Higher Education

, Volume 66, Issue 6, pp 725–739 | Cite as

Research staff and public engagement: a UK study

Article

Abstract

Public engagement plays an important role in the contemporary UK academy, and is promoted through initiatives such as Beacons of Public Engagement and research grant ‘Pathways to Impact’. Relatively little is known, however, about academic experiences of such engagement activities. This study focuses on one staff group, contract researchers, to explore the perceived challenges and opportunities of public engagement. Qualitative and quantitative data—from a web-based survey and three focus groups—are used to show that, while engagement activities are often seen as rewarding, the challenges involved in participating in them are profound. While researchers report practical needs, such as for logistical support or communication training, key barriers relate to the conditions of contract research more generally, and specifically to job insecurity, transiency, and lack of autonomy.

Keywords

Contract research staff Public engagement Mixed methods research UK 

References

  1. Abreu, M., Grinevich, V., Hughes, A., & Kitson, M. (2009). Knowledge exchange between academics and the business, public and third sectors. Cambridge: Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
  2. Bell, A. (2009). Doing it by the book: Introductory guides for twenty-first century science communication. Science as Culture, 18(4), 511. doi:10.1080/09505430903186096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Besley, J. C., & Nisbet, M. (2011). How scientists view the public, the media and the political process. Public Understanding of Science,. doi:10.1177/0963662511418743.Google Scholar
  4. Bowman, D. M., & Hodge, G. A. (2007). Nanotechnology and public interest dialogue: Some international observations. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 27(2), 118–132. doi:10.1177/0270467606298216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bryson, C. (1999). Contract research: The failure to address the real issues. Higher Education Review, 31(2), 29–49.Google Scholar
  6. Burchell, K., Franklin, S., & Holden, K. (2009). Public culture as professional science: Final report of the ScoPE project (scientists on public engagement: From communication to deliberation). London: LSE.Google Scholar
  7. Chilvers, J., & Macnaghten, P. (2011). Science, trust and public engagement. A literature review for the BIS/Sciencewise-ERC “Science, Trust and Public Engagement” project. BIS/Sciencewise-ERC.Google Scholar
  8. Collinson, J. A. (2000). Social science contract researchers in higher education: Perceptions of craft knowledge. Work, Employment & Society, 14(1), 159–171. doi:10.1177/09500170022118310.Google Scholar
  9. Collinson, J. A. (2003). Working at a marginal ‘career’: The case of UK social science contract researchers. The Sociological Review, 51(3), 405–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Creswell, J. W. (2002). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Beverly Hills: SAGE.Google Scholar
  11. Davies, S. R. (2008). Constructing communication: Talking to scientists about talking to the public. Science Communication, 29(4), 413–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davies, S. R. (2013). Constituting public engagement: Meanings and genealogies of PEST in two U.K. studies. Science Communication. doi:10.1177/1075547013478203.
  13. Duncan, S., & Spicer, S. (2010). The engaging researcher: Inspiring people to engage with your research. Cambridge: Careers Research and Advisory Centre.Google Scholar
  14. Gregory, J., & Lock, S. J. (2008). The evolution of ‘public understanding of science’: Public engagement as a tool of science policy in the UK. Sociology Compass, 2(4), 1252–1265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hockey, J. (2004). Working to return to employment: The case of UK social science contract researchers. Studies in Higher Education, 29(5), 559–574. doi:10.1080/0307507042000261544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Holdsworth, C., & Quinn, J. (2010). Student volunteering in english higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 35(1), 113–127. doi:10.1080/03075070903019856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Holliman, R., Whitelegg, E., Scanlon, E., Smidt, S., & Thomas, J. (Eds.). (2009). Investigating science communication in the information age: Implications for public engagement and popular media. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Irwin, A. (2006). The politics of talk: Coming to Terms with the ‘New’ scientific governance. Social Studies of Science, 36(2), 299–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Irwin, A., & Wynne, B. (1996). Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jones, R. (2008). When it pays to ask the public. Nature Nanotechnology, 3(10), 578–579. doi:10.1038/nnano.2008.288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Laudel, G., & Gläser, J. (2007). From apprentice to colleague: The metamorphosis of early career researchers. Higher Education, 55(3), 387–406. doi:10.1007/s10734-007-9063-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lee, T., Fuller, A., Bishop, D., Felstead, A., Jewson, N., Kakavelakis, K., et al. (2006). Reconfiguring contract research? Career, work and learning in a changing employment landscape. UK: In Brighton.Google Scholar
  23. Lee, L. J., Gowers, I., Ellis, L., & Bellantuonoa, I. (2010). Well rounded Postdoctoral Researchers with initiative, who are not always ‘tied to the bench’ are more successful academically. International Journal for Researcher Development, 1(4), 269–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lehr, J. L., McCallie, E., Davies, S. R., Caron, B. R., Gammon, B., & Duensing, S. (2007). The role and value of dialogue events as sites of informal science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 29(12), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McAlpine, L. (2010). Fixed-term researchers in the social sciences: Passionate investment, yet marginalizing experiences. International Journal for Academic Development, 15(3), 229–240. doi:10.1080/1360144X.2010.497686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McCallie, E., Bell, L., Lohwater, T., Falk, J., Lehr, J. L., Lewenstein, B. V., et al. (2009). Many experts, many audiences: Public engagement with science and informal science education. A CAISE inquiry group report. Washington DC: Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education (CAISE).Google Scholar
  27. Mellors-Bourne, R., & Metcalfe, J. (2009). Careers in research online survey (CROS) 2009: Analysis of aggregated UK results. Cambridge: Careers Research and Advisory Centre (CRAC) Limited.Google Scholar
  28. Miller, S. (2001). Public understanding of science at the crossroads. Public Understanding of Science, 10(1), 115–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. NCCPE. (2011). “National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement Website.” http://www.publicengagement.ac.uk/.
  30. Oliver, L., & Ackers, H. L. (2005). Fixed term positions in the academic career trajectory. Leeds: University of Leeds.Google Scholar
  31. Pearson, G., Pringle, S. M., & Thomas, J. N. (1997). Scientists and the public understanding of science. Public Understanding of Science, 6(3), 279–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rask, M., Maciukaite-Zviniene, S., & Petrauskiene, J. (2012). Innovations in public engagement and participatory performance of the nations. Science and Public Policy, 39(6), 710–721. doi:10.1093/scipol/scs089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. RCUK. (2010). Concordat for engaging the public with research. Swindon: RCUK. http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/per/Pages/Concordat.aspx.
  34. Science for All Expert Group. (2010). Science for all: Report and action plan from the science for all expert group. London: BIS.Google Scholar
  35. Shelton, N., Laoire, C. N., Fielding, S., Harvey, D. C., Pelling, M., & Duke-Williams, O. (2001). Working at the coalface: Contract staff, academic initiation and the RAE. Area, 33(4), 434–439.Google Scholar
  36. Silverman, D. (2005). Doing qualitative research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  37. Society, R. (2006). Survey of factors affecting science communication: Conclusions, recommendations and actions. London: Royal Society.Google Scholar
  38. Tashakkori, A., & Creswell, J. W. (2007). Editorial: The new era of mixed methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 3–7. doi:10.1177/2345678906293042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Turney, J. (2006). Engaging science: Thoughts, deeds, analysis and action. London: Wellcome Trust.Google Scholar
  40. Wigren-Kristoferson, C., Gabrielsson, J., & Kitagawa, F. (2011). Mind the gap and bridge the gap: Research excellence and diffusion of academic knowledge in Sweden. Science and Public Policy, 38(6), 481–492. doi:10.3152/030234211X12960315267859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations