Oi, who let the PESTs into this? I thought that I was the only one who still used that term. (I nicked it from Laurence Smaje at the Wellcome Trust.)

Thanks very much for the definition of upstream. (Much better than sending people off on web goose chase.) But anything that needs that much explaining is going to lose many people who should understand what is going on.

I laughed out loud when I saw Sarah’s response. Not just me then. The fact that the term came as news to people on this list is a sign that some explanation is in order.

My own filing system suggests that the term first appeared here in 2005, but there was then a 10-year gap before this discussion got going.

Unfortunately, the OU’s definition still, leaves me baffled. (I know, that is easily done.) This sentence seems to be the heart of the matter:

“It follows that for (upstream) PEST approaches to be successful, a range of publics should be given early (in the case of emerging technoscience, this should be upstream), and then regular, routine opportunities to contribute to the governance of science.”

Is this it:

“Upstream PEST means bringing in people from all walks of life and giving them opportunities to be involved in how science operates.”

That’s just a first stab.  

I see that no one pointed us to a link on wikipedia. The only mention I can find is in the piece:

Regulation of nanotechnology:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_nanotechnology

So, let me bang on again about one of my constant refrains. Wikipedia is the first source for many people. If your organisation does not have a clear and up-to-date entry there, it is missing a trick. Likewise topics that you are involved in.

There is a Wikipedia article on “Public engagement”:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_engagement

That could use some clarification, as the page header says.

There is a separate section on PEST. Would that be better done as a pointer to a separate article?

Note, the word “upstream” does not feature on that page.

While we are talking about definitions, what is technoscience? How would I recognise it? The Wikipedia page says that it too needs improvement.

MK

Hi Rick

Below is the definition we use with postgraduates studying science communication at the OU.

upstream public engagement with science (and technology; PEST)

A concept developed in response to perceived limitations of the public understanding of science (PUS). PEST has been used in a number of different ways in recent years. It is generally understood to be based on a more sophisticated model of science communication – one that acknowledges that communication should flow in more than one direction, i.e. not just from scientists to the public, but also between various publics, stakeholders and scientists. This model, which was developed in response to detailed research studies, concedes that expertise is more distributed among different publics, and more nuanced and contingent, particularly in relation to frontier science (where complexity, uncertainty and controversy abound). It follows that for (upstream) PEST approaches to be successful, a range of publics should be given early (in the case of emerging technoscience, this should be upstream), and then regular, routine opportunities to contribute to the governance of science.

Look for this publication if you want to read further: Wilsdon, J. and Willis, R. (2004). See through science: why public engagement needs to move upstream. London, Demos.

I’d argue that ideas about upstream engagement can potentially be applied to all forms of knowledge.  The question of whether this approach should be mainstreamed is still contested. It’s a question that we’ve been grappling with alongside the other seven RCUK-funded Catalyst universities. We collected the baton from the Beacons before us and we’re soon to hand it over to universities funded by RCUK through their Catalyst Seed Fund.

Here’s an overview of where we’ve got to at the OU:

Grand, Ann; Davies, Gareth; Holliman, Richard and Adams, Anne (2015). Mapping Public Engagement with Research in a UK University. PLoS ONE, 10(4) pp. 1–19. Available from:  http://oro.open.ac.uk/43126  

Best wishes

Rick

From: Rick Hall [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 10 June 2015 10:29
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PSCI-COM] Eaxamples of upstream engagement

**********************************************************************

Commands - send an email (any subject) to [log in to unmask] with one of the following messages (ignoring text in brackets)

• set psci-com nomail (to stop receiving messages while on holiday) • set psci-com mail (to resume getting messages) • signoff psci-com (to leave the list) • Subscribe here https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=psci-com

Contact list owner at [log in to unmask] Small print and JISCMail acceptable use policy https://sites.google.com/site/pscicomjiscmail/the-small-print

**********************************************************************

-- The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391), an exempt charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in Scotland (SC 038302). The Open University is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.

**********************************************************************

Commands - send an email (any subject) to [log in to unmask] with one of the following messages (ignoring text in brackets)

• set psci-com nomail (to stop receiving messages while on holiday) • set psci-com mail (to resume getting messages) • signoff psci-com (to leave the list) • Subscribe here https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=psci-com

Contact list owner at [log in to unmask] Small print and JISCMail acceptable use policy https://sites.google.com/site/pscicomjiscmail/the-small-print

**********************************************************************