Experimenting with distributed approaches – case study: a ‘national-level’ distributed dialogue on bioenergy in the United Kingdom

An emerging thread in the public participation debate is the need for innovative and more experimental forms of dialogue to address weaknesses of previous structured deliberative methods. This research note discusses an experiment with a distributed approach to dialogue, which used bioenergy as a case study. We discuss the potential of the model to attract a variety of publics and views and to inform policy. This is done with a view to refining future dialogues and increasing the involvement of scientists and other practitioners at the science-policy interface.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

What is the public's role in ‘space’ policymaking? Images of the public by practitioners of ‘space’ communication in the United Kingdom

Studies on experts’ understanding of the public have mainly focused on the views of scientists. We add to the literature on constructions of the public by analyzing the views of decision-makers, professional science communicators and scientists involved in ‘space’ communication on the public and public participation in policy. Findings show that contextual situations and roles determine the way the public is conceptualised: the public is sophisticated and knowledgeable to participate in space activities/citizen science, but in matters of policy, a gullible image of the public is brought up. Despite the democratic talk on participation, practitioners delimited public involvement in policy in some way or other to protect their own power and decision-making capabilities. This conception of the public competes with the stated aims of scientific and political institutions for public engagement and the substantive value of public participation, leaving a limited role for the public in space policymaking.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

In science we trust: The effects of information sources on COVID-19 risk perceptions

The goal of this study was to investigate the effects of sources of information on COVID-19 risk perceptions. Using data from a representative sample of the Portuguese population (N = 1,411) collected early in the pandemic, we find that while media sources were more frequently used, scientific sources played a more important role on perceived personal and societal-level risks; higher trust in scientific sources associated with increased risk perceptions (i.e., amplified perceived risk), trust in social media associated with dismissing personal threat (i.e., attenuated perceived risk). These findings suggest that people’s relations with science were determinant factors in risk perceptions, and dimensions that measure these deserve further investigation.info:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersio

Mobilisation for public engagement: benchmarking the practices of research institutes

Studies on scientists’ practices of public engagement have pointed to variations between disciplines. If variations at the individual level are reflected at the institutional level, then research institutes in Social Sciences (and Humanities) should perform higher in public engagement and be more involved in dialogue with the public. Using a nearly complete sample of research institutes in Portugal 2014 (n = 234, 61% response rate), we investigate how public engagement varies in intensity, type of activities and target audiences across scientific areas. Three benchmark findings emerge. First, the Social Sciences and the Humanities profile differently in public engagement highlighting the importance of distinguishing between these two scientific areas often conflated in public engagement studies. Second, the Social Sciences overall perform more public engagement activities, but the Natural Sciences mobilise more effort for public engagement. Third, while the Social Sciences play a greater role in civic public engagement, the Natural Sciences are more likely to perform educational activities. Finally, this study shows that the overall size of research institutes, available public engagement funding and public engagement staffing make a difference in institutes’ public engagement

Returns of research funding are maximised in media visibility for excellent institutes

This paper investigates public communication activity across research institutes with varying levels of excellence in research, and how competitive funding affects this activity. With competing funding trends requiring plans for public engagement in the funded research, a question arising is whether institutes capturing higher amounts of funding return the most value for public communication. Using international data from N = 1550 institutes in six countries, we first compare public communication activity among excellent and less-than-excellent institutes. We then investigate the relationship between competitive funding and public communication across levels of excellence. We find that the returns of funding are maximised in media interactions in excellent institutes when compared to the less excellent, but not in public events. This suggests that returns of research funding may not result in the expected outcomes for increased ‘public engagement in science’ if institutions are guided by instrumental goals

The late bloom of (modern) science communication

This chapter describes the emergence of modern science communication in Portugal. The chapter is organised in parts. Part 2 sets the context in which science communication activities emerged and flourished in the country during the mid-1990s, anchored by a top-down government policy. This story is an historical account of the social and political factors leading up to this important episode. Whenever possible, we situate national moves within academic and policy debates on the public understanding of science, which may have influenced them. Part 3 maps the main events, activities, group initiatives and moments in science communication since then and describes the emergence of a community of practitioners, and opportunities in the professionalisation of the field. Part 4, we consider the late blooming and rapid developments of today, and the overall impact of the top-down approach on the development of modern science communication.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Synthesis of sub-5 nm Co-doped SnO2_2 nanoparticles and their structural, microstructural, optical and photocatalytic properties

A swift chemical route to synthesize Co-doped SnO$_2$ nanopowders is described. Pure and highly stable Sn$_{1-x}$Co$_x$O$_{2-\delta}$ (0 $\le$ x $\le$ 0.15) crystalline nanoparticles were synthesized, with mean grain sizes < 5 nm and the dopant element homogeneously distributed in substitutional sites of the SnO$_2$ matrix. The UV-visible diffuse reflectance spectra of the Sn$_{1-x}$Co$_x$O$_{2-\delta}$ samples reveal red shifts, the optical bandgap energies decreasing with increasing Co concentration. The Urbach energies of the samples were calculated and correlated with their bandgap energies. The photocatalytic activity of the Sn$_{1-x}$Co$_x$O$_{2-\delta}$ samples was investigated for the 4-hydroxylbenzoic acid (4-HBA) degradation process. A complete photodegradation of a 10 ppm 4-HBA solution was achieved using 0.02% (w/w) of Sn$_{0.95}$Co$_{0.05}$O$_{2-\delta}$ nanoparticles in 60 min of irradiation.Comment: 29 pages, 2 tables, 10 figure

Public communication by climate scientists: what, with whom and why?

Public communication of science has increasingly been recognised as a responsibility of scientists (Leshner, Science p. 977, 2003). Climate scientists are often reminded of their responsibility to participate in the public climate debate and to engage the public in meaningful conversations that contribute to policy-making (Fischhoff 2013). However, our understanding about climate scientists’ interactions with the public and the factors that drive or inhibit them is at best limited. In a new study, we show that it is the most published and not necessarily the most senior, which often talk in public, and it is primarily intrinsic motivation (as opposed to extrinsic reward), which drive them to engage in public communication. Political orientations, academic productivity and awareness of controversy, the topic raises in the public domain, were also important determinants of a climate’s scientist public activity. Future research should explore what is required to protect the intrinsic motivation of scientists.info:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersio

Telling stories in science communication: case studies of scholar-practitioner collaboration

Reflecting on the practice of storytelling, this practice insight explores how collaborations between scholars and practitioners can improve storytelling for science communication outcomes with publics. The case studies presented demonstrate the benefits of collaborative storytelling for inspiring publics, promoting understanding of science, and engaging publics more deliberatively in science. The projects show how collaboration between scholars and practitioners [in storytelling] can happen across a continuum of scholarship from evaluation and action research to more critical thinking perspectives. They also show how stories of possible futures and community efficacy can support greater engagement of publics in evidence-informed policymaking. Storytelling in collaborations between scholars and practitioners involves many activities: combining cultural and scientific understandings; making publics central to storytelling; equipping scientists to tell their own stories directly to publics; co-creating stories; and retelling collaborative success stories. Collaborative storytelling, as demonstrated in these case studies, may improve the efficacy of science communication practice as well as its scholarship.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Perceptions of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the work of science journalists: global perspectives

The article presents the results of a survey of science journalists from six world regions about their work during the COVID-19 pandemic. The responses show perception of increasing workload for most participants. Local scientists and peer-reviewed articles are the main sources. According to the respondents, scientists have become more available during the pandemic. The use of preprint articles was a frequent practice, but a considerable proportion declared they did not adopt different procedures when reporting them. Most also said they take fake news into account when writing their stories.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio