Notwithstanding that ‘public engagement’ is conceptualised differently internationally and in different academic disciplines, higher education institutions largely accept the importance of public engagement with research. However, there is limited evidence on how researchers conceptualise engagement, their views on what constitutes engagement and the communities they would (or would not) like to engage with. This paper presents the results of a survey of researchers in the Open University that sought to gather data to fill these gaps. This research was part of an action research project designed to embed engagement in the routine practices of researchers at all levels. The findings indicate that researchers have a relatively narrow view of public engagement with research and the communities with which they interact. It also identified that very few strategically evaluate their public engagement activities. We conclude by discussing some of the interventions we have introduced with the aim of broadening and deepening future researcher engagement.
This paper presents the results of empirical research that analyzed UK news media coverage of cloning. More specifically, it describes how quantitative and qualitative methods were used to examine the production, content and reception of newspaper and television news coverage of cloning. The paper documents the results of a systematic analysis of two years of media content (1996 and 1997), a period that includes the announcement that a Finn Dorset sheep (Dolly) had been cloned from a somatic cell. Interviews with media professionals and the Roslin Institute examined the processes of mediation involved in producing this coverage. A reception analysis, which investigated the significance of this coverage in informing respondents’ views about cloning, showed that these respondents were particularly influenced by coverage of Dolly the sheep. In conclusion, the paper considers how media coverage of cloning might influence the construction of scientific citizenship.
Abstract:In recent years, there has been a rhetorical shift from 'deficit' to 'dialogue' and 'engagement' in UK policy and institutional discourse about science communication. Past efforts to reduce public scientific literacy deficits have been overshadowed by calls for dialogue between scientists, science communicators and non--scientists. However, it is unclear how this rhetorical shift has translated into a real change in the guiding principles and practices of UK science engagement. This study investigates reported practices and discourse of UK science engagement practitioners from a variety of professional backgrounds. Quantitative and qualitative data were gathered using questionnaires and focus groups. The analysis employed a theoretical lens informed by Bourdieu's theory of practice, Irwin's taxonomy of first (deficit), second (dialogue) and third (contextual) 'orders' of engagement, and theoretical conceptualizations of social change from cultural psychology and sociology. Results suggest participating practitioners' reported experience was predominately first order, although current definitions and discussions of engagement by a small number of practitioners indicate some limited acceptance of dialogue--oriented thinking. Such potential movement from past practice to current thinking is highly contingent however, not least because so few practitioners had experienced second or third order engagement. The implications of these findings are explored both in terms of understanding patterns in UK science engagement and what they portend for Bourdieu's theory of practice and social change. Word count: 7744 The views of professionals operating in the field of science engagement are the focus of the present study. The study aims to develop insights about the ways that practitioners conceptualize this field and their science engagement practices. Drawing on Bourdieu's (1977; 1995;
This article explores the evolving practices of science journalism and public debate in the digital age. The vehicle for this study is the release of digitally stored email correspondence, data and documents from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the UK in the weeks immediately prior to the United Nations Copenhagen Summit (COP-15) in December 2009. Described using the journalistic shorthand of ‘climategate’, and initially promoted through socio-technical networks of bloggers, this episode became a global news story and the subject of several formal reviews. ‘Climategate’ illustrates that media-literate critics of anthropogenic explanations of climate change used digital tools to support their cause, making visible selected, newsworthy aspects of scientific information and the practices of scientists. In conclusion, I argue that ‘climategate’ may have profound implications for the production and distribution of science news, and how climate science is represented and debated in the digitally mediated public sphere.
The use and availability of digital media is changing researchers' roles and simultaneously providing a route for a more engaging relationship with stakeholders throughout the research process. Although the digital realm has a profound influence on people's day-to-day lives, some researchers have not yet professionally embraced digital technologies. This paper arises from one aspect of a project exploring how university research and professional practices are evolving as researchers engage with stakeholders via digital media to create, share and represent knowledge together. Using researchers from the Open University (U.K.) as a case study, this paper reviews the extent to which they are developing multiple identities and functions in their engaged research through digital media.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.