Public Engagement Measurement

Living reference work entry

Latest version View entry history

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9553-1_600-2

Synonyms

Definition

Here we use the term public engagement to refer to the actions undertaken by scientists and scientific institutions to communicate their research and interact with a wide range of publics outside the university or science sector.

Public engagement (PE) activities can include giving public lectures, public conferences or talks at schools, participating in open days or science cafés, giving interviews for the media, using Web platforms such as blogs or social media, and collaborating with nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), to name a few. There are many players involved in these activities: scientific institutions, governments, NGOs, private sector companies, scientists, etc.

Background

Science communication models have conceptualized the ways in which publics interact with science, as well as the diverse types of public engagement activities they may involve. The deficit model, which is based on the premise that the more the...

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

References

  1. Burchell, K., S. Franklin, and K. Holden. 2009. Public culture as professional science: Final report of the SCoPE project. Scientists on public engagement: From communication to deliberation. London: LSE.Google Scholar
  2. Entradas, M., and M.W. Bauer. 2016. Mobilisation for public engagement: Benchmarking the practices of research institutes. Public Understanding of Science 26 (7): 771–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Entradas, M., and M.W. Bauer. 2018. Kommunikationsfunktionen im Mehrebenensystem Hochschule. In Forschungsfeld Hochschulkommunikation, ed. M.S. Schäfer et al. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Irwin, A. 2008. Moving forwards or in circles? Science communication and scientific governance in an age of innovation. In Investigating science communication in the information age: Implications for public engagement and popular media, ed. Richard Holliman et al., 3–17. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Irwin, A., and B. Wynne. 1996. Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Jensen, P., and O. Croissant. 2007. CNRS researchers’ popularization activities: A progress report. Journal of Science Communication 6(3). Retrieved from http://jcom.sissa.it/.
  7. Jensen, E., and R. Holliman. 2011. Investigating science communication to inform science outreach and public engagement. In Investigating science communication in the information age: Implications for public engagement and popular media, ed. Richard Holliman et al., 55–71. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Kallfass, M. 2008. Public Relations von Wissenschaftseinrichtungen – explorative Studie in Deutschland, Frankreich und Großbritannien. In Medienorientierung biomedizinischer Forscher im internationalen Vergleich: die Schnittstelle von Wissenschaft & Journalismus und ihre politische Relevanz, ed. H.P. Peters, vol. 18, 101–175. Jülich: Forschungszentrum Jülich.Google Scholar
  9. Marcinkowski, F., and M. Kohring. 2014. Public communication from research institutes: Is it science communication or public relations? The changing rationale of science communication: A challenge to scientific autonomy. Journal of Science Communication 13 (3): 1–8.Google Scholar
  10. Neresini, F., and M. Bucchi. 2011. Which indicators for the new public engagement activities? An exploratory study of European research institutions. Public Understanding of Science 20 (1): 64–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Peters, H.P. 2012. Scientific sources and the mass media. Forms and consequences of medialization. In The sciences’ media connection – Public communication and repercussions, ed. S. Rödder, M. Franzen, and P. Weingart, vol. 28, 217–239. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Peters, H.P., et al. 2008. Interactions with the mass media. Science 321 (5886): 204–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Poliakoff, E., and T. Webb. 2007. What factors predicts scientists’ intention to participate in public engagement of science activities? Science Communication 29: 242–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Royal Society. 2006. Science communication. Survey of factors affecting science communication by scientists and engineers. London: Royal Society.Google Scholar
  15. Sturgis, P., J. Williams, I. Brunton-Smith, and J. Moore. 2017. Fieldwork effort, response rate, and the distribution of survey outcomes: A multilevel meta-analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly 81 (2): 523–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Wellcome Trust. 2001. The role of scientists in public debate. London: Wellcome Trust.Google Scholar
  17. Wellcome Trust. 2015. Factors affecting public engagement by researchers: A study on behalf of a Consortium of UK public research funders. London: Wellcome Trust.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of LausanneLausanneSwitzerland
  2. 2.London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE)LondonUK

Section editors and affiliations

  • Gaële Goastellec
    • 1
  1. 1.OSPS, LACCUSUniversity of LausanneLausanneSwitzerland