This study explores alternative forms of public engagement with science through 25 semi-structured interviews with England-based participants from demographic groups traditionally associated with low levels of engagement. When considering established ways to engage with science, informants do not identify themselves as engaged and provide pragmatic reasons for their disengagement. However, as they elaborate on their personal experiences with science, they realize that science is more woven into their lives than initially acknowledged. The results underscore the pivotal role of personal perceptions and experiences in shaping (dis)engagement, emphasizing the interplay between these perceptions and science institutions, and challenging the conventional framework.
ArcherL.DawsonE.DeWittJ.SeakinsA.WongB. (2015). “Science capital”: A conceptual, methodological, and empirical argument for extending Bourdieusian notions of capital beyond the arts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(7), 922–948.
2.
ÁrnasonV. (2013). Scientific citizenship in a democratic society. Public Understanding of Science, 22(8), 927–940.
3.
ArnsteinS. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224.
4.
BhererL.DufourP.MontambeaultF. (2023). What is informal participation? Introduction to the special issue: Quietly standing out—Understanding informal forms of political engagement. International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 36(1), 1–16.
5.
BohenskyE. L.MaruY. (2011). Indigenous knowledge, science, and resilience: What have we learned from a decade of international literature on “integration”?Ecology and Society, 16(4), Article 6.
6.
BucchiM.NeresiniF. (2007). Science and public participation. In HackettE. J.AmsterdamskaO.LynchM. (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (3rd ed., pp. 449–472). MIT Press.
7.
CallonM. (1999). The role of lay people in the production and dissemination of scientific knowledge. Science, Technology and Society, 4(1), 81–94.
8.
CarrelM. (2023). Discreet mobilizations against discrimination: Informal participation in the French suburbs. International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 36(1), 17–33.
9.
CarvalhoA.Pinto-CoelhoZ.SeixasE. (2019). Listening to the public–enacting power: Citizen access, standing and influence in public participation discourses. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 21(5), 563–576.
10.
ChenK. (2021). How deliberative designs empower citizens’ voices: A case study on Ghana’s deliberative poll on agriculture and the environment. Public Understanding of Science, 30(2), 179–195.
11.
CohenJ. (2009). Philosophy, politics, democracy: Selected essays. Harvard University Press.
12.
DaviesS. R. (2013). The rules of engagement: Power and interaction in dialogue events. Public Understanding of Science, 22(1), 65–79.
13.
DaviesS. R. (2015). Participation as pleasure: Citizenship and science communication. In ChilversJ.KearnesM. (Eds.), Remaking participation: Science, environment and emergent publics (pp. 162–177). Routledge.
14.
DaviesS. R. (2017). Hackerspaces: Making the maker movement. John Wiley & Sons.
15.
DaviesS. R. (2022). Science communication at a time of crisis: Emergency, democracy, and persuasion. Sustainability, 14(9), Article 5103.
16.
DawsonE. (2018). Reimagining publics and (non) participation: Exploring exclusion from science communication through the experiences of low-income, minority ethnic groups. Public Understanding of Science, 27(7), 772–786.
17.
DawsonE.HughesS.LockS.WahomeM. (2022). Exploring the politics of science communication research: Looking at science communication from a social justice perspective. Journal of Science Communication, 21(7), Article C305.
18.
DawsonE.IqaniM.LockS. (2024). Why should we think about social justice in science communication?Journal of Science Communication, 23(4), Article e40501.
19.
DreyerM.KosowH.BauerA.ChonkovaB.KozarevV.TimotijevicL. (2021). Public engagement with research: Citizens’ views on motivations, barriers and support. Research for All, 5(2), 302–319.
20.
EpsteinS. (1995). The construction of lay expertise: AIDS activism and the forging of credibility in the reform of clinical trials. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 20(4), 408–437.
21.
Fernández RomeroF. (2020). “We can conceive another history”: Trans activism around abortion rights in Argentina. International Journal of Transgender Health, 22(1–2), 126–140.
22.
