Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Science in the Public Eye: Leveraging Partnerships—An Introduction

Science in the Public Eye: Leveraging Partnerships—An Introduction Abstract With stories of struggle and dramatic breakthroughs, science has incredible potential to interest the public. However, as the rhetoric of outrage surrounds controversies over science policy there is an urgent need for credible, trusted voices that frame science issues in a way that resonates with a diverse public. A network of informal educators, park rangers, museum docents and designers, and zoo and aquarium interpreters are prepared to do so during millions of visits a year; just where science stories are most meaningfully told—in the places where members of the public are open to learning. Scientific researchers can benefit from partnerships with these intermediaries who are accorded status for their trustworthiness and good will, who have expertise in translating the science using language, metaphors, encounters, and experiences that are appropriate for non-experts. In this volume, we describe and probe examples wherein scientists work productively with informal educators and designers, artists, staff of federal agencies, citizen scientists, and volunteers who bring science into the public eye. Introduction In so many ways today’s science communication is not our parents’ experience of science communication. Authoritative male voices dominated the soundscape during the 20th century. Communication strategies channeled the flow of science information from expert to public. Experts assumed that a better informed public would value scientific research and make scientifically informed decisions (Irwin and Wynne 1996). In shifting to a science communication model that prioritizes public engagement, individuals’ interests, questions, and motivations become central (McCallie et al. 2009; Storksdieck et al. 2016). The National Resource Council consensus report (2009) highlights the role that informal science learning institutions like zoos, science centers, and parks play in fostering engagement. A wide variety of settings makes it possible for the public to encounter science and scientists themselves in different ways, some more visual, playful, and explicitly instructive than others (National Research Council 2009; Storksdieck et al. 2016). Funders expect scientists to engage with audiences beyond their peers and colleagues as Alpert and Risien and Storksdieck point out in their articles in this volume. Clearly when scientists leave university lecture halls for science cafes, museums, and community science fairs, opportunities for bi-directional dialog increase. To prepare scientists for speaking in these settings, the Alda Center for Communicating Science at Stonybrook University uses improvisational games to enhance connections between presenters and public audiences. The Story Collider team offers coaching on personal science stories, while Portal to the Public, a collaboration funded by the National Science Foundation, initiated a robust model for museums to structure and sustain opportunities for scientists to engage the public in their current research (Selvakumar and Storksdieck 2013). Nowadays conversations between the public and scientists about their experiences as learners, as research assistants, and investigators frequently occur in science centers, and emerging scientists are eager to engage in these conversations (Storksdieck et al. 2017). Setting expectations for scientists to communicate with the public does little to solve the dilemma scientists face: how to fit public appearances in among their research, teaching, and obligations to their institutions. Wildlife biologists and long-time SICB members Hristov and Allen teamed up with informal education researcher, Merson, from TERC in 2013. TERC’s expertise in STEM learning and teaching infused the new team’s scientific outreach efforts in national parks with inquiry approaches. After participating in professional development, park rangers began engaging park visitors in conversations about the methods and relevance of the research (see Allen et al. this volume). Based on the enthusiastic response to the joint effort, Interpreters and Scientists Working on Our Parks (iSWOOP), we proposed the symposium, Science in the Public Eye: Leveraging Partnerships. We stepped into this arena, determined to showcase projects and models that do not require scientists to shoulder the responsibility for public engagement alone. We recruited presenters who could speak to the challenges and opportunities of partnerships. We encouraged examples and practical recommendations for how scientists could go about leveraging opportunities. Throughout the symposium and in the papers in this volume, presenters set out to inspire emerging and established scientists and researchers alike to think strategically about the sort of partnerships they could initiate or benefit from to achieve broader impacts so that perfecting their ability to communicate about science and then communicating science don’t eclipse doing science. We, iSWOOP’s project leaders, promote partnerships between those scientists who have limited capacity to devote to outreach and public engagement and professionals whose job it is to engage the public in science in out-of-school settings. The approach has proven successful and popular. When education rangers in national parks who have the jobs most closely akin to museum docents and science center floor staff, hear about iSWOOP, they nod. They speak eloquently to the need for access to published current, park-based, park-relevant science, and the scientists