"Science? - No, thanks." (Part 1)

Why public engagement must involve less science-savy people from the start

Briefly analyzed

Public Engagement must reach all people. Really everyone. Even those with less affinity for science. Barriers for them often include complex language and topics remote from everyday life. For some, science seems so far away that they no longer trust it. Echo chambers reinforce their opinions. Scientists hardly reach this part of the society. But science communication and public engagement for people with less affinity is not a supreme discipline. Representatives have to think about them from the beginning. If this does not happen, they are left behind. This is detrimental to democracy and unfair. Because scientists do research for all people.

Population Public engagement for all people is not an easy task. Representatives can reach people with an affinity for science more easily. What about the other part? It must not be forgotten.

Public engagement hardly reaches people who are less interested in science. According to some public engagement (pe) experts in Germany, this is a supreme discipline. The field is changing. Some representatives are thinking about definitions of terms and a codex. In this process of cultural change, it makes sense to think about public engagement from the beginning – for everyone. PE professionals need to reach out to people with less affinity for science as well. They, like everyone else, pay scientists with their taxes. Ultimately, public engagement is necessary for a well-functioning democracy. Only when everyone has access to and understands research he or she can appreciate the wider context.

Sustainable in the long term

Some people do not engage with science. There are several reasons for this:

complex scientific language with incomprehensible technical terms,
lack of or no knowledge about methods,
science without connection to everyday life,
or distanced scientists.

Sustainable public engagement can break down these barriers. In this context, sustainable means that scientists build a long-term relationship with the public. It is based on trust and an open, transparent exchange.

Less engagement, less trust?

The current situation of the corona pandemic shows why communicators have to think about less affine people from the beginning. People who refuse to vaccinate have little or no trust in science. Instead, they inform themselves on social media platforms or alternative media. Since the beginning of the pandemic, these have been the only sources of information for some of the public. Of course the fake news and non-scientific facts disseminated there shape their opinions. Echo chambers and cognitive dissonance reinforce them. Arguments in favor of vaccination hardly reach them anymore. They avoid statements that do not fit their view. So scientists have little access to this part.

“A crucial task of science communication is […] to reach those who do not approach information sources on their own.”
Quote from the parliamentary motion of the FDP, March 2020

Reason enough for public engagement professionals to think about these people from the beginning. The FDP’s March 2020 parliamentary motion stated, “A crucial task of science communication is […] to reach those who do not approach information sources on their own.” This shows science communication and also public engagement for less affine people is not a supreme discipline. But how can science reach this group? Find out in part two.

Ressources