Scientists need professional development to practice meaningful public engagement

ABSTRACT

Public engagement with science is emerging in research and practice, but most research focuses on perspectives of and/or outcomes for public communities, not scientists. However, multi-way communication and mutual learning among community members and scientists are key features defining public engagement of science. In this perspectives article, focused on three studies of scientists' experiences, we identified areas needing improvement to achieve meaningful community engagement. In the first study, university researchers' self-reflections show mismatches in power dynamics with their participants, potentially limiting the mutuality of the exchange. In a second study, we found even herpetologists with extensive engagement experience rarely considered evaluating their activities. Finally, scientists who have gone through professional development in communication and/ or education may still have mismatches between their professed understanding of true engagement and their actions during engagement. We conclude with recommendations for scientist professional development to move toward truly inclusive (in all senses) science engagement.

KEYWORDS:

• Public engagement with science
• scientist professional development
• power dynamics
• community engagement
• inclusive science engagement
• inclusive science communication

Acknowledgements

All work referencing empirical data was approved by the University of Florida Institutional Review Board.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 We use the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) definition of public engagement, ‘intentional, meaningful interactions that provide opportunities for mutual learning between scientists and the public’ (American Association for the Advancement of Science 2016).

2 Except as noted, throughout this work we use public engagement interchangeably with inclusive science communication (ISC). As defined by Canfield and Menezes (2020), ISC subsumes engagement while centering equity and inclusion, but engagement, which does not traditionally explicitly center equity and inclusion, is the choice of this special issue.

3 For clarity, university scientists include both faculty and doctoral students, unless otherwise stated.

4 Data collected prior to March 2020 and COVID-19-related shutdowns.

Additional information

Funding

Research on public engagement in herpetology was funded by a Roger Conant Grant in Herpetology from the Society for the Study of Amphibian and Reptiles to Kirsten Hecht. The development of talk science with me was supported by NSF OCE 1038990. Division of Ocean Sciences and the research on talk science is supported by Hatch FLA-AEC-005367, FLA-AEC-005868 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture to Kathryn Stofer.

Notes on contributors

Kathryn A. Stofer

Kathryn A. Stofer, PhD, is a Research Associate Professor of STEM Education and Outreach at the University of Florida. Dr. Stofer has been working in science education and public engagement since 2001, when she started as a programming and exhibit prototyping intern at the Boston Museum of Science. Stofer completed her PhD in free-choice science learning at Oregon State University in 2013.

David Hanson

David Hanson, PhD, completed his doctorate at the University of Florida in public engagement with science in 2019 and served as an evaluator for the University of Florida UF/IFAS Extension Food and Nutrition Program until 2021. Dr. Hanson began as Senior Consultant at Equal Measure in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in June 2021.

Kirsten Hecht

Kirsten Hecht, PhD, completed her doctorate in interdisciplinary ecology with a focus on public engagement with science at the University of Florida and was a postdoctoral researcher in public engagement with science through June 2021. Dr. Hecht will began work with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission in August 2021.