themselves (see the first video on offer here: http://www.iswoopparks.com/about/project-description/, for example). Opportunities for interpreters to hear firsthand about scientific studies, give accounts of phenomena from their place-based observations, and exchange stories and questions with scientists are welcome, but relatively rare (MacDonald 2013; Char 2015; Merson et al. 2017). Once iSWOOP brings together scientists, park rangers and informal science educators for classroom-based and field-based professional development (see Allen et al. this volume), more visitors begin to see and hear about the many park-based and park-relevant science projects that happen behind the scenes. Trusted by the public, dedicated to science translation, and skilled at crafting stories for multi-age audiences, park rangers are ideal ambassadors for the science that too often gets left out of the public discourse. This is the message we wanted to bring to members of the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology: dedicated and talented partners await you in a venue that makes sense for your science. More than the facts Science is more than anything the pursuit of questions, figuring out ways to find out what we don’t know. It is about revising the record, constantly refining what we know. It is about how we know and not taking on faith, but being intrigued with new ways to investigate our world. It is about using science for us, our lives, our comfort, and our decisions. While we rely on science to explain how the world works, these less traditionally visible aspects of science scholarship are worth valuing and promoting in informal settings. In the educational literature, they are science process standards and they are integral to inquiry (National Academy of Sciences 1995). The symposium organizers, iSWOOP project leaders and advisors, have distilled these four belief statements to counteract the sticky notion that science is about factual information gathered by white men working alone in windowless labs. We owe a debt to Stuart Firestein (2012) for his formulation of the role of questions in scientific research. Science is about questions, finding, and exploring the next question. Scientific research is full of compelling stories of how we know what we know. Science is about constant revision; the facts will change. Science matters when we, collectively, use it to inform decisions. Contributors to the recent Legacy Magazine issue on science communication issued by the National Association for Interpretation concur with the need to dwell on the idea of science as constant revision. Holt (2017) writes: We want to operate on that brink, challenging audiences to think critically and become involved by realizing that the scientific process is on-going. To do this, we must take up the information where the scientists left off by remembering what science is at its fundamental core: questioning everything. … One new finding can completely change the story we thought we were telling. … By introducing the reality that what people are learning today could be refuted in the future, interpreters free their audiences from a sense that everything in the world is understood. Credible voices needed Turning over one’s science for others to translate can be nerve-wracking. University-based scientists rightly perceive that speaking about implications of their research outside of professional circles carries risks to their credibility with consequences—from perceived advocacy, overstated claims, or imprecise statements (often made by the media on their behalf) (Horton et al. 2016). Credibility is easily lost. Misrepresentation can have fearsome consequences (see Elin Roberts, The Bacon Sandwich, for example, https://www.storycollider.org/stories/2016/1/1/elin-roberts-the-bacon-sandwich). In this introduction, we lay out the potential for partnerships to increase the delivery and visibility of science through trusted channels. Widespread skepticism based on perceptions of corporation-slanted (funded) research, and media and government more generally, make partnerships with trusted institutions valuable and critical (Nisbet 2014). Such institutions and their staff members, particularly the intermediaries in the world of informal, out-of-school learning, can make scientific research visible and place members of the public closer to the science process (National Research Council 2009). Interpreters and scientists face quite different challenges in communicating to the public about scientific research. Among their peers, scientists’ credibility is tied to precision. Their training leads them to highlight details, facts, and to hedge (Olson 2009). They fear their credibility will suffer if they overstate claims or are perceived as advocates for policies rather than neutral fact-givers (Jensen 2008; Horton et al. 2016). Intermediaries are regarded as knowledgeable if they work in an exhibit or park. Some have doctorates and accumulated expertise, but many are generalists, hired for their ability to communicate. Their credibility derives from their goodwill toward the public and perceptions of their trustworthiness (Fig. 1). In organizational literature, trustworthiness includes benevolence as well as ability and integrity. Mayer et al. (1995) argue that ability, benevolence, and integrity are important to trust, and each may vary independently of the others. Fig. 1 View largeDownload slide Scientists and interpreters derive credibility in different ways. Fig. 1 View largeDownload slide Scientists and interpreters derive credibility in different ways. Similar to firefighters, park rangers epitomize trustworthiness as their actions are