Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The reflexive scientist: an approach to transforming public engagement

Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Cite this article

Abstract

Calls for greater public engagement with science (PES) are widespread, but there appears to be little agreement on the meaning and purpose of engagement across the various actors calling for it. This reflects a persistent gulf between PES scholars and scientists communicating with the public. We argue that direct engagement between PES scholars and scientist-communicators could, by facilitating greater reflexivity, lead to a step-change in the calibre and clarity of activities that are designed to support enhanced public engagement with science and technology. In this paper, we, as authors beginning from different perspectives, explore the potential of, and barriers to, a conversation between critical social scientists and members of the science community about public engagement. We demonstrate how and why the PES literature does not “speak for itself” to scientists but provides a starting point for conversation rather than a substitute for it. We then explore what reflexivity might mean for PES and argue for three important foci: political-economic context or politics of the field; institutional context; and personal assumptions. We then discuss barriers to, as well as strategies for, fostering such reflexivity, concluding that new models of authorship and publication are needed if this promise is to be fulfilled.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. The concept of co-production has at least two different meanings. What Jasanoff has termed ‘the idiom of co-production’ refers to the ways in which natural and social orders are ‘produced together’: ‘[w]hat we know about the world is intimately linked to our sense of what we can do about it, as well as to the felt legitimacy of specific actors, instruments and courses of action’ (2004: p. 14). Research utilising this meaning of co-production looks to make explicit the generally obscured relationship between what we take to be the (given) natural world, on the one hand, and the social world of humanly created institutions and power relations, on the other. In transdisciplinary research, co-production refers to a deliberately interactive and collaborative process involving both academic (certified “expert”) and non-academic actors, with their different types of knowledge (Gibbons et al. 1994; Mobjörk 2010; Pohl et al. 2010). We are using co-production in this latter sense.

  2. The extent to which the terminology of “dialogue” and “engagement” has been embraced while various “deficit” explanations for public opposition to particular techno-scientific projects are reformulated in slightly different guise is a relevant but separate issue, which we do not explore here. See, for example, Wynne (2006).

  3. These activities are a sub-set of the full spectrum of professional and voluntary “science communication” activities that are carried out not only by scientists but also professional science media and educators.

  4. See Wynne (2014) on the lack of attention to “science” within the literature on “public understanding of science”.

  5. Related papers can be found in the Special Issue of Public Understanding of Science on “Mobilization of scientists for public engagement activities” introduced by Bauer and Jensen (2011)

  6. While these ambitious and potentially naïve goals were not realised, this project did lead—somewhat unexpectedly—to an ongoing research collaboration and the exploration of reflexivity documented in this paper.

  7. We thank an anonymous reviewer for this term

  8. N. Jeremijenko 2014, personal communication

  9. For a detailed discussion of the role of reflexivity in transdisciplinary research, see Popa et al. (2015)

  10. We interviewed these geologists as part of a project titled “Science communication and public engagement: what are we trying to achieve?”

  11. While he works part-time for a museum, looking after their collections, he does not do public engagement on behalf of the museum although he might respond to occasional geology-related enquiries from the public.

  12. This is not to say that recent developments have put an end to some golden age of independent science. As Pestre (Pestre 2003, p247) has pointed out, “for at least the last five centuries, knowledge—be it ‘pure’ or applied, elaborated in universities or in other places—has been of crucial interest to power”. Over time, there have been a number of different “regimes of knowledge production”, varying in terms of “where knowledge has been produced and with which particular interests in mind” (ibid.).

  13. The online survey received 384 responses. See http://www.scientists.org.nz/blog/2014/survey-on-the-proposed-code-of-public-engagement

  14. All comments from http://www.scientists.org.nz/blog/2014/survey-on-the-proposed-code-of-public-engagement

  15. This holds despite evidence demonstrating a positive relationship between academic achievement by scientists and their level of engagement with outreach activities (Jensen et al. 2008; Bentley and Kyvik 2011).