FritzL.HansmannR.DalimierB.BinderC. R. (2023). Perceived impacts of the Fridays for Future climate movement on environmental concern and behaviour in Switzerland. Sustainability Science, 18(5), 2219–2244.
23.
GaskellG.StaresS.AllansdottirA.AllumN.CorcheroC.JacksonJ. (2006). Europeans and biotechnology in 2005: Patterns and trends (Final report on Eurobarometer 64.3). European Commission.
24.
GibbonsM. (1999). Science’s new social contract with society. Nature, 402(Suppl. 6761), C81–C84.
25.
GodecS.ArcherL.DawsonE. (2022). Interested but not being served: Mapping young people’s participation in informal STEM education through an equity lens. Research Papers in Education, 37(2), 221–248.
26.
GouldR. K.GonzalezM. N.GraffJ. (2023). Using science fiction and design thinking in workshops to share research results with low-income, marginalized communities. Science Communication, 45(5), 665–688.
27.
GregoryJ.LockS. J. (2008). The evolution of “public understanding of science”: Public engagement as a tool of science policy in the UK. Sociology Compass, 2(4), 1252–1265.
HartleyS.StelmachA.OpesenC.OpenjuruG. L.NeemaS. (2024). Talking about gene drive in Uganda: The need for science communication to underpin engagement. Science Communication, 46(4), 431–457. https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470241234048
30.
HeadE. (2009). The ethics and implications of paying participants in qualitative research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 12(4), 335–344.
31.
HowellE. L.WirzC. D.ScheufeleD. A.BrossardD.XenosM. A. (2020). Deference and decision-making in science and society: How deference to scientific authority goes beyond confidence in science and scientists to become authoritarianism. Public Understanding of Science, 29(8), 800–818.
32.
HuW. (2024). Imagining the model citizen: A comparison between public understanding of science, public engagement in science, and citizen science. Public Understanding of Science. Public Understanding of Science, 33(6), 709–724. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625241227081
33.
HuberB.BarnidgeM.Gil de ZúñigaH.LiuJ. (2019). Fostering public trust in science: The role of social media. Public Understanding of Science, 28(7), 759–777.
34.
JasanoffS. (2003). Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva, 41, 223–244.
35.
JensenA. M.JensenE. A.DucaE.RocheJ. (2021). Investigating diversity in European audiences for public engagement with research: Who attends European Researchers’ Night in Ireland, the UK and Malta?PLOS ONE, 16(7), Article e0252854.
36.
KanoK.KudoM.YoshizawaG.MizumachiE.SugaM.AkiyaN.EbinaK.GotoT.ItohM.JohA.MaenamiH.MinamotoT.MoriM.MorimuraY.MotokiT.NakayamaA.TakanashiK. (2019). How science, technology and innovation can be placed in broader visions: Public opinions from inclusive public engagement activitiesJournal of Science Communication, 18(3), Article A02.
37.
KaskaziA.KitzieV. (2023). Engagement at the margins: Investigating how marginalized teens use digital media for political participation. New Media & Society, 25(1), 72–94.
38.
KochC.SanerM.SchäferM. S.Herrmann-GiovanelliI.MetagJ. (2020). “Space means science, unless it’s about Star Wars”: A qualitative assessment of science communication audience segments. Public Understanding of Science, 29(2), 157–175.
39.
LosiL. (2023). Who engages with science, and how? An empirical typology of Europeans’ science engagement. Public Understanding of Science, 32(6), 798–814.
40.
MacqH.TancoigneÉ.StrasserB. J. (2020). From deliberation to production: Public participation in science and technology policies of the European Commission (1998–2019). Minerva, 58, 489–512.
41.
MakondoC. C.ThomasD. S. (2018). Climate change adaptation: Linking indigenous knowledge with western science for effective adaptation. Environmental Science & Policy, 88, 83–91.
42.
MansbridgeJ.BohmanJ.ChambersS.ChristianoT.FungA.ParkinsonJ.ThompsonD. F.WarrenM. E. (2012). A systemic approach to deliberative democracy. In ParkinsonJ.MansbridgeJ. (Eds.), Deliberative systems: Deliberative democracy at the large scale (pp. 1–26). Cambridge University Press.