predicated on concern for others’ safety and well-being. Looking at the criteria Mayer et al. (1995) set out for achieving trust, park rangers, like museum docents, and other intermediaries have little motivation to lie. They don’t benefit financially from their interactions with the public. They do not get ahead by misrepresenting research. Their mission is to reveal the significance of natural and cultural resources, to arouse wonder and awe (Ham 2013). Whereas scientists have an allegiance to data, to their subject, or discipline, interpreters’ stature and success are inextricably linked to visitors’ experience. If visitors are satisfied, comment positively, and return for more, the interpreters are successful. Transparency is critical to trust. When science is physically removed from many people’s view and daily life, a breach in transparency results. Perceptions of legitimate, transparent, and/or binding procedures enable confidence in others (Stern and Coleman 2015). Partnerships that give the science process visibility, such as the projects described in this volume, restore transparency and thereby contribute to the perception that science is a collective endeavor, a human enterprise with human stories of success and failure, creativity, and dogged determination. The contributing authors are active and visible in their fields. In more than one case, their contributions are synthesized slices of decades of work. But this compendium is a first for them to be published in each other’s company, visible to the community of organismal biologists. This is another aspect of transparency that is relevant to leveraging partnerships. Possible venues, allies, and outcomes In this volume, authors testify that new partnerships require an investment of time and energy and determination. Unfortunately, scientists, journalists, and educators concerned about research and learning do not have the luxury of putting them off for another day; basic research is under attack now (Zimmer 2018). As scientists seek new partners for outreach and education, all of the authors recommend explicitly discussing expectations (e.g., Alpert; King et al. this volume; as well as Gill et al. this volume and Harrower et al., this volume). Naming the expected outcomes, audience, funding sources, and time commitments keeps everyone’s expectations realistic. In this volume, we learn from those who have worked productively with environmental educators, designers, and others who can give visibility to the scientists’ research. The world of informal learning is extensive and varied, lifelong, and life-wide (Sacco et al. 2014). Researchers of informal education impacts are looking at the diversity of out-of-school learning as its own ecology (Bevan 2016). Therefore, we recommend that readers approach the articles by thinking about the venue and the allies being described, that is the intermediaries who are well-positioned to assist in bringing science into the public eye. In each venue, scientists will invest effort. What that investment looks like will vary from fund-raising to participating in professional development to sharing protocols. The possible outcomes on the public are equally varied (Besley et al. 2015) (see Table 1). Julie Risien and Martin Storksdieck’s article opens this issue, framing the importance of delineating an individual impact identity that takes into account variations in scientists’ individuals’ strengths, their institutional context, the nature of their research, and the desired outcomes of their public engagement activities. The authors argue that a more integrated approach toward research and outreach will ultimately benefit society, but also improve a scientist’s research success. Table 1 Possibilities for outreach efforts Venue Ally Investment Possible outcomes Parks Rangers Extended PD Museums Exhibit designers Funding and prototyping Play spaces Designers and learning experts Co-development Community Volunteers Protocols and training Public land for imperiled species US Fish and Wildlife Methods and briefings Venue Ally Investment Possible outcomes Parks Rangers Extended PD Museums Exhibit designers Funding and prototyping Play spaces Designers and learning experts Co-development Community Volunteers Protocols and training Public land for imperiled species US Fish and Wildlife Methods and briefings Table 1 Possibilities for outreach efforts Venue Ally Investment Possible outcomes Parks Rangers Extended PD Museums Exhibit designers Funding and prototyping Play spaces Designers and learning experts Co-development Community Volunteers Protocols and training Public land for imperiled species US Fish and Wildlife Methods and briefings Venue Ally Investment Possible outcomes Parks Rangers Extended PD Museums Exhibit designers Funding and prototyping Play spaces Designers and learning experts Co-development Community Volunteers Protocols and training Public land for imperiled species US Fish and Wildlife Methods and briefings Each article makes one or more of these aspects of collaboration explicit. Readers will thus find articles on: Venue and settings: Federal agency staff rely on scientists. Charged with protecting public lands Tim Watkins, Abraham Miller-Rushing, and Sarah Nelson, as well as Shauna Marquardt, Mandy Annis, Ryan Drum, Stephanie Longstaff Hummell, Dave Mosby, and Tamara Smith write about the possibilities for collaborations on public lands. Examples demonstrate how partnerships accomplish innovative research with a direct influence on conservation policy. The National Park Service provides abundant opportunity for biologists and other scientists to engage global audiences in learning, exploring, and even