  16. There are no standardised definitions in this area. Here we take interdisciplinary research to mean research involving multiple academic disciplines and requiring some degree of interaction (not simply separate, parallel tracks) among them. In contrast, transdisciplinary research not only involves multiple academic disciplines, including social as well as biophysical scientists, but also non-academic collaborators, and requires communication and even integration across different types of knowledge and epistemological approaches.

  17. For examples of such activities see: http://capefarewell.com/; http://www.hkw.de/en/programm/projekte/2014/anthropozaen_curriculum/anthropozaen_curriculum_1.php; http://blogs.plos.org/citizensci/2015/01/21/propose-join-citizen-science-hackfest-project/; http://www.macdiarmid.ac.nz/event/pounamu/ [all accessed February 23, 2015]

  18. http://www.frontiersin.org/ [accessed February 23, 2015]

  19. As an example, the process of interviewing the geologists for this study, and sending them our final submitted text, triggered substantial conversations with two of them (separately) about these issues. One geologist later shared that the process had given him cause to reflect more on why he does outreach and whether there were any political motivations associated with his outreach efforts.

References

  • Abramo G, D’Angelo CA, Di Costa F (2011) National research assessment exercises: a comparison of peer review and bibliometrics rankings. Scientometrics 89:929–941

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson L (2008) Reflexivity. In: Thorpe R, Holt R (eds) The SAGE dictionary of qualitative management research. SAGE Publications Ltd., London, pp 184–186. doi:10.4135/9780857020109.n86

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson-Grosjean J (2002) Science policy and university research: Canada and the USA, 1979–1999. Int J Technol Policy Manag 2:102–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bäckstrand K (2003) Civic science for sustainability: reframing the role of experts, policy-makers and citizens in environmental governance. Glob Environ Politics 3:24–41. doi:10.1162/152638003322757916

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barakat N, Jiao H (2010) Proposed strategies for teaching ethics of nanotechnology. Nanoethics 4:221–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer MW, Jensen P (2011) The mobilization of scientists for public engagement. Public Underst Sci 20:3–11. doi:10.1177/0963662510394457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer MW, Allum N, Miller S (2007) What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Underst Sci 16:79–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentley P, Kyvik S (2011) Academic staff and public communication: a survey of popular science publishing across 13 countries. Public Underst Sci 20:48–63. doi:10.1177/0963662510384461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Besley JC, Nisbet M (2013) How scientists view the public, the media and the political process. Public Underst Sci 22(6):644–659

  • Besley JC, Oh SH, Nisbet M (2012) Predicting scientists’ participation in public life. Public Underst Sci 22(8):971–987

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birch K (2013) The political economy of technoscience: an emerging research agenda. Spontaneous Gener: J Hist Philos Sci 7:49–61. doi:10.4245/sponge.v7i1.19556

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumenthal D (2003) Academic–industrial relationships in the life sciences. N Engl J Med 349:2452–2459. doi:10.1056/NEJMhpr035460

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bracken LJ, Oughton EA (2006) “What do you mean?” The importance of language in developing interdisciplinary research. Trans Inst Br Geogr 31:371–382. doi:10.1111/j.1475-5661.2006.00218.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown MB (2009) Science in democracy: Expertise, institutions, and representation. MIT Press

  • Bruce A, Lyall C, Tait J, Williams R (2004) Interdisciplinary integration in Europe: the case of the fifth framework programme. Futures 36:457–470. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2003.10.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bucchi M, Neresini F (2002) Biotech remains unloved by the more informed. Nature 416:261–261

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cape Farewell (2009) Andes Expedition. In: Cape Farewell. http://capefarewell.com/2009.html. Accessed 1 Jun 2015

