Science for All? Practical Recommendations on Reaching Underserved Audiences

Abstract

In a world decisively influenced by scientific developments science communication grows ever more important to enable informed decision making and participation of citizens in society and political discourse. However, science communication, being it public talks, or participatory projects, often reaches only certain parts of society. While this problem is increasingly recognized, only some empirical results and practical recommendations on success-factors for promoting diversity and inclusiveness in science communication exist so far. If at all, many projects and reports focus on very specific areas with only a few aggregated and overarching best practices and guidelines. This article contributes to filling this gap and presents a set of practical recommendations on reaching and engaging underserved audiences of science communication activities. The proposed guidelines have been developed from the experiences and empirical evidence from the research and practice project "Science for All" in Germany, and are based on a review of existing guidelines and recommendations. They are corroborated by interviews with practitioners, scientists, and underrepresented groups. The seven recommendations include listening to underserved audiences, reducing the distance, illustrating the relevance of science for daily life, going where the people are, cooperating with stakeholders, and multipliers, as well as the problem of too much openness, and one-time activities. The guidelines are primarily addressed at practitioners in the field of science communication and meant to encourage and support a first step toward more diverse and inclusive science communication. However, they are limited wherever the roots of exclusion lay at the societal and political level and are open for discussion. While inclusive science communication alone cannot fix discrimination and inequality in society, a continuous self-reflection and improvement of the communication of science organizations, including the improvement of inclusion and diversity within the organization themselves, is an important contribution to a more equitable society.

Drivers and Obstacles of Open Access Publishing. A Qualitative Investigation of Individual and Institutional Factors

“…Scholars have already raised the question of whether OA is really the democratic medium it is supposed to be (Dalton et al, 2020). Our study goes one step further by discussing OA in the light of science communication, where the ability for everyone's participation is a central objective (Humm and Schrögel, 2020). In this sense, the question also arises whether a similar development of the OA movement can be assumed globally.…”

A reappraisal of public engagement in Oxford during the pandemic: three case studies

“…What interpretations can be made here on the effect of COVID-19 on engagement and would the outcomes of such events described here be affected if moved exclusively online, as a result of the pandemic? Humm and Schrögel [ 14 ] identify seven practical recommendations for engaging underserved groups, including listening to them, reducing the distance, going where the people are, cooperating with stakeholders and multipliers, illustrating the relevance of research for daily life, as well as opening up and making visible the research process, and creating sustainable, long-term activities.…”

“…Audience demographics are likely to be hindered by online only activities, as they require both technological ability, reliable internet access and capacity. Online engagement is ideal for ‘eye level’ dialogue [ 14 ] avoiding traditional hierarchies, but can raise questions of trust when webcams are turned on in people’s own homes, or activities must work around the constraints of shift work or home schooling. In many respects online engagement therefore extends the boundaries for ‘outreach’, which has been critiqued for further separating the excluded from the core business of institutions [ 17 ], and therefore in time it will also be important to continue to consider the implications this has for both institutional and personal spaces and settings.…”

“…For public engagement professionals, there is a constant quest to be more inclusive and to seek a broader discourse on research that encompasses multiple demographics [ 8 , 14 ] beyond those that are already interested or engaged, as well as a diversity of perspectives. Dawson’s [ 7 ] work on informal research engagement environments, such as science centres and museums, suggests most visitors tend to be from White ethnic backgrounds, younger, with children and from higher social classes.…”

“…These activities present evidence of distinctive demographic shifts in recent engagement work in Oxford, both before the onset of the pandemic and during, recognising that a diversity in demographics is key to supporting a diversity of viewpoints. In considering these examples, we utilise Humm and Schrögel’s [ 14 ] recommendations for engaging underserved groups, including listening to them, reducing the distance, going where the people are, cooperating with stakeholders and multipliers, illustrating the relevance of research for daily life, as well as opening up and making visible the research process, and creating sustainable, long-term activities. Offering an overview of evaluation findings from these engagement projects, we will also assess the evidence presented for engagement activities in a post-pandemic world, essentially questioning how and if such activities would work and whether public engagement has the potential to become more inclusive as a result.…”