conducting science. Watkins et al. describe unique opportunities, present several examples that highlight the range of activities and lessons drawn from them, and invite scientists to conduct studies in parks and bring their science into the public eye. Allies for sharing science: Laying out the rewards of teaming up with informal science learning organizations, Carol Lynn Alpert offers some advice about when and how to approach them. When prospective partners begin discussions early in the proposal development process, they increase the likelihood of successful outcomes in funding, implementation, and impact. Alpert provides a strategic planning worksheet. Tapping into design sensibility: Nick Hristov, Carol Strohecker, Louise Allen, and Martha Merson introduce a set of design principles that lead to thoughtful visualizations offering not only simple and elegant expressions of information but also outlining ways of thinking about science through visual narrative. Teacher-educator Jocelyn Glazier, Katherine Gill, a landscape architect specializing in learning environments, and Betsy Towns, public artist and curriculum designer, weave together examples that illuminate the interdisciplinary design of landscapes that nurture learners’ curiosity and thinking. The design process resolves conflicting priorities in a natural-habitat zoo and lends a structure to an experiential learning lab where students of all ages experience embodied science learning. Examples from their exhibit and production experiences give a behind the scenes look at what it takes to create stunning displays that spark interest and inquiry as well as build their audience’s awareness of larger issues like species loss. Author teams, Denise King, Joyce Ma, Angela Armendariz, and Kristina Yu; and Jennifer Harrower, Jennifer Parker, and Martha Merson elucidate roles for artists, exhibit designers, and scientists in producing visual art for in-person and online consumers. Investing time: Grounding interpreters and volunteers in questions, methods, data collection, and discussion of results has tangible benefits. Louise Allen, along with co-authors Cynthia Char, Tracey Wright, Nickolay Hristov, and Martha Merson, comment on the principles informing their work and describe the impact when scientists invest in structures to support park rangers’ involvement in science and science communication. Julia Parrish, Hillary Burgess, Jake Weltzin, Lucy Fortson, Andrea Wiggins, and Brooke Simmons suggest that generate robust science outcomes can be produced with attention to the expectations for participants’ contributions—simplifying protocols at scale and investing more in training and support for complex. Taken together, these papers remind readers of the possibilities, acknowledge the complexity of partnerships, and offer examples that are realistic for emerging and established scientists. Although outreach is the focus, the links to research, teaching, and service are evident. Partnerships nurture new lines of research and bring new opportunities funding. Partners may help recruit and train volunteers to expand data collection efforts. Partners may model pedagogical strategies that scientists can adopt to increase engagement in their own classrooms. And as a mental health bonus, they may find respite from everyday pressures and rediscover joy and wonder alongside adults or youth exploring science ideas in an informal setting. Conclusion In this volume, authors testify that new partnerships require an investment of time and energy and determination. Unfortunately, we do not have the luxury of putting them off for another day; basic research is under attack now (Zimmer 2018). As scientists seek new partners for outreach and education, all of the authors recommend explicitly discussing expectations. Naming the expected outcomes, audience, funding sources, and time commitments keeps everyone’s expectations realistic. While winning support for a particular line of research might be foremost on a scientist’s mind, Besley et al. (2015) have written that scientists who do outreach with the public are more likely to accomplish a broad set of goals. Likely outcomes include: Changing perceptions of scientists’ motivations/honesty/warmth. Increasing excitement/interest/motivation in STEM. Changing sense of efficacy related to science learning. Increasing knowledge/awareness. Reframing how a person thinks about an issue, influencing policy. These are exciting possibilities. Together we can curate curiosity and entice others to engage. We hope this volume inspires scientists and others to initiate and sustain partnerships in order to place science in the public eye. Acknowledgments We three from TERC, Winston-Salem State University, and The Center for Design Innovation express gratitude to colleagues and friends who supported this undertaking. We especially thank the National Science Foundation, the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology, and the contributors to talks and papers as well as reviewers who gave constructive feedback. We thank Martin Storksdieck for timely and valuable contributions to this introduction. These institutions provided support for the symposium, including: Char Associates, COASST, the Exploratorium, Institute for Learning Innovation, JuniperHarrower.com, the Museum of Science, Boston, the National Park Service, North Carolina School of the Arts, Oregon State University, Tributary Land Design+Build, US Fish and Wildlife Service, University of California Santa Cruz, the University of Minnesota, and the University of Washington. Funding The symposium and its proceedings were made possible with support from the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology, in particular, the Divisions of Animal Behavior, Comparative Biomechanics, Comparative Endocrinology, Ecoimmunology and Disease Ecology, Neurobiology, and Vertebrate Morphology and the National Science Foundation [DRL-123030 and DRL-1514776]. