Researchers’ Public Engagement in the Context of Interdisciplinary Research Programs: Learning and Reflection from Boundary Crossing

Abstract

Outreach activities might facilitate researchers’ boundary crossing not only between science and society but also between disciplines. This offers opportunities for learning and reflection on the individual and the organizational level, resulting in what we call retroactive effects. We questioned N = 75 researchers of two interdisciplinary research programs. Researchers reported positive retroactive effects on their enjoyment of and skills for engaging in outreach activities (OA) and partly agreed that OA had benefited interdisciplinary communication and networking within the research program. However, doctoral researchers were hesitant toward public engagement, compared with postdoctoral researchers and professors. This research allows implications for fostering the role of researchers in institutional communication efforts.

Keywords

science communication science outreach public engagement interdisciplinary communication boundary crossing

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Akkerman

Bakker

(2011a). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 132–169. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311404435

Akkerman

Bakker

(2011b). Learning at the boundary: An introduction. International Journal of Educational Research, 50(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2011.04.002

Akkerman

Bruining

(2016). Multilevel boundary crossing in a professional development school partnership. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(2), 240–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2016.1147448

Akkerman

Niessen

(2011). Dialogical theories at the boundary. In Märtsin

Wagoner

Aveling

E.-L.

Kadianaki

Whittaker

(Eds.), Dialogicality in focus: Challenges to theory, method and application (pp. 53–64). Nova Science Publishers.

Akkerman

Van den Bossche

Admiraal

Gijselaers

Segers

Simons

R. J.

Kirschner

(2007). Reconsidering group cognition: From conceptual confusion to a boundary area between cognitive and socio-cultural perspectives? Educational Research Review, 2(1), 39–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2007.02.001

Baram-Tsabari

Lewenstein

B. V.

(2017). Science communication training: What are we trying to teach? International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 7(3), 285–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2017.1303756

Bauer

M. W.

Jensen

(2011). The mobilization of scientists for public engagement. Public Understanding of Science, 20(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662510394457

Besley

J. C.

(2014). What do scientists think about the public and does it matter to their online engagement? Science and Public Policy, 42(2), 201–214. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scu042

Besley

J. C.

S. H.

Nisbet

(2012). Predicting scientists’ participation in public life. Public Understanding of Science, 22(8), 971–987. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662512459315

10.

Bromme

(2000). Beyond one’s own perspective: The psychology of cognitive interdisciplinarity. In Weingart

Stehr

(Eds.), Practising interdisciplinarity (pp. 114–133). University of Toronto Press.

11.

Bromme

Goldman

S. R.

(2014). The public’s bounded understanding of science. Educational Psychologist, 49(2), 59–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.921572

12.

Calice

M. N.

Beets

Bao

Scheufele

D. A.

Freiling

Brossard

Feinstein

N. W.

Heisler

Tangen

Handelsman

(2022). Public engagement: Faculty lived experiences and perspectives underscore barriers and a changing culture in academia. PLOS ONE, 17(6), Article e0269949. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269949

13.

Chilvers

(2013). Reflexive engagement? Actors, learning, and reflexivity in public dialogue on science and technology. Science Communication, 35(3), 283–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547012454598

14.

Choi

Richards

(2017). Interdisciplinary discourse. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-47040-9

15.

Clark

H. H.

(1996). Using language. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620539

16.

Davies

S. R.

(2008). Constructing communication: Talking to scientists about talking to the public. Science Communication, 29(4), 413–434. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547008316222

17.

Davies

S. R.

Horst

(2016). Science communication: Culture, identity and citizenship. Palgrave Macmillan.

18.

Döring

Bortz

(2016). Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation in den Sozial- und Humanwissenschaften [Research Methods and Evaluation in Social and Human Sciences]. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41089-5

19.

Dudo

(2012). Toward a model of scientists’ public communication activity: The case of biomedical researchers. Science Communication, 35(4), 476–501. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547012460845

20.

