Public engagement with science—Origins, motives and impact in academic literature and science policy

Abstract

‘Public engagement with science’ has become a ‘buzzword’ reflecting a concern about the widening gap between science and society and efforts to bridge this gap. This study is a comprehensive analysis of the development of the ‘engagement’ rhetoric in the pertinent academic literature on science communication and in science policy documents. By way of a content analysis of articles published in three leading science communication journals and a selection of science policy documents from the United Kingdom (UK), the United States of America (USA), the European Union (EU), and South Africa (SA), the variety of motives underlying this rhetoric, as well as the impact it has on science policies, are analyzed. The analysis of the science communication journals reveals an increasingly vague and inclusive definition of ‘engagement’ as well as of the ‘public’ being addressed, and a diverse range of motives driving the rhetoric. Similar observations can be made about the science policy documents. This study corroborates an earlier diagnosis that rhetoric is running ahead of practice and suggests that communication and engagement with clearly defined stakeholder groups about specific problems and the pertinent scientific knowledge will be a more successful manner of ‘engagement’.

Public engagement and argumentation in science

“…These results show that the information flow from EU institutions to researchers is wanting, and that the integration of RRI into EU policies and practices is still incipient (Novitzky et al, 2020). Moreover, increasingly vague and inclusive definitions of 'engagement' as well as of the relevant 'public' stand in the way of de facto effective interventions (Weingart et al, 2021).…”

“…But the desirability of the approach has also been questioned; it seems that PE is often not fully delivering on its promises (Scheufele, 2011). There is also the concern that public engagement has become primarily a buzzword, and that the associated rhetoric is running ahead of actual practices (Weingart et al, 2021). Moreover, engaging in PE practices is often perceived as impairing freedom in research (Carrier & Gartzlaff, 2020, 157; see also Small & Mallon, 2007).…”

Trust or attention? Medialization of science revisited

“…The perception of a lack of legitimacy of science is first of all a lack of legitimacy of certain technologies and supporting policy. The purported need to create legitimacy is translated into ideologically motivated programs declaring communicating with the public an "integral element" of the system of science (Weingart et al, 2021). The political motive becomes evident in the program of the German Science Ministry which vaguely states that to enter a dialogue with society has "an important function for the cohesion of society, the broad acceptance of a broad support for research and the necessary openness towards novelty" (BMBF, 2021, my translation).…”

Wissenschaftskommunikation als kommunikative Figuration. Ein konzeptioneller Rahmen für die empirische Untersuchung von Domänen der Wissenschaftskommunikation

“…Im sogenannten "Public Engagement with Science"-Modell soll sich die Kommunikation vermehrt nach gesell schaftlichen Relevanzkriterien richten und das beste verfügbare wissenschaftliche Wis sen inklusive seiner Limitationen und Konsequenzen bereitstellen (Mede & Schäfer 2020: 302). Auch wenn sich mit diesem Paradigma eine Verschiebung der hierarchi schen Beziehung zwischen Wissenschaft und Öffentlichkeit abzeichnet, scheinen sich die im Vordergrund stehenden Ziele sowie die Formen der Wissenschaftskommunika tion in der Praxis bisher nicht wesentlich verändert zu haben (Weingart, Joubert & Connoway 2021).…”