43.
Manzano-LeónA.Rodriguez-FerrerJ. M.Aguilar-ParraJ. M. (2022). Gamification in science education: Challenging disengagement in socially deprived communities. Journal of Chemical Education, 100(1), 170–177.
44.
MarresN. (2016). Material participation: Technology, the environment and everyday publics. Springer.
45.
MejlgaardN. (2009). The trajectory of scientific citizenship in Denmark: Changing balances between public competence and public participation. Science and Public Policy, 36(6), 483–496.
46.
MejlgaardN.StaresS. (2010). Participation and competence as joint components in a cross-national analysis of scientific citizenship. Public Understanding of Science, 19(5), 545–561.
47.
MejlgaardN.StaresS. (2013). Performed and preferred participation in science and technology across Europe: Exploring an alternative idea of “democratic deficit.”Public Understanding of Science, 22(6), 660–673.
48.
MichaelM. (1996). Ignoring science: Discourses of ignorance in the public understanding of science. Misunderstanding Science, 107–125.
49.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M.SaldañaJ. (2018). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Sage.
50.
PalecoC.PeterS. G.SeoaneN. S.KaufmannJ.ArgyriP. (2021). In K. Vohland, A. Land-Zandstra, L. Ceccaroni, R. Lemmens, J. Perelló, M. Ponti, & K. Wagenknecht . Inclusiveness and diversity in citizen science. In VohlandK.Land-ZandstraA.CeccaroniL.LemmensR.PerellóJ.PontiM.SamsonR.WagenknechtK. (Eds.), The science of citizen science (pp. 261–281). Springer.
51.
PattonM. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. Sage.
52.
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(2), 250–277.
SchäferM. S.FüchslinT.MetagJ.KristiansenS.RauchfleischA. (2018). The different audiences of science communication: A segmentation analysis of the Swiss population’s perceptions of science and their information and media use patterns. Public Understanding of Science, 27(7), 836–856.
55.
ScharrerL.RupieperY.StadtlerM.BrommeR. (2017). When science becomes too easy: Science popularization inclines laypeople to underrate their dependence on experts. Public Understanding of Science, 26(8), 1003–1018.
56.
SchombergR. (2013). A vision of responsible research and innovation. In OwenR.BessantJ.HeintzM. (Eds.), Responsible innovation: Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society (pp. 51–74). John Wiley & Sons.
57.
SchrögelP.KolleckA. (2019). The many faces of participation in science: Literature review and proposal for a three-dimensional framework. Science & Technology Studies, 32(2), 77–99.
58.
SmallmanM. (2020). “Nothing to do with the science”: How an elite sociotechnical imaginary cements policy resistance to public perspectives on science and technology through the machinery of government. Social Studies of Science, 50(4), 589–608.
59.
SolomonJ. (2013). Science of the People: Understanding and using science in everyday contexts. Routledge.
StilgoeJ.LockS. J.WilsdonJ. (2014). Why should we promote public engagement with science?Public Understanding of Science, 23(1), 4–15.
62.
StirlingA. (2008). “Opening up” and “closing down” power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 33(2), 262–294.
63.
StoferK. A.RujimoraJ.SblendorioD.DuqueneyE.TatineniM.GaudierG. (2019). Casual conversations in everyday spaces can promote high public engagement with science. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 9(4), 296–311.
64.
WeingartP.JoubertM. (2019). The conflation of motives of science communication: Causes, consequences, remedies. Journal of Science Communication, 18(3), Article Y01.
65.
WeingartP.JoubertM.ConnowayK. (2021). Public engagement with science: Origins, motives and impact in academic literature and science policy. PLOS ONE, 16(7), Article e0254201.
66.
WynneB. (1996). Misunderstood misunderstanding: Social identities and public uptake of science. In IwrinA.WynneB. (Eds.), Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology (pp. 19–46). Cambridge University Press.
67.
WynneB. (2007). Public participation in science and technology: Performing and obscuring a political–conceptual category mistake. East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal, 1, 99–110.
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.