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the National Science Foundation. References Besley JC , Dudo A , Storksdieck M. 2015 . Scientists’ views about communication training . J Res Sci Teach 52 : 199 – 220 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Bevan B. 2016 . STEM learning ecologies. Issue 1. Research to practice, practice to research. (http://csl.nsta.org/2016/03/stem-learning-ecologies/). Char C. 2015 . To be more inquisitive in the natural world: evaluation of the Interpreters and Scientists Working on Our Parks (iSWOOP) pathways project (http://iswoopcave.com/?page_id=32). Firestein S. 2012 . Ignorance: how it drives science . New York (NY ): Oxford University Press . Ham SH. 2013 . Interpretation: making a difference on purpose . Golden (CO ): Fulcrum Publishing Inc . Holt H. 2017 . Channeling scientists . Leg Mag 28 : 6 – 8 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Horton CC , Peterson TR , Banerjee P , Peterson MJ. 2016 . Credibility and advocacy in conservation science . Conserv Biol 30 : 23 – 52 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed Irwin A , Wynne B , (eds.). 1996 . Misunderstanding science . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Jensen JD. 2008 . Scientific uncertainty in news coverage of cancer research: effects of hedging on scientists’ and journalists’ credibility . Hum Commun Res 34 : 347 – 69 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS MacDonald B. 2013 . Interpreting conservation: communicating about natural resources, scientific research, and critical environmental issues at Cape Cod National Seashore [thesis]. [Amherst (MA)]: University of Massachusetts. Mayer RC , Davis JH , Schoorman FD. 1995 . An integrative model of organizational trust . Acad Manag Rev 20 : 709 – 34 (http://www.jstor.org/stable/258792). Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS McCallie E , Bell L , Lohwater T , Falk JH , Lehr JL , Lewenstein BV , Needham C , Wiehe B. 2009 . Many experts, many audiences: public engagement with science and informal science education. A CAISE Inquiry Group Report, 1. Merson M , Char C , Hristov N , Allen L. 2017 . Seeking park-based science information: interpreters at the gate . George Wright Forum 34 : 368 – 80 . National Academy of Sciences . 1995 . National science education standards. Washington (DC): National Academy Press. Chapter 6, Science content standards. p. 105 (https://www.nap.edu/read/4962/chapter/8#105). National Research Council . 2009 . Learning science in informal environments: people, places, and pursuits. In: Bell P , Lewenstein B , Shouse AW , Feder MA , editors. Informal environments. Board on Science Education, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education . Washington (DC ): The National Academies Press . Nisbet MC. 2014 . Engaging in science policy controversies: insights from the U.S. debate over climate change. In: Bucchi M , Trench B , editors. Handbook of the public communication of science and technology , 2nd ed . London (UK ): Routledge . p. 173 – 85 . Olson R. 2009 . Don’t be such a scientist: talking substance in an age of style . Washington (DC ): Island Press . Sacco K , Falk JH , Bell J. 2014 . Informal science education: lifelong, life-wide, life-deep . PLoS Biol 12 : e1001986 (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001986). Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed Selvakumar M , Storksdieck M. 2013 . Portal to the public: museum educators collaborating with scientists to engage museum visitors with current science . Curator 56 : 69 – 78 (https://doi.org/10.1111/cura.12007). Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Stern MJ , Coleman KJ. 2015 . The multidimensionality of trust: applications in collaborative natural resource management . Soc Nat Resour 28 : 117 – 32 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Storksdieck M , Stylinski C , Bailey D. 2016 . Typology for public engagement with science: a conceptual framework for public engagement involving scientists . Corvallis (OR ): Center for Research on Lifelong STEM Learning (https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/content_files/AAAS_Typology.pdf). Storksdieck M , Stylinski C , Canzoneri N. 2017 . The impact of portal to the public: creating an infrastructure for engaging scientists in ISL. Summative evaluation. Corvallis (OR ): Oregon State University . Zimmer C. 2018 . Science and scandal: reporting on science in an age of controversy, Plenary-1, Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology annual conference, 3–7 January 2018. San Francisco (CA). © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology. All rights reserved. For permissions please email: journals.permissions@oup.com. This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/about_us/legal/notices) http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Integrative and Comparative Biology Oxford University Press

Science in the Public Eye: Leveraging Partnerships—An Introduction

Integrative and Comparative Biology , Volume 58 (1) – Jul 1, 2018
Download PDF
6 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/science-in-the-public-eye-leveraging-partnerships-an-introduction-jtbdlQ82FR

References (14)

Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology. All rights reserved. For permissions please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.
