Public engagement: Faculty lived experiences and perspectives underscore barriers and a changing culture in academia

Abstract

The idea of faculty engaging in meaningful dialogue with different publics instead of simply communicating their research to interested audiences has gradually morphed from a novel concept to a mainstay within most parts of the academy. Given the wide variety of public engagement modalities, it may be unsurprising that we still lack a comprehensive and granular understanding of factors that influence faculty willingness to engage with public audiences. Those nuances are not always captured by quantitative surveys that rely on pre-determined categories to assess scholars’ willingness to engage. While closed-ended categories are useful to examine which factors influence the willingness to engage more than others, it is unlikely that pre-determined categories comprehensively represent the range of factors that undermine or encourage engagement, including perceptual influences, institutional barriers, and scholars’ lived experiences. To gain insight into these individual perspectives and lived experiences, we conducted focus group discussions with faculty members at a large midwestern land-grant university in the United States. Our findings provide context to previous studies of public engagement and suggest four themes for future research. These themes affirm the persistence of institutional barriers to engaging with the public, particularly the expectations in the promotion process for tenure-track faculty. However, we also find a perception that junior faculty and graduate students are challenging the status quo by introducing a new wave of attention to public engagement. This finding suggests a “trickle-up” effect through junior faculty and graduate students expecting institutional support for public engagement. Our findings highlight the need to consider how both top-down factors such as institutional expectations and bottom-up factors such as graduate student interest shape faculty members’ decisions to participate in public engagement activities.

“It’s my job”: A qualitative study of the mediatization of science within the scientist-journalist relationship

“…Personas from this study could be used to develop guidelines for supporting scientists of different institutions, career stages, and mediatization patterns to engage in strategic science communication for the benefit of society. For instance, our findings support calls to support faculty members in pursuing meaningful public engagement through changes to review, tenure, and promotion guidelines (e.g., Calice et al, 2022;Alperin et al, 2019]. Our findings could also help communications professionals at institutions and journals adapt their policies and systems to ensure they enable, rather than inhibit, accessible, impactful, and societally beneficial media coverage of research.…”

“…In developing our personas, scientists' career stage, institutional contexts, and pressures from journals emerged as important forces shaping the nature of their relationships with journalists. This echoes findings by Calice et al [2022] that institutional factors, particularly in regard to tenure and promotion, are crucial in whether or not a scientist will engage with the public. Our study offers a view into how communication professionals at both academic institutions and scholarly journals implicitly and explicitly influence scientists' participation in that competition, with implications for how scientists and journalists work together in the public communication of science.…”

Dissemination or participation? Exploring scientists’ definitions and science communication goals in the Netherlands

“…Additionally, we saw that a large number of our respondents were early-career scientists (Ph.D. candidates and postdoctoral researchers). Previous studies discuss a shift in the culture surrounding more participatory approaches to science communication to be driven by early-career scientists [ 113 ]. However, our findings—although based on a sample in which early career scientists are over-represented—suggest an overall adherence to deficit model approaches, with some elements of dialogue.…”

“…However, our findings—although based on a sample in which early career scientists are over-represented—suggest an overall adherence to deficit model approaches, with some elements of dialogue. For a discussion on some of the factors (institutional and personal) that may impact the lack of more participatory oriented approaches to science communication, in the context of the United States, see [ 113 , 114 ]. Moreover, while Howell and colleagues [ 115 ] found that both late and early career scientists held positive views on the role of social media in providing opportunities to engage with the public, our respondents’ focus nevertheless remained on deficit-oriented goals when asked about their social media science communication goals.…”

Researchers’ Public Engagement in the Context of Interdisciplinary Research Programs: Learning and Reflection from Boundary Crossing

“…In Germany, where this study is set, the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF, 2019) has emphasized not only the increasing importance of science communication in general but also the central role of researchers’ public engagement in a policy brief. Although there are studies and surveys on researchers’ general attitudes toward and motivations for science communication and public engagement (e.g., Besley, 2014; Besley et al, 2012; Püttmann et al, 2021; Royal Society, 2006; Valinciute, 2020; Vetenskap & Allmänhet, 2019; Ziegler et al, 2021), less have focused on researchers’ perceptions of their own involvement in science communication, public engagement, and outreach (e.g., Calice et al, 2022; Gantenberg, 2017; Koivumäki & Wilkinson, 2020). Even less studies have considered “the nature and extent of learning from and learning about public dialogue” (Chilvers, 2013, p. 258) for researchers.…”