IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0269949.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public engagement: Faculty lived experiences and perspectives underscore barriers and a changing culture in academia

Author

Listed:
  • Mikhaila N Calice
  • Becca Beets
  • Luye Bao
  • Dietram A Scheufele
  • Isabelle Freiling
  • Dominique Brossard
  • Noah Weeth Feinstein
  • Laura Heisler
  • Travis Tangen
  • Jo Handelsman

Abstract

The idea of faculty engaging in meaningful dialogue with different publics instead of simply communicating their research to interested audiences has gradually morphed from a novel concept to a mainstay within most parts of the academy. Given the wide variety of public engagement modalities, it may be unsurprising that we still lack a comprehensive and granular understanding of factors that influence faculty willingness to engage with public audiences. Those nuances are not always captured by quantitative surveys that rely on pre-determined categories to assess scholars’ willingness to engage. While closed-ended categories are useful to examine which factors influence the willingness to engage more than others, it is unlikely that pre-determined categories comprehensively represent the range of factors that undermine or encourage engagement, including perceptual influences, institutional barriers, and scholars’ lived experiences. To gain insight into these individual perspectives and lived experiences, we conducted focus group discussions with faculty members at a large midwestern land-grant university in the United States. Our findings provide context to previous studies of public engagement and suggest four themes for future research. These themes affirm the persistence of institutional barriers to engaging with the public, particularly the expectations in the promotion process for tenure-track faculty. However, we also find a perception that junior faculty and graduate students are challenging the status quo by introducing a new wave of attention to public engagement. This finding suggests a “trickle-up” effect through junior faculty and graduate students expecting institutional support for public engagement. Our findings highlight the need to consider how both top-down factors such as institutional expectations and bottom-up factors such as graduate student interest shape faculty members’ decisions to participate in public engagement activities.

