"Science? - No, thanks." (Part 2)

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. To prevent this from happening, three components are elementary: sustained engagement, media literacy and science education. PE professionals should offer programs as early like in kindergarten. The offer should continue in all types of schools. In direct exchange, scientists* break down stereotypes. They are transparent, open and – those who can – speak in emotions. This is how affective science becomes effective. Dialogue with the population ultimately inspires both sides.

Population How can public engagement reach people with less affinity for science? A few suggestions.

Without understanding, there is no trust. People who have little engagement with science are less interested in public engagement offerings. A common reason: they don’t understand the science system. Engaging them requires time, resources, and a well-crafted strategy. For some pe representatives, developing outreach programs for this part of the population is a supreme discipline. To prevent public engagement from becoming this discipline for these people, three components are essential: education, media literacy, and engagement.

In an ideal world, science education is firmly embedded in the curriculum. As early as in kindergarten, there are pe programs and collaborations with scientific institutions. This extends through all types of schools – including vocational schools. Children learn that science is not something abstract. It is everywhere in everyday life. Scientists break down stereotypes. By getting involved in the field, they show that they’re not just sitting in their white coats in the lab. Researchers also explain what science means – in other words, what methods they use. As a result, the population understands how science works. That it is part of the scientific system, for example, that results can turn out to be wrong and why that makes sense. Only those who understand a system can trust it.

Media & competence? – No chance

The same applies to the media system, which has changed enormously in recent years. Newspapers, radio stations and TV broadcasters expanded their offerings digitally. At the same time, everyone had the opportunity to publish information on the Internet thanks to digitality. However, the majority of the population is not a digital native. They did not learn how to handle information from the internet. No institution imparted media competence.

The established media are no longer the only sources of information. Many people look for their own information or question news. That’s not a bad thing at first. But some people are unable to classify what information is serious. Supposed science sites deceive in a simple way. They use terms like “science” in their title to pretend seriousness. It is therefore necessary that teachers teach media literacy as well as science education in schools and in adult education.

Pick up physically, linguistically and thematically

In theory, the building blocks described above are understandable. Implementing them in the current system is not easy, but it is possible. Public engagement needs to meet people where they are – at the physical, linguistic, and thematic levels. This means that scientists communicate topics in an understandable language, they are transparent and open about their research process. Ideally, researchers and the public engage in dialogue with each other – preferably through stakeholders. This relational work leads to trust in the long run.

“Emotion allows identification.”
Anindya Raychaudhuri, Senior Lecturer in the School of English at the University of St Andrews.

Researchers are most likely to reach people through emotion. “Emotion allows identification,” said Anindya Raychaudhuri, senior lecturer in the School of English at the University of St Andrews in the Challenging Content panel. It took place during the Collaborative Futures Academy. Where does emotion come across best? Through stories. Listening to an emotional story can affect our attitudes. We empathize with emotions or put ourselves in people’s shoes. In short, science communication is more effective when it is affective. In addition to emotions, words evoke images in the mind. Scientists should reflect on their words. When people think of a model, they don’t necessarily think of one with numbers, but rather of a model presenting clothes.

It pays off for all involved

It is clear that scientists cannot manage public engagement on their own. However, they should have an idea about it and get support from practitioners. Especially public engagement for less affine people requires listening and relationship building. This leads to trust. Of course, this is time-consuming. But it pays off in the long run for both: the scientists and the public.

Ressources