ISSN
1540-7063
eISSN
1557-7023
DOI
10.1093/icb/icy034
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Abstract With stories of struggle and dramatic breakthroughs, science has incredible potential to interest the public. However, as the rhetoric of outrage surrounds controversies over science policy there is an urgent need for credible, trusted voices that frame science issues in a way that resonates with a diverse public. A network of informal educators, park rangers, museum docents and designers, and zoo and aquarium interpreters are prepared to do so during millions of visits a year; just where science stories are most meaningfully told—in the places where members of the public are open to learning. Scientific researchers can benefit from partnerships with these intermediaries who are accorded status for their trustworthiness and good will, who have expertise in translating the science using language, metaphors, encounters, and experiences that are appropriate for non-experts. In this volume, we describe and probe examples wherein scientists work productively with informal educators and designers, artists, staff of federal agencies, citizen scientists, and volunteers who bring science into the public eye. Introduction In so many ways today’s science communication is not our parents’ experience of science communication. Authoritative male voices dominated the soundscape during the 20th century. Communication strategies channeled the flow of science information from expert to public. Experts assumed that a better informed public would value scientific research and make scientifically informed decisions (Irwin and Wynne 1996). In shifting to a science communication model that prioritizes public engagement, individuals’ interests, questions, and motivations become central (McCallie et al. 2009; Storksdieck et al. 2016). The National Resource Council consensus report (2009) highlights the role that informal science learning institutions like zoos, science centers, and parks play in fostering engagement. A wide variety of settings makes it possible for the public to encounter science and scientists themselves in different ways, some more visual, playful, and explicitly instructive than others (National Research Council 2009; Storksdieck et al. 2016). Funders expect scientists to engage with audiences beyond their peers and colleagues as Alpert and Risien and Storksdieck point out in their articles in this volume. Clearly when scientists leave university lecture halls for science cafes, museums, and community science fairs, opportunities for bi-directional dialog increase. To prepare scientists for speaking in these settings, the Alda Center for Communicating Science at Stonybrook University uses improvisational games to enhance connections between presenters and public audiences. The Story Collider team offers coaching on personal science stories, while Portal to the Public, a collaboration funded by the National Science Foundation, initiated a robust model for museums to structure and sustain opportunities for scientists to engage the public in their current research (Selvakumar and Storksdieck 2013). Nowadays conversations between the public and scientists about their experiences as learners, as research assistants, and investigators frequently occur in science centers, and emerging scientists are eager to engage in these conversations (Storksdieck et al. 2017). Setting expectations for scientists to communicate with the public does little to solve the dilemma scientists face: how to fit public appearances in among their research, teaching, and obligations to their institutions. Wildlife biologists and long-time SICB members Hristov and Allen teamed up with informal education researcher, Merson, from TERC in 2013. TERC’s expertise in STEM learning and teaching infused the new team’s scientific outreach efforts in national parks with inquiry approaches. After participating in professional development, park rangers began engaging park visitors in conversations about the methods and relevance of the research (see Allen et al. this volume). Based on the enthusiastic response to the joint effort, Interpreters and Scientists Working on Our Parks (iSWOOP), we proposed the symposium, Science in the Public Eye: Leveraging Partnerships. We stepped into this arena, determined to showcase projects and models that do not require scientists to shoulder the responsibility for public engagement alone. We recruited presenters who could speak to the challenges and opportunities of partnerships. We encouraged examples and practical recommendations for how scientists could go about leveraging opportunities. Throughout the symposium and in the papers in this volume, presenters set out to inspire emerging and established scientists and researchers alike to think strategically about the sort of partnerships they could initiate or benefit from to achieve broader impacts so that perfecting their ability to communicate about science and then communicating science don’t eclipse doing science. We, iSWOOP’s project leaders, promote partnerships between those scientists who have limited capacity to devote to