At PSP, like Roland and Mike, we come from the “terminology
matters” camp.
In a guide commissioned by the
Research Councils back in 2001 we described a route from monologue to dialogue
and the part that different motivations for communicating science can play in
choosing communication mechanisms. “Dialogue with the public: Practical
guidelines” is still available from the RCUK website and while some of
the detail is now dated, (there have been two more surveys of public attitudes
since then) some of the arguments still seem to be current.
Best wishes
Mark
Mark Dyball
Director
People Science & Policy Ltd
Argyle House,
Kings Cross
NW1 2SD
Direct line: (0)20 3102
8135
Mobile 07961 149 559
www.peoplescienceandpolicy.com
Company registration no. 3891609
This
email and any attachments are confidential and may be the subject of legal
privilege. Any use, copying or disclosure other than by the intended
recipient is unauthorised. If you have received this message in error,
please notify the sender immediately and delete this message and any copies
from your computer and network.
We have
taken precautions to minimise the risk of transmitting software viruses but we
advise that you carry out your own virus checks on any attachments to this
message. We cannot accept liability for any loss or damage caused by software
viruses.
From: psci-com: on
public engagement with science [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dominic McDonald
Sent: 22 February 2010 09:16
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PSCI-COM] Does PEST
supplant or subsume PUS?
HI
all
This
is a really interesting debate. I like what Roland and his team have done in
their report, identifying different ways in which people frame the concept of
"engagement" in order to meet different objectives. I am also
reminded of Brian Trench's work from a few years ago which talks about
different "stances" for science engagement: Deference, Dialogue,
Deficit and Defence. It's a similar idea but sliced up in a different way.
Jamie's
comment about PUS and PEST co-exisiting is quite right (which is lucky, 'cos he
works here...). At Science Oxford we do quite a lot of straight PUS-style talks
with Q&A (2-3 a month): I'm fine with that because a talk with Q&A is a
good way for us to "engage" our core audience, who are quite
well-educated, used to listening attentively for longish periods of time, and
so who respond well to that sort of context (they pay to come, so they must
like it to some extent). Also, because our audiences are rather small (50-60
people) we can have a meaningful Q&A where a significant proportion of the
audience gets to have their say. However, we also mix up our programme with
other methodologies. We do "Meet the Scientist" style events which
are much more dialogic in nature, and "Science in the News", which is
almost totally dialogic (and doesn't need an "expert" at all). At the
other extreme, we do very pedagogic events called "Science ABC" which
are pure deficit model: people come to be "educated", and we do our
best to achieve that in the most effective and fun way we can (which does, of
course, mean that we include discussion and interaction alongside
chalk-and-talk).
So,
in a very unhelpful way, I reckon it's horses for courses, and I suppose where
I disagree with Roland is that I don't think that the terminology question is
terribly important. I recognise that that's probably a classic
"coalface" perspective, however, and it is probably true that what we
call ourselves-and-what-we-do is important in our communications with policy
makers, who get rather hung up on this sort of thing. But would PUS by any
other name smell as sweet...?
Dom
Dom McDonald
Head of
Public Engagement & Business Networks
Science
T: 01865
728953
D: 01865
810021
F: 01865
791854
www.scienceoxfordlive.com
SCIENCEOXFORDLIVE
SCIENCEOXFORDNETWORKS
SCIENCEOXFORDNEXT
SCIENCEOXFORDONLINE
This e-mail and
any attachments are confidential and may contain personal views which are not
the views of Science Oxford unless specifically stated. If you have received it
in error, please notify the sender immediately and then delete it from your
system.
Science Oxford
is the public face of The Oxford Trust, a registered charity no 292664. A
company limited by guarantee no 1898691
From: psci-com: on
public engagement with science [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Sent: 22 February 2010 08:51
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PSCI-COM] Does PEST
supplant or subsume PUS?
I
can't imagine Mike toadying to anyone, and this thread shows how live this
question of terminology still is. And, as Mike says, it does
Those
who have read the Science for All report may notice that although we have used
the word 'engagement' liberally (indeed, it was in our terms of reference,
twice) we have not actually defined it, except by implication through myriad
examples. What I hope we have done is to make explicit many of the different
purposes and forms of 'engagement'. In doing so, we have been careful not
to make value judgements about this being better than that; it's a question of
what's most appropriate given the objective and context.
For
the mapping work we generated a working description of different
forms of engagement (summarised on p30 of the main report), and a
complementary set is explored in Paul Benneworth's accompanying paper. In her
own accompanying paper, Lindsey Colbourne points out that there are several
different forms of engagement and suggests that consensus needs to be sought on
a common set of descriptors(see pp6-8 of Lindsey's paper). As we discovered in
the final stages of producing the report, different organisations are quite
wedded to their own definitions, because of course they've thought about it
carefully in their own context. We did in fact have a narrative section in the
draft main report about forms of engagement but had to take it out at the
last minute because we couldn't reach sufficient agreement in time.
Perhaps
people could look at the descriptors in our report, identify strengths and
weaknesses in them, and suggest improvements. Whether we can come to a common
set of definitions is an interesting question.
Roland
From: psci-com:
on public engagement with science [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Michael Kenward
Sent: 20 February 2010 15:10
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PSCI-COM] Does PEST
supplant or subsume PUS?