  • Corbin JD, Katz ME (2012) Effective strategies to counter campus presentations on climate denial. EOS Trans Am Geophys Union 93:252–253. doi:10.1029/2012EO270007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crettaz von Roten F (2011) Gender differences in scientists’ public outreach and engagement activities. Sci Commun 33:52–75. doi:10.1177/1075547010378658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davenport S, Bibby D (2007) Contestability and contested stability: the life and times of CSIRO’s New Zealand cousins, the crown research institutes. Innov Manag Policy Pract 9:181–191. doi:10.5172/impp.2007.9.2.181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies SR (2008) Constructing communication talking to scientists about talking to the public. Sci Commun 29:413–434

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Davies SR (2013) Constituting public engagement: meanings and genealogies of pest in two u.k. studies. Sci Commun. doi:10.1177/1075547013478203

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies B, Glasser NF (2014) Analysis of www.AntarcticGlaciers.org as a tool for online science communication. J Glaciol 60:399–406. doi:10.3189/2014JoG13J194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies S, McCallie E, Simonsson E et al (2009) Discussing dialogue: perspectives on the value of science dialogue events that do not inform policy. Public Underst Sci 18:338–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dixon J, Sharp L (2007) Collaborative research in sustainable water management: issues of interdisciplinarity. Interdiscip Sci Rev 32:221–232. doi:10.1179/030801807X183650

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunwoody S, Brossard D, Dudo A (2009) Socialization or rewards? Predicting US. Scientist-media interactions. J Mass Commun Q 86:299–314. doi:10.1177/107769900908600203

    Google Scholar 

  • Einsiedel EF, Jelsøe E, Breck T (2001) Publics at the technology table: the consensus conference in Denmark, Canada, and Australia. Public Underst Sci 10:83–98. doi:10.1088/0963-6625/10/1/306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans R, Marvin S (2006) Researching the sustainable city: three modes of interdisciplinarity. Environ Plan A 38:1009–1028. doi:10.1068/a37317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falchetti E, Caravita S, Sperduti A (2007) What do laypersons want to know from scientists? An analysis of a dialogue between scientists and laypersons on the web site Scienzaonline. Public Underst Sci 16:489–506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felt U, Fochler M (2010) Machineries for making publics: inscribing and de-scribing publics in public engagement. Minerva 48:219–238. doi:10.1007/s11024-010-9155-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher E, Mahajan RL, Mitcham C (2006) Midstream modulation of technology: governance from within. Bull Sci Technol Soc 26:485–496. doi:10.1177/0270467606295402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, et al. (1994) The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage

  • Goven J (2003) Deploying the consensus conference in New Zealand: democracy and de-problematization. Public Underst Sci 12:423–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goven J (2006a) Dialogue, governance, and biotechnology: acknowledging the context of the conversation, Integrated Assessment 6:2. http://journals.sfu.ca/int_assess/index.php/iaj/article/view/160

  • Goven J (2006b) Processes of inclusion, cultures of calculation, structures of power scientific citizenship and the royal commission on genetic modification. Sci Technol Hum Values 31:565–598. doi:10.1177/0162243906289612

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goven J (2008) Assessing genetic testing: who are the “lay experts”? Health Policy 85:1–18. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2007.06.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goven J, Pavone V (2015) The bioeconomy as political project a polanyian analysis. Sci Technol Hum Values 40:302–337. doi:10.1177/0162243914552133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gross AG (1994) The roles of rhetoric in the public understanding of science. Public Underst Sci 3:3–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta N, Hamilton K, Chamot J (2013) Conveying cutting-edge discoveries to nonscientists: effective communication with media. JOM 65:835–839. doi:10.1007/s11837-013-0617-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagendijk RP (2004) The public understanding of science and public participation in regulated worlds. Minerva 42:41–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halliwell J, Smith W (2011) Paradox and potential: trends in science policy and practice in Canada and New Zealand. Prometheus 29:373–391. doi:10.1080/08109028.2011.641385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haywood BK, Besley JC (2014) Education, outreach, and inclusive engagement: towards integrated indicators of successful program outcomes in participatory science. Public Underst Sci 23:92–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoover E, Brown P, Averick M et al (2009) Teaching small and thinking large: effects of including social and ethical implications in an interdisciplinary nanotechnology course. J Nano Ed (Print) 1:86

