Juggling Roles, Experiencing Dilemmas: The Challenges of SSH Scholars in Public Engagement

Abstract

The progressive introduction of emerging technologies, such as nanotechnology, has created a true testing ground for public engagement initiatives. Widespread experimentation has taken place with public and stakeholder dialogue and inclusive approaches to research and innovation (R&I) more generally. Against this backdrop, Social Science and Humanities (SSH) scholars have started to manifest themselves differently. They have taken on new roles in the public engagement field, including more practical and policy-oriented ones that seek to actively open the R&I system to wider public scrutiny. With public engagement gaining prominence, there has been a call for increased reflexivity among SSH scholars about their role in this field. In this paper, we study our own roles and stakes as SSH scholars in a European-funded public engagement project on responsible nanotechnology. We introduce a general role landscape and outline five distinct roles (engaged academic, deliberative practitioner, change agent, dialogue capacity builder, and project worker) that we—as SSH scholars—inhabited throughout the project. We discuss the synergistic potential of combining these five roles and elaborate on several tensions within the roles that we needed to navigate. We argue that balancing many roles requires explicit role awareness, reflexivity, and new competencies that have not been examined much in the public engagement literature so far. Our role landscape and exemplification of how it can be used to reflexively study one’s own practices may be a useful starting point for scholars who are seeking to better understand, assess, or communicate about their position in the public engagement field.

From talking the talk to walking the walk

“…worse because the FIT4FOOD2030 project was not a research project but a Coordination and Support Action, which is characterised by its focus on, for example, mobilisation, communication, and dissemination. This is in line with previous findings of Schuijer et al (2021), who highlight the challenge of integrating research activities within a project that is primarily focused on action, which means that academic papers are not part of the official output documents (deliverables and milestones) of the project.…”

“…• "Reflecting on how collecting, analysing, interpreting and reporting data from an observer point of view can be improved in accordance to the quality criteria of their disciplines and in relation to the reliability of findings" (Fazey, Schäpke et al, 2018, p. 64, referred to as 'reflective scientist'). • Also referred to as 'engaged academic' by Schuijer et al (2021) and 'traditional scientist' by Bulten et al (2021).…”

Navigating Difference in Inter- & Transdisciplinary Learning

“…This does, however, require further research. Moreover, we argue that exhibiting diff erent types of behaviour may also be suitable for diff erent roles in transdisciplinary collaboration (Schuijer et al, 2021). For instance, when an academic takes on the role of facilitator, it may be suitable to exhibit predominantly accommodating behaviour, as to organise the process and bring insights from others together without bringing much of their own knowledge, and thereby to bring a depoliticized space for deliberation (Gudowsky, 2021).…”