I wasn't saying that
PUS doesn't happen, just that nobody calls it that any more, and hasn’t
done so for years.
This is partly
because the people who throw money into the activity bought the pitch and offer
money for “engagement” activities. So the applicants naturally fall
into line.
Roland will think
that I am toadying up to him, but look no further than his group’s report
Science For All – the “Report and action plan from the science for
all expert group” – to see how the “E” word has
infiltrated thinking. The “U” word appears mostly in the context of
understanding engagement.
I am sure that you
are right in saying that old style preaching stills goes on, but the priests
are too ashamed to admit that this is what they do.
Actually, I know
that the old stuff goes on. I referee grant applications for one of the
Research Councils, and see bids for “understanding” money.
MK
PS Anyone who has
not read the
Start here:
or
DO NOT USE THE
DOWNLOAD BUTTON AT THE TOP. It takes you off to fill in a form.
Go instead to the
link:
Science for All –
Final Report and Action Plan
or
From: psci-com: on
public engagement with science [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jamie Condliffe
Sent: 20 February 2010 09:32
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PSCI-COM] Does PEST
supplant or subsume PUS?
Mark,
I think it's a little naïve to suggest that PUS gave
over to
Also, it's worth questioning whether so-called
engagement events succeed in their aims. PEST was based around a desire for
dialogue, but, in truth, many of the events that may claim to live up to the
PEST title are little more than a talk with a Q&A session tagged on to the
end. That's not true dialogue.
Please don't think I'm suggesting that engagement
events don't happen, and don't happen well, because they do. I just think that
it's dangerous to assume that
Cheers,
Jamie
On 19 February 2010 21:49, Michael Kenward <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Consumers, punters, customers, victims?
Those "scare quotes" are there for a purpose.
Of course, there are always people who will, by accident or design,
misunderstand or misinterpret anything.
Let's hear a simple alternative to describe the recipients of PESTilence,
something that might engage folks without descending into academic jargon.
PUS gave over to
ever use the term now outside of academic journals? Outside the academic
literature, which is always slow to respond, I haven't seen PUS for a long
long time.
Even in the early days, back in the 1980s, when COPUS was a shiny new
committee in the wake of the Bodmer report, there were always concerns about
the PUS term, partly because it missed out the T bit. I failed to get much
interest in PUSET.
I think the first person to use the
of the Wellcome Trust. I then started using it widely in places like this
because the acronym appealed to me and because it had the essential T bit.
The idea behind the change was that "understanding" carries a very
different
message from "engagement".
"If only they understood us..." People who write papers on this stuff
in
journals like Public Understanding of Science call it, as you say, the
"deficit model".
You may consider it a cynical rebranding. I see it otherwise. Words
Engagement smacks more of a two-way process. You have to do more than
explain science to engage people.
Engagement can also happily encompass understanding. After all, if people
don't understand what you are saying they aren't likely to become engaged.
But understanding on its own does not engage.
MK
-----Original Message-----
From: psci-com: on public engagement with science
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Chris Stokes
Sent: 19 February 2010 15:24
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PSCI-COM] Does PEST supplant or subsume PUS?
I've been impressed by the gradual move from PUS to
years. But a bit wary at the same time. For me, the name change implies a
change in the perspective of SET communication. It nicely fits with what a
recent (not yet published - OnlineFirst) paper for the Public Understanding
of Science journal refers to as the 'dialogic turn'. For the incorrigible
cynic, though, it's just an empty rebranding - an effort to wash off the
stink of the deficit model with which the critics lambasted PUS back in the
80s without taking any of the criticism on board.
I don't mean to pick on Mike, but his referring to 'consumers' - even with
the scare quotes - sounds a bit off-message in the brave new world of
Or have I been misreading the name change? Is
tent within which there's room for good old-fashioned PUS, or some of it at
least - alongside other new dialogic things? I imagine, for example, that
there may be plenty of SET communicators who happily do PUS for school
children just as it was being done 20-plus years ago, because school
children are, by definition, learning, are _understanding_ and are _not_
voting.
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: psci-com: on public engagement with science
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Michael Kenward
Sent: 19 February 2010 12:58
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PSCI-COM] Joined-up working and information sharing
Absolutely, especially this bit:
"The first step is surely to have information sharing and joined-up
working
between activities of a common type or purpose, and a number of our actions
and recommendations are aimed at that (e.g. in the training and development
arena)."
One of my beefs has been the duplication that goes on. In the past too many
engineering bodies, for example, have run similar schemes aimed at schools.
Fortunately, I sense that there is progress on that front.
On gaps, one point worth pondering is the needs of the "consumers".
If PESTs here don't know about everything that goes on in their area -
which, as Roland's report points out, is not easy - what hope is there for
the over worked school teacher? Where do they begin?
MK
**********************************************************************
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]
**********************************************************************
**********************************************************************
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]
**********************************************************************
--
4 Meadow View,
Home: 01865 512200
Twitter: jme_c
**********************************************************************
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]
**********************************************************************
**********************************************************************
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]
**********************************************************************
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System on behalf
of
the British Science Association (http://www.britishscienceassociation.org)
______________________________________________________________________
**********************************************************************
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]
**********************************************************************