outreach and public engagement and professionals whose job it is to engage the public in science in out-of-school settings. The approach has proven successful and popular. When education rangers in national parks who have the jobs most closely akin to museum docents and science center floor staff, hear about iSWOOP, they nod. They speak eloquently to the need for access to published current, park-based, park-relevant science, and the scientists themselves (see the first video on offer here: http://www.iswoopparks.com/about/project-description/, for example). Opportunities for interpreters to hear firsthand about scientific studies, give accounts of phenomena from their place-based observations, and exchange stories and questions with scientists are welcome, but relatively rare (MacDonald 2013; Char 2015; Merson et al. 2017). Once iSWOOP brings together scientists, park rangers and informal science educators for classroom-based and field-based professional development (see Allen et al. this volume), more visitors begin to see and hear about the many park-based and park-relevant science projects that happen behind the scenes. Trusted by the public, dedicated to science translation, and skilled at crafting stories for multi-age audiences, park rangers are ideal ambassadors for the science that too often gets left out of the public discourse. This is the message we wanted to bring to members of the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology: dedicated and talented partners await you in a venue that makes sense for your science. More than the facts Science is more than anything the pursuit of questions, figuring out ways to find out what we don’t know. It is about revising the record, constantly refining what we know. It is about how we know and not taking on faith, but being intrigued with new ways to investigate our world. It is about using science for us, our lives, our comfort, and our decisions. While we rely on science to explain how the world works, these less traditionally visible aspects of science scholarship are worth valuing and promoting in informal settings. In the educational literature, they are science process standards and they are integral to inquiry (National Academy of Sciences 1995). The symposium organizers, iSWOOP project leaders and advisors, have distilled these four belief statements to counteract the sticky notion that science is about factual information gathered by white men working alone in windowless labs. We owe a debt to Stuart Firestein (2012) for his formulation of the role of questions in scientific research. Science is about questions, finding, and exploring the next question. Scientific research is full of compelling stories of how we know what we know. Science is about constant revision; the facts will change. Science matters when we, collectively, use it to inform decisions. Contributors to the recent Legacy Magazine issue on science communication issued by the National Association for Interpretation concur with the need to dwell on the idea of science as constant revision. Holt (2017) writes: We want to operate on that brink, challenging audiences to think critically and become involved by realizing that the scientific process is on-going. To do this, we must take up the information where the scientists left off by remembering what science is at its fundamental core: questioning everything. … One new finding can completely change the story we thought we were telling. … By introducing the reality that what people are learning today could be refuted in the future, interpreters free their audiences from a sense that everything in the world is understood. Credible voices needed Turning over one’s science for others to translate can be nerve-wracking. University-based scientists rightly perceive that speaking about implications of their research outside of professional circles carries risks to their credibility with consequences—from perceived advocacy, overstated claims, or imprecise statements (often made by the media on their behalf) (Horton et al. 2016). Credibility is easily lost. Misrepresentation can have fearsome consequences (see Elin Roberts, The Bacon Sandwich, for example, https://www.storycollider.org/stories/2016/1/1/elin-roberts-the-bacon-sandwich). In this introduction, we lay out the potential for partnerships to increase the delivery and visibility of science through trusted channels. Widespread skepticism based on perceptions of corporation-slanted (funded) research, and media and government more generally, make partnerships with trusted institutions valuable and critical (Nisbet 2014). Such institutions and their staff members, particularly the intermediaries in the world of informal, out-of-school learning, can make scientific research visible and place members of the public closer to the science process (National Research Council 2009). Interpreters and scientists face quite different challenges in communicating to the public about scientific research. Among their peers, scientists’ credibility is tied to precision. Their training leads them to highlight details, facts, and to hedge (Olson 2009). They fear their credