Photo: Frank Winkler Briefly analysed
More and more institutions offer formats in which scientists speak directly with interested citizens. The use of the dialogue format helps to exchange ideas. Scientists get a sense of what may be unclear to citizens. Citizens get answers about how science works. Dialogue should become a common format in Public Engagement.
Public In part l of Public Engagement, I made clear why dialogue formats are necessary for Public Engagement. Now I will briefly introduce two dialogue formats. I also discuss why communication with the public should not be left to scientists alone.
Dialogue formats are already an integral part of the repertoire of some institutions. For example, the Leibniz Association has launched the “Book a Scientist” format. Interested parties can regularly exchange ideas with an expert in 25 minutes. Or the AI consultation hour of the Cyber Valley in Tübingen, in which scientists answer questions from citizens in 90 minutes.
Recognise dialogue formats
It is no longer “science” that communicates, but people. That builds closeness and trust. In addition, people receive direct information from scientists and can ask questions about it. In this way, possible reservations about a research result are classified and can be better addressed in the future. Even though some formats already exist, dialogue with society in general is given little legitimacy by scientific institutions.
Public money for science is not being used properly in this way. Of course, it is more time-consuming and costs more to speak to the public in dialogue. There is not just one public, but different people with different backgrounds. But scientists want to interact with the people and vice versa. This is shown by numerous channels on social media, such as maiLab by chemist Mai Thi Nguyen-Kim. Her channel has more than 1.26 million subscribers.
Do I still communicate WITH the citizens?
On social channels such as Instagram or Twitter, scientists serve different target groups on their own initiative. The research institutions themselves are still too little involved here – also in researching science communication for the public. Not only research, but constant questioning of the dialogical engagement is necessary.
However, it would make little sense to leave Public Engagement to the scientists alone. Actually there is too little time for it in the academic context. Practitioners are needed to work together with researchers. They also know more about the target group. Politicians have a say in the Public Engagement process and might be more interested in efficiency rather than reflexivity. Efficiency should have a different meaning in Public Engagement: Efficiency is communication in dialogue. Only in this way there can be a meaningful exchange between the public and science.
Sources:
Cyber Valley (2021): KI SPrechstunde. Informationen aus erster Hand, zuletzt aufgerufen: 12.05.2021, online verfügbar: https://cyber-valley.de/de/events/ki-sprechstunde
Leibniz Gemeinschaft (2020): Book a Scientist, zuletzt aufgerufen: 12.05.2021, online verfügbar: https://www.leibniz-gemeinschaft.de/ueber-uns/neues/forschungsnachrichten/forschungsnachrichten-single/newsdetails/book-a-scientist-1.html
Weisberg Skolnick, Deena (2021): Knowledge about the nature of science increase public acceptance of science regardless of identity factors. In: Public Understanding of Science, 30 (2), S. 120-138.
Why Public Engagement Matters, In: AAAS, zuletzt abgerufen: 10.05.2020, online verfügbar: https://www.aaas.org/resources/communication-toolkit/what-public-engagement