Photo: David Mark Briefly analysed
A cultural change needs people who are open and do not insist on their territory. Unfortunately, territorial thinking is common in the science system. In part, change is hampered by insisting on positions or using incomprehensible language. Often it is not clear why change is needed. Talking about the project and one’s own work can be helpful. Everyone has skills. An open process of sharing drives cultural change better than insisting on territorial claims.
Territory For a sustainable and professional public engagement, we need to get away from territorial thinking. The same applies to the establishment of science communication. Rethinking and being open to new things helps.
People who dare to try something new and break through existing structures can change. That is not easy. Especially if this is perceived by others as something they could lose. For example, the claim to a certain position of supremacy. This manifests itself in parts in the field of science. During First Steps – the symposium for exchange and networking in public engagement a member of the comminity said: If you dare to set out, you get the feeling that you are constantly stepping on someone’s toes. That is not the intention.
Sustainable establishment of the field
The feeling within the First Steps community is quite different: according to the perception of some members, everyone supports each other. No one looks where he or she can demarcate to territorially defend their own field. Creating new things, rethinking existing things, and establishing the field in a sustainable way are necessary for cultural change. An elbow mentality is a hindrance. Unfortunately, all too common in Germany.
Generally, this mentality is about a sense of ownership that makes it difficult for others to gain access or even prohibits it altogether. It starts with the position to which claim is made and moves into incomprehensible language. The field of science uses terms that are incomprehensible to the general public and even to colleagues from other disciplines. In the same way scientists should write studies in a more generally understandable way. Specialized knowledge is needed for understanding. This makes access more difficult and clearly stakes out the territory.
Fear of loss
Some are already trying to initiate change and are often met with rejection. Some people within the system are afraid of losing their legitimacy. It would be helpful to talk about one’s own work or exchange about how the cultural change should take place. This creates an understanding that no one is losing it’s own legitimacy. Attentive listening as well as asking questions is necessary. And, of course, encountering new things without prejudice.
For this to work, it makes sense to have a common language. Everyone should think of public engagement or science communication as something similar. In Germany, there are no common definitions. The First Steps Community is in the process of developing one. The community for exchange and networking has developed from the symposium of the same name. It took place at the beginning of September 2021. Everyone is welcome to be part of the community. Not only a common understanding about terminology is necessary, but also about other systems. But according to sociologist Niklas Luhmann, the problem is that these are closed. Science does not understand how parts of society function. This can be broken down via a common language.
Your Expertise?
Territorial thinking also includes the question, “What area are you from or what do you work as?” This categorizes. The answer might confirm a prejudice that one might associate with the institution. If the person does not have an academic degree, he or she is implicitly referred to a place. Along the lines of, “I, with my professorial degree, am more senior than you, with an education.” It would be more sustainable to ask, “What is your expertise?”
Everyone has skills. Diversity and different perspectives help drive culture change. So does looking at the international field, which is partly further along in public engagement and science communication. With an exchange, mistakes can be avoided, which the international colleagues* have already made.
Input from outside – whether from another country or another field helps. Without the exchange, everyone* remains stuck in their known ways of thinking.