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 matter.
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 Jackson
report yet should do so. Unfortunately, BIS has made a pig’s ear of the
place where you can get the thing.
Start here:
http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/all/2010/02/09/science-for-all-report-and-supporting-documents/
or
http://bit.ly/aXzXoY
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
http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/all/files/2010/02/Science-for-All-Final-Report-WEB.pdf
or
http://bit.ly/cbKqbs
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 PEST five or more
years ago. While there certainly has been a huge increase in engagement-style
events, I think it's a push to say that they've entirely overshadowed the more
traditional, pedagogic type. Last time I
checked, science centres were still running traditional lectures
and talks along side these other 'engagement' events.
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
PEST has somehow magically replaced PUS; far better to see them as two
different methodologies that can happily co-exist together. Better still to try
and forget about such acronyms and do something that the the public(s) want...
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 PEST at least five years ago, probably longer. Does anyone
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 PEST term privately was Laurence Smaje
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 matter.
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
Subject:
[PSCI-COM] Does PEST supplant or subsume PUS?
I've been impressed by the gradual move from PUS to PEST over the last few
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 PEST.
Or have I been misreading the name change? Is PEST, perhaps, just a bigger
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, Water Eaton Road, Oxford, OX2 7QS
Somerville College, Oxford, OX2 6HD
Mobile: 07949 282524
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]
**********************************************************************