Suggested Citation

  • Mikhaila N Calice & Becca Beets & Luye Bao & Dietram A Scheufele & Isabelle Freiling & Dominique Brossard & Noah Weeth Feinstein & Laura Heisler & Travis Tangen & Jo Handelsman, 2022. "Public engagement: Faculty lived experiences and perspectives underscore barriers and a changing culture in academia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(6), pages 1-21, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0269949
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0269949
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0269949
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0269949&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0269949?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Emily L Howell & Julia Nepper & Dominique Brossard & Michael A Xenos & Dietram A Scheufele, 2019. "Engagement present and future: Graduate student and faculty perceptions of social media and the role of the public in science engagement," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-20, May.
    2. Jeremy D. Foltz & Bradford L. Barham, 2009. "The Productivity Effects of Extension Appointments in Land-Grant Colleges," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 31(4), pages 712-733.
    3. John C. Besley, 2015. "What do scientists think about the public and does it matter to their online engagement?," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 42(2), pages 201-214.
    4. Anthony Dudo & John C Besley, 2016. "Scientists’ Prioritization of Communication Objectives for Public Engagement," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-18, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Adina Nerghes & Bob Mulder & Ju-Sung Lee, 2022. "Dissemination or participation? Exploring scientists’ definitions and science communication goals in the Netherlands," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(12), pages 1-29, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Adina Nerghes & Bob Mulder & Ju-Sung Lee, 2022. "Dissemination or participation? Exploring scientists’ definitions and science communication goals in the Netherlands," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(12), pages 1-29, December.
    2. Beatriz Barros & Ana Fernández-Zubieta & Raul Fidalgo-Merino & Francisco Triguero, 2018. "Scientific knowledge percolation process and social impact: A case study on the biotechnology and microbiology perceptions on Twitter," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(6), pages 804-814.
    3. Adrian Rauchfleisch & Mike S Schäfer & Dario Siegen, 2021. "Beyond the ivory tower: Measuring and explaining academic engagement with journalists, politicians and industry representatives among Swiss professors," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(5), pages 1-20, May.
    4. repec:plo:pone00:0171818 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. McKendree, Melissa G.S. & Taylor, Mykel R., 2022. "Extension Program Development for Early Career Faculty," Applied Economics Teaching Resources (AETR), Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 4(3), August.
    6. Kaisu Koivumäki & Timo Koivumäki & Erkki Karvonen, 2020. "“On Social Media Science Seems to Be More Human”: Exploring Researchers as Digital Science Communicators," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 425-439.
    7. Shirley S Ho & Tong Jee Goh & Agnes S F Chuah, 2022. "Perceived behavioral control as a moderator: Scientists’ attitude, norms, and willingness to engage the public," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(10), pages 1-24, October.
    8. Bradford Barham & Jeremy Foltz & Ana Paula Melo, 2020. "Academic Engagement, Commercialization, and Scholarship: Empirical Evidence from Agricultural and Life Scientists at US Land Grant Universities," NBER Chapters, in: Economics of Research and Innovation in Agriculture, pages 179-208, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Matthew S. VanDyke & Andy J. King, 2018. "Using the CAUSE Model to Understand Public Communication about Water Risks: Perspectives from Texas Groundwater District Officials on Drought and Availability," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(7), pages 1378-1389, July.
    10. Heather A. Fischer & Miranda L. Bernard & Krista Kemppinen & Leah R. Gerber, 2023. "Conservation awareness through social media," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 13(1), pages 23-30, March.
    11. Yoshihiko Kobayashi & Kuriko Kudo & Toshiya Kobayashi & Hiroko Kinoshita & HyunJung Bang & Hiroshi Ito & Akihiro Kishimura & Yusuke Matsumoto & Masato Miwa & Motoko Unoki & Tamaki Yoshioka, 2025. "Low awareness but high willingness to engage in science communication: a cross-disciplinary survey study in a Japanese University," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(3), pages 1357-1370, March.
    12. J. Corey Miller & Keith H. Coble & Jayson L. Lusk, 2013. "Evaluating top faculty researchers and the incentives that motivate them," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(3), pages 519-533, December.
    13. Kaisu Koivumäki & Timo Koivumäki & Erkki Karvonen, 2020. "“On Social Media Science Seems to Be More Human”: Exploring Researchers as Digital Science Communicators," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 425-439.
    14. Mónica García-Melón & Tomás Gómez-Navarro & Hannia Gonzalez-Urango & Carmen Corona-Sobrino, 2022. "Adapting RRI public engagement indicators to the Spanish scientific and innovation context: a participatory methodology based on AHP and content analysis," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 30(4), pages 1483-1512, December.
    15. Abhay S. D. Rajput & Sangeeta Sharma, 2022. "Top Indian scientists as public communicators: a survey of their perceptions, attitudes and communication behaviors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(6), pages 3167-3192, June.
    16. Linda H. M. van de Burgwal & Ana Dias & Eric Claassen, 2019. "Incentives for knowledge valorisation: a European benchmark," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 1-20, February.
    17. Dominic Balog‐Way & Katherine McComas & John Besley, 2020. "The Evolving Field of Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2240-2262, November.
    18. Jamie Alexander Greig & Shelli Rampold & Emily Paskewitz & Taylor Ruth, 2024. "Waving through a window: Agricultural research faculty perspectives on science communication challenges," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(6), pages 1-18, June.
    19. Paige Brown Jarreau & Imogene A Cancellare & Becky J Carmichael & Lance Porter & Daniel Toker & Samantha Z Yammine, 2019. "Using selfies to challenge public stereotypes of scientists," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-23, May.
    20. Emily L Howell & Julia Nepper & Dominique Brossard & Michael A Xenos & Dietram A Scheufele, 2019. "Engagement present and future: Graduate student and faculty perceptions of social media and the role of the public in science engagement," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-20, May.
    21. John C Besley & Kathryn O’Hara & Anthony Dudo, 2019. "Strategic science communication as planned behavior: Understanding scientists’ willingness to choose specific tactics," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(10), pages 1-18, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0269949. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.