Calls for greater public engagement with science (PES) are widespread, but there appears to be little agreement on the meaning and purpose of engagement across the various actors calling for it. This reflects a persistent gulf between PES scholars and scientists communicating with the public. We argue that direct engagement between PES scholars and scientist-communicators could, by facilitating greater reflexivity, lead to a step-change in the calibre and clarity of activities that are designed to support enhanced public engagement with science and technology. In this paper, we, as authors beginning from different perspectives, explore the potential of, and barriers to, a conversation between critical social scientists and members of the science community about public engagement. We demonstrate how and why the PES literature does not Bspeak for itself^to scientists but provides a starting point for conversation rather than a substitute for it. We then explore what reflexivity might mean for PES and argue for three important foci: political-economic context or politics of the field; institutional context; and personal assumptions. We then discuss barriers to, as well as strategies for, fostering such reflexivity, concluding that new models of authorship and publication are needed if this promise is to be fulfilled.

No abstract

No abstract

Climate services play an important role in informing decision makers about how to reduce the impact of climate-related hazards, by building capacity through access to relevant data and information globally and regionally. Different types of climate services include long-term warning systems, projections, monitoring/triggers and signals, risk evaluation tools, and behavior change tools. However, climate services are often promoted as “improving uptake” and “translating and communicating science” This framing, which assumes that climate services are developed by scientists and “provided” to users, has limitations for decision makers designing actions to address changing coastal hazard risk driven by sea-level rise. Acting upon the IPCC 1.5 Degree Special Report imperative for urgent actions to reduce exposure and vulnerability at the coast will require a transformation in the way climate services are developed and delivered, in tandem with an understanding of the decision-making and policy context. Tools and policies must explicitly address deepening uncertainty and changing risk over long timeframes. Their use also must be compatible with the jurisdiction’s institutional frameworks and decision-making practice and relevant to user needs as changing risks unfold. Attention to both short- and long-term decisions are paramount to avoid lock-in and path dependency of decisions taken today, and to ensure relevance for the timeframes of investments in infrastructure and settlements. This requires actionable science and usable tools developed through multi-disciplinary efforts by scientists, co-producing them with decision agencies and communities. We give examples of different types of climate services developed with users and draw out some universal lessons learned in developing and applying them in New Zealand.

Sea-level rise resulting from climate change is impacting coasts around the planet. There is strong scientific consensus about the amount of sea-level rise to 2050 (0.24–0.32 m) and a range of projections to 2100, which vary depending on the approach used and the mitigation measures taken to reduce carbon emissions. Despite this strong scientific consensus regarding the reality of climate change-related sea-level rise, and the associated need to engage publics in adaptation and mitigation efforts, there is a lack of empirical evidence regarding people’s understanding of the issue. Here we investigate public understanding of the amount, rate and causes of sea-level rise. Data from a representative sample of New Zealand adults showed a suprising tendency for the public to overestimate the scientifically plausible amount of sea-level rise by 2100 and to identify melting sea ice as its primary causal mechanism. These findings will be valuable for scientists communicating about sea-level rise, communicators seeking to engage publics on the issue of sea-level rise, and media reporting on sea-level rise.