> David Ansell:
>
>I have just been studying my own subconcious prejudice against of the word
> engagement, and I think it is because it has been hijacked (in my mind at
> least) by the present overwhelming fashion for dialog.
>
> Isn't engagement of the public the endpoint which everyone is trying to
> achieve - interested thoughtful, rational, inquisitive, slightly skeptical
> (engaged) people with an understanding of the science and the issues and
> actively learning and applying more science.
In answer to the question here, No! That sounds like an exclusively one-way interpretation of engagement ultimately seeking public accommodation to a sovereign science. I'm much happier with definitions that include dialogue, no matter how trendy "dialogue" may seem. Scientism is thankfully losing its once trendy allure, though not as fast as it might.
I was impressed with how far the definition offered in the Science for All report went towards incorporating dialogue:
'Our vision is of all sections of society valuing the sciences and their methods as creative and empowering ways to ask questions, offer solutions and contribute to our understanding and improvement of the world in which we liveIn practice, this means:
- those involved in the sciences listen to, engage with, and are informed by knowledge and views from the public, leading to increased learning and mutual respect between scientists, the wider society and policy makers
- the science communities are accessible and visible, and there is informed and open communication and debate about the findings, practices, directions and implications of science[.]'
(I was less impressed with the rather strange lumpings and splittings in the report's 'word on definitions', parts of which Lesley has just re-iterated. I'm especially bothered by the use of the word 'science' to include engineering (and apparently with Royal Academy of Engineering approval!). Even if this is excused as a shorthand that saves paper and ink, I'm irked by the way it effectively renders engineering less visible than science per se. And I don't think I even understand the distinction the report makes between science 'researchers' and science 'practitioners' (unless this aligns roughly with the distinction between science as it is usually understood on the one hand (hence SfA-speak: 'researchers'?) and the more practical disciplines of engineering and medicine on the other (hence SfA-speak: 'practitioners'?). Very very confusing, I must say, and right up there on the second substantive page of the report.)
Chris
**********************************************************************
1. To suspend yourself from the list, whilst on leave, for example,
send an email to mailto:[log in to unmask] with the following message:
set psci-com nomail -- [include hyphens]
2. To resume email from the list, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the message:
set psci-com mail -- [include hyphens]
3. To leave psci-com, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the message:
leave psci-com -- [include hyphens]
4. Further information about the psci-com discussion list, including list archive, can be found at the list web site: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/psci-com.html
5. The psci-com gateway to internet resources on science communication and science and society can be found at http://psci-com.ac.uk
6. To contact the Psci-com list owner, please send an email to mailto:[log in to unmask]
**********************************************************************
|