Engeström

Kärkkäinen

(1995). Polycontextuality and boundary crossing in expert cognition: Learning and problem solving in complex work activities. Learning and Instruction, 5(4), 319–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(95)00021-6

21.

Entradas

Marcelino

Bauer

M. W.

Lewenstein

(2019). Public communication by climate scientists: What, with whom and why? Climatic Change, 154, 69–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02414-9

22.

Federal Ministry of Education and Research. (2019). Grundsatzpapier des Bundesministeriums für Bildung und Forschung zur Wissenschaftskommunikation [Policy Paper of the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research on Science Communication]. https://www.bmbf.de/SharedDocs/Publikationen/de/bmbf/1/24784_Grundsatzpapier_zur_Wissenschaftskommunikation.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&%3Bv=4

23.

Field

(2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). SAGE.

24.

Friman

(2010). Understanding boundary work through discourse theory. Science & Technology Studies, 23(2), 5–19. https://doi.org/10.23987/sts.55250

25.

Gantenberg

(2017). Wissenschaftskommunikation in Forschungsverbünden. Zwischen Ansprüchen und Wirklichkeit [Science Communication in Large-Scale Research Programs. Between Demands and Reality]. VS Verlag.

26.

German Research Foundation. (2020a). Guidelines Collaborative Research Centres. https://www.dfg.de/formulare/50_06/50_06_en.pdf

27.

German Research Foundation. (2020b). Module Public Relations. https://www.dfg.de/formulare/52_07/52_07_en.pdf

28.

Gieryn

(1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48(6), 781–795.

29.

Gieryn

T. F.

(1999). Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line. University of Chicago Press.

30.

Hilgartner

(1990). The dominant view of popularization: Conceptual problems, political uses. Social Studies of Science, 20(3), 519–539. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631290020003006

31.

Irwin

(2008). STS perspectives on scientific governance. In E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, & J. Wajcman (Eds.) The handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 583–607). MIT Press.

32.

Janich

Zakharova

(2014). Fiktion “gemeinsame Sprache”? Interdisziplinäre Aushandlungsprozesse auf der Inhalts-, der Verfahrens- und der Beziehungsebene [Fiction “common language”? Interdisciplinary negotiations on the content, process, and relational level]. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Linguistik, 61(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1515/zfal-2014-0014

33.

Kapon

Laherto

Levrini

(2018). Disciplinary authenticity and personal relevance in school science. Science Education, 102(5), 1077–1106. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21458

34.

Klein

J. T.

(1996). Crossing boundaries: Knowledge, disciplinarities, and interdisciplinarities. University of Virginia Press.

35.

Klein

J. T.

(2010). A taxonomy of interdisciplinarity. In Frodeman

Klein

J. T.

Mitcham

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity (pp. 15–30). Oxford University Press.

36.

Klein

J. T.

(2020). Sustainability and collaboration: Crossdisciplinary and cross-sector horizons. Sustainability, 12(4), 1515. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041515

37.

Koivumäki

Wilkinson

(2020). Exploring the intersections: Researchers and communication professionals’ perspectives on the organizational role of science communication. Journal of Communication Management, 24(3), 207–226. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-05-2019-0072

38.

Lamont

Molnár

(2002). The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 167–195. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.28.110601.141107

39.

Laredo

(2007). Revisiting the third mission of universities: Toward a renewed categorization of university activities? Higher Education Policy, 20(4), 441–456. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.hep.8300169

40.

Millar

Toscano

van Driel

Stevenson

Nelson

Kenyon

(2019). University run science outreach programs as a community of practice and site for identity development. International Journal of Science Education, 41(18), 2579–2601. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1689587

41.

Orsini

Louafi

Morin

J. F.

(2017). Boundary concepts for boundary work between science and technology studies and international relations: Special issue introduction. Review of Policy Research, 34(6), 734–743. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12273

42.

Palmer

C. L.

(2001). Work at the boundaries of science. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9843-9

43.