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • House of Lords (2000) Science and society. 3rd Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. The Stationery Office, Parliament, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Huffman LT, Levy R, Lacy L et al (2008) ANDRILL’s education and outreach programme 2005–2008: MIS and SMS project activities during the 4th IPY. Terra Antarct 15:221–235

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwin A (2001) Constructing the scientific citizen: science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Underst Sci 10:1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irwin A (2014) From deficit to democracy (re-visited). Public Underst Sci 23:71–76. doi:10.1177/0963662513510646

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irwin A, Wynne B (1996) Misunderstanding science?: The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge University Press

  • Jahn T, Bergmann M, Keil F (2012) Transdisciplinarity: between mainstreaming and marginalization. Ecol Econ 79:1–10. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.04.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff S (2003) Technologies of humility: citizen participation in governing science. Minerva 41:223–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff S (2004) Ordering knowledge, ordering society. In: Jasanoff S (ed) States of knowledge: the co-production of science and social order. Routledge, London and New York, pp 13–45

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff S (2014) A mirror for science. Public Underst Sci 23:21–26. doi:10.1177/0963662513505509

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff S, Kim S-H (2009) Containing the atom: sociotechnical imaginaries and nuclear power in the United States and South Korea. Minerva 47:119–146. doi:10.1007/s11024-009-9124-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen P (2011) A statistical picture of popularization activities and their evolutions in France. Public Underst Sci 20:26–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen E, Buckley N (2012) Why people attend science festivals: interests, motivations and self-reported benefits of public engagement with research. Publ Underst Sci

  • Jensen P, Rouquier J-B, Kreimer P, Croissant Y (2008) Scientists who engage with society perform better academically. Sci Public Policy 35:527–541

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher P (2011) Science in a democratic society. Poznan Stud Philos Sci Human 101:95–112

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleinman DL (2003) Impure cultures: university biology and the world of commerce. Univ of Wisconsin Press

  • Kreimer P, Levin L, Jensen P (2011) Popularization by Argentine researchers: the activities and motivations of CONICET scientists. Public Underst Sci 20:37–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuntz M (2012) The postmodern assault on science. EMBO Rep 13:885–889. doi:10.1038/embor.2012.130

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lane SN (2013) Acting, predicting and intervening in a socio-hydrological world. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci Discuss 10:C6079–C6083. http://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci-discuss.net/10/C6079/2013/

  • Lave R, Mirowski P, Randalls S (2010) Introduction: STS and neoliberal science. Soc Stud Sci 40(5):659–675

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehr JL, McCallie E, Davies SR et al (2007) The value of “dialogue events” as sites of learning: an exploration of research and evaluation frameworks. Int J Sci Educ 29:1467–1487. doi:10.1080/09500690701494092

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leshner AI (2007) Editorial: outreach training needed. Science 315:161

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lezaun J, Soneryd L (2007) Consulting citizens: technologies of elicitation and the mobility of publics. Public Underst Sci 16:279–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin S-J (2013) Perceived impact of a documentary film: an investigation of the first-person effect and its implications for environmental issues. Sci Commun 35:708–733. doi:10.1177/1075547013478204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowe P, Phillipson J, Wilkinson K (2013) Why social scientists should engage with natural scientists. Contemp Soc Sci 8:1–16. doi:10.1080/21582041.2013.769617

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayhew MA, Hall MK (2012) Science communication in a café scientifique for high school teens. Sci Commun 34:546–554. doi:10.1177/1075547012444790

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe JA, Kristin, Shore, J (2012) National audit of Australian science engagement activities

