.PlummerJ. D. (2014). A longitudinal study of early elementary students’ understanding of phenomena after planetarium and classroom instruction. Planetarian, 43(4), 18-21.
24.
SpoelP.GoforthD.CheuH.PearsonD. (2008). Public communication of climate change science: Engaging citizens through apocalyptic narrative explanation. Technical Communication Quarterly, 18(1), 49-81.
25.
StilgoeJ.LockS. J.WilsdonJ. (2014). Why should we promote public engagement with science?Public Understanding of Science, 23, 4-15.