Peters

H. P.

Brossard

de Cheveigné

Dunwoody

Kallfass

Miller

Tsuchida

Cain

Paquez

A.-S.

(2009). Kontakte biomedizinischer Forscher mit Journalisten und Öffentlichkeit: Internationaler Vergleich von Erfahrungen und Einstellungen in Deutschland, Frankreich, Großbritannien, Japan und den USA [Biomedical researchers’ contacts with journalists and the public: International comparison of experiences and attitudes in Germany, France, Great Britain, Japan, and the USA]. In Peters

H. P.

(Ed.), Medienorientierung biomedizinischer forscher im internationalen Vergleich. Die Schnittstelle von Wissenschaft & Journalismus und ihre politische Relevanz [Media Orientation of Biomedical Researchers in International Comparison. The Intersection of Science and Journalism and its Political Relevance] (pp. 45–99). Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH.

44.

Poliakoff

Webb

T. L.

(2007). What factors predict scientists’ intentions to participate in public engagement of science activities? Science Communication, 29(2), 242–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547007308009

45.

Polman

J. L.

Hope

J. M. G.

(2014). Science news stories as boundary objects affecting engagement with science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(3), 315–341. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21144

46.

Püttmann

Ruhose

Thomsen

S. L.

(2021). Academics’ attitudes toward engaging in public discussions-experimental evidence on the impact of engagement conditions. https://www.cesifo.org/en/publikationen/2021/working-paper/academics-attitudes-toward-engaging-public-discussions

47.

Repko

A. F.

Szostak

(2017). Interdisciplinary research: Process and theory (3rd ed.). SAGE.

48.

Risien

Nilson

(2018). Landscape overview of university systems and people supporting scientists in their public engagement efforts: Summary of existing recommendations and evidence from the field. Center for Research on Lifelong STEM Learning Oregon State University. https://doi.org/10.5399/osu/1128

49.

Risien

Storksdieck

(2018). Unveiling impact identities: A path for connecting science and society. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 58(1), 58–66. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icy011

50.

Roedema

Broerse

Kupper

(2021). “Who is going to believe me, if I say ‘I’m a researcher?” Scientists’ role repertoires in online public engagement. Journal of Science Communication, 20(3), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.20030203

51.

Roedema

Rerimassie

Broerse

J. E. W.

Kupper

J. F. H.

(2022). Towards the reflective science communication practitioner. Journal of Science Communication, 21(4), A02. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.21040202

52.

Rose

K. M.

Markowitz

E. M.

Brossard

(2020). Scientists’ incentives and attitudes toward public communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117(3), 1274–1276. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1916740117

53.

Royal Society. (2006). Science communication: Excellence in science. Survey of factors affecting science communication by scientists and engineers. https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2006/1111111395.pdf

54.

Salmon

R. A.

Priestley

R. K.

Goven

(2017). The reflexive scientist: An approach to transforming public engagement. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 7(1), 53–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-015-0274-4

55.

Schön

D. A.

(1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Routledge.

56.

Star

S. L.

Griesemer

J. R.

(1989). Institutional ecology, “translations” and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631289019003001

57.

Valinciute

(2020). Lithuanian scientists’ behavior and views on science communication. Public Understanding of Science, 29(3), 353–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662520907001

58.

Vetenskap & Allmänhet. (2019). Researchers’ views on communication and open science in Sweden. https://www.v-a.se/downloads/varapport2019_8-summary.pdf

59.

Weingart

Stehr

(2000). Practising interdisciplinarity. University of Toronto Press. https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442678729

60.

Wenger

(1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge University Press.

61.

Ziegler

Fischer

Ambrasat

D. J.

Fabian

Niemann

D. P.

Buz

(2021). Wissenschaftskommunikation in Deutschland: Ergebnisse einer Onlinebefragung [Science Communication in Germany: Results from an Online Survey]. Wissenschaft im Dialog.

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

0.05 MB