  • Michael M (2009) Publics performing publics: of PiGs, PiPs and politics. Public Underst Sci 18:617–631. doi:10.1177/0963662508098581

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mirowski P (2011) Science-mart. Harvard University Press

  • Mobjörk M (2010) Consulting versus participatory transdisciplinarity: a refined classification of transdisciplinary research. Futures 42:866–873. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2010.03.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moed HF (2008) UK Research assessment exercises: informed judgments on research quality or quantity? Scientometrics 74:153–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore GT (2003) Recommendations for the parity of creative, artistic, design and professional work with traditional forms of research and scholarship; in C. Newton (Ed.), Design + Research: Project Based Research in Architecture (Melbourne) Available at:http://sydney.edu.au/architecture/documents/staff/garymoore/113.pdf [retrieved February 22, 2015]

  • National Science Panel (2013) A challenge for New Zealand’s leadership - the “Science and Society” challenge. Report of the national science challenges panel. 33–35

  • Neresini F, Bucchi M (2010) Which indicators for the new public engagement activities? An exploratory study of European research institutions. Public Understanding of Science 0963662510388363

  • Northcott D, Linacre S (2010) Producing spaces for academic discourse: the impact of research assessment exercises and journal quality rankings. Aust Account Rev 20:38–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowotny H (2000) Transgressive competence: the narrative of expertise. Eur J Soc Theory 3:5–21. doi:10.1177/136843100003001001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowotny H (2014) Engaging with the political imaginaries of science: Near misses and future targets. Public Underst Sci 23:16–20. doi:10.1177/0963662513476220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oreskes N, Conway EM (2010) Merchants of doubt: how a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. Bloomsbury Publishing

  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2007) New-Zealand. OECD reviews of innovation policy, Paris

  • Osborne J, Dillon J (2007) Research on learning in informal contexts: advancing the field? Int J Sci Educ 29:1441–1445. doi:10.1080/09500690701491122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pestre D (2003) Regimes of knowledge production in society: towards a more political and social reading. Minerva 41:245–261. doi:10.1023/A:1025553311412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petts J, Owens S, Bulkeley H (2008) Crossing boundaries: interdisciplinarity in the context of urban environments. Geoforum 39:593–601. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2006.02.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pohl C, Rist S, Zimmermann A et al (2010) Researchers’ roles in knowledge co-production: experience from sustainability research in Kenya, Switzerland, Bolivia and Nepal. Sci Public Policy 37:267–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poliakoff E, Webb TL (2007) What factors predict scientists’ intentions to participate in public engagement of science activities? Sci Commun 29:242–263. doi:10.1177/1075547007308009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popa F, Guillermin M, Dedeurwaerdere T (2015) A pragmatist approach to transdisciplinarity in sustainability research: from complex systems theory to reflexive science. Futures 65:45–56. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2014.02.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell M, Colin M, Lee Kleinman D et al (2011) Imagining ordinary citizens? Conceptualized and actual participants for deliberations on emerging technologies. Sci Cult 20:37–70. doi:10.1080/09505430903567741

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Priestley R (2006) Ernest Marsden’s nuclear New Zealand: from nuclear reactors to nuclear disarmament. 139: 23–38

  • Priestley RK (2010) Nuclear New Zealand: New Zealand’s nuclear and radiation history to 1987; Ph.D., University of Canterbury, 2010

  • Priestley R (2012) Mad on Radium: New Zealand in the atomic age. Auckland University Press, Auckland

  • Reddy CM (2010) Dude, you are speaking romulan. EOS Trans Am Geophys Union 91:384–384. doi:10.1029/2010EO420005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robbins PT (2007) The reflexive engineer: perceptions of integrated development. J Int Dev 19:99–110. doi:10.1002/jid.1351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler TD, Amirshokoohi A, Kazempour M, Allspaw KM (2006) Socioscience and ethics in science classrooms: teacher perspectives and strategies. J Res Sci Teach 43:353–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salmon RA (2013a) Is climate science gendered? A reflection by a female “climate scientist.”. Womens Stud J 27:49–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmon RA (2013b) New Zealand ICEFEST 2012 science & education programme summary and evaluation, report prepared for Christchurch city council

  • Salmon RA, Priestley RK (2015) A future for public engagement with science in New Zealand. J R Soc N Z 45: 2: 1–7. doi:10.1080/03036758.2015.1023320

  • Salmon RA, Carlson DJ, Zicus S et al (2011) Education, outreach and communication during the International polar year 2007–2008: stimulating a global polar community. Polar J 1:265–285. doi:10.1080/2154896X.2011.626629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Science Media Savvy. Available at: <http://www.sciencemediacentre.co.nz/media-savvy-workshops/>. [Accessed 23 February 2015]

  • Sievanen L, Campbell LM, Leslie HM (2012) Challenges to interdisciplinary research in ecosystem-based management. Conserv Biol 26:315–323. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01808.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stilgoe J, Lock SJ, Wilsdon J (2014) Why should we promote public engagement with science? Public Underst Sci 23:4–15. doi:10.1177/0963662513518154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sturgis P (2014) On the limits of public engagement for the governance of emerging technologies. Public Underst Sci 23:38–42. doi:10.1177/0963662512468657

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Royal Society (2006) Survey of factors affecting science communication by scientists and engineers. Available at: https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2006/1111111395.pdf [retrieved February 22, 2015]

  • Thorpe C, Gregory J (2010) Producing the post-Fordist public: the political economy of public engagement with science. Sci Cult 19:273–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torres-Albero C, Fernández-Esquinas M, Rey-Rocha J, Martín-Sempere MJ (2011) Dissemination practices in the Spanish research system: scientists trapped in a golden cage. Public Underst Sci 20:12–25. doi:10.1177/0963662510382361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyfield D (2012) A cultural political economy of research and innovation in an age of crisis. Minerva 50:149–167. doi:10.1007/s11024-012-9201-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varner J (2014) Scientific outreach: toward effective public engagement with biological science. Bioscience 64:333–340. doi:10.1093/biosci/biu021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weigold MF (2001) Communicating science a review of the literature. Sci Commun 23:164–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson C, Bultitude K, Dawson E (2011) “Oh yes, robots! People like robots; the robot people should do something”: perspectives and prospects in public engagement with robotics. Sci Commun 33:367–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winner L (2010) The whale and the reactor: A search for limits in an age of high technology. University of Chicago Press

  • Winstanley AH, Maria (2012) Research into the views and preferences of scientists and their employers towards non-peer communication. Research provided for the Ministry for Science and Innovation

  • Wynne B (1993) Public uptake of science: a case for institutional reflexivity. Public Underst Sci 2:321–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wynne B (2006) Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science—hitting the notes, but missing the music? Public Health Genom 9:211–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wynne B (2014) Further disorientation in the hall of mirrors. Public Underst Sci 23:60–70. doi:10.1177/0963662513505397

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the Faculty of Science, Victoria University of Wellington, for funding support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Science in Society group, Faculty of Science, Victoria University of Wellington, PO Box 600, Wellington, 6140, New Zealand

    Rhian A. Salmon & Rebecca K. Priestley

  2. Kukupa Research Ltd, Pigeon Bay, 7583, New Zealand

    Joanna Goven

Authors
  1. Rhian A. Salmon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rebecca K. Priestley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joanna Goven
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rhian A. Salmon.

Additional information

Comments

This paper is for the special issue on “Public Engagement for Environmental Sustainability in a Technological Age” edited by Priya Kurian and Debashish Munshi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Salmon, R.A., Priestley, R.K. & Goven, J. The reflexive scientist: an approach to transforming public engagement. J Environ Stud Sci 7, 53–68 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-015-0274-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-015-0274-4

Keywords

search

Navigation