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.
AkkermanS.BakkerA. (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
3.
AkkermanS.BruiningT. (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
4.
AkkermanS.NiessenT. (2011). Dialogical theories at the boundary. In MärtsinM.WagonerB.AvelingE.-L.KadianakiI.WhittakerL. (Eds.), Dialogicality in focus: Challenges to theory, method and application (pp. 53–64). Nova Science Publishers.
5.
AkkermanS.Van den BosscheP.AdmiraalW.GijselaersW.SegersM.SimonsR. J.KirschnerP. (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
6.
Baram-TsabariA.LewensteinB. 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
7.
BauerM. W.JensenP. (2011). The mobilization of scientists for public engagement. Public Understanding of Science, 20(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662510394457
8.
BesleyJ. 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
9.
BesleyJ. C.OhS. H.NisbetM. (2012). Predicting scientists’ participation in public life. Public Understanding of Science, 22(8), 971–987. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662512459315
10.
BrommeR. (2000). Beyond one’s own perspective: The psychology of cognitive interdisciplinarity. In WeingartP.StehrN. (Eds.), Practising interdisciplinarity (pp. 114–133). University of Toronto Press.
CaliceM. N.BeetsB.BaoL.ScheufeleD. A.FreilingI.BrossardD.FeinsteinN. W.HeislerL.TangenT.HandelsmanJ. (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.
ChilversJ. (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
DaviesS. R. (2008). Constructing communication: Talking to scientists about talking to the public. Science Communication, 29(4), 413–434. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547008316222
DöringN.BortzJ. (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.
DudoA. (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.
EngeströmY.EngeströmR.KärkkäinenM. (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.
EntradasM.MarcelinoJ.BauerM. W.LewensteinB. (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
FieldA. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). SAGE.
24.
FrimanM. (2010). Understanding boundary work through discourse theory. Science & Technology Studies, 23(2), 5–19. https://doi.org/10.23987/sts.55250
25.
GantenbergJ. (2017). Wissenschaftskommunikation in Forschungsverbünden. Zwischen Ansprüchen und Wirklichkeit [Science Communication in Large-Scale Research Programs. Between Demands and Reality]. VS Verlag.
GierynT. (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.
GierynT. F. (1999). Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line. University of Chicago Press.
30.
HilgartnerS. (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.
IrwinA. (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.
JanichN.ZakharovaE. (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.
KaponS.LahertoA.LevriniO. (2018). Disciplinary authenticity and personal relevance in school science. Science Education, 102(5), 1077–1106. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21458
34.
KleinJ. T. (1996). Crossing boundaries: Knowledge, disciplinarities, and interdisciplinarities. University of Virginia Press.
35.
KleinJ. T. (2010). A taxonomy of interdisciplinarity. In FrodemanR.KleinJ. T.MitchamM. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity (pp. 15–30). Oxford University Press.
36.
KleinJ. T. (2020). Sustainability and collaboration: Crossdisciplinary and cross-sector horizons. Sustainability, 12(4), 1515. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041515
37.
KoivumäkiK.WilkinsonC. (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
LaredoP. (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.
MillarV.ToscanoM.van DrielJ.StevensonE.NelsonC.KenyonC. (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.
OrsiniA.LouafiS.MorinJ. 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
PetersH. P.BrossardD.de CheveignéS.DunwoodyS.KallfassM.MillerS.TsuchidaS.CainA.PaquezA.-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 PetersH. 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.
PoliakoffE.WebbT. 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.
PolmanJ. L.HopeJ. 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
RepkoA. F.SzostakR. (2017). Interdisciplinary research: Process and theory (3rd ed.). SAGE.
48.
RisienJ.NilsonR. (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.
RisienJ.StorksdieckM. (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.
RoedemaT.BroerseJ.KupperF. (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.
RoedemaT.RerimassieV.BroerseJ. E. W.KupperJ. F. H. (2022). Towards the reflective science communication practitioner. Journal of Science Communication, 21(4), A02. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.21040202
52.
RoseK. M.MarkowitzE. M.BrossardD. (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
SalmonR. A.PriestleyR. K.GovenJ. (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.
SchönD. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Routledge.
56.
StarS. L.GriesemerJ. 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.
ValinciuteA. (2020). Lithuanian scientists’ behavior and views on science communication. Public Understanding of Science, 29(3), 353–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662520907001
WengerE. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge University Press.
61.
ZieglerR.FischerL.AmbrasatD. J.FabianG.NiemannD. P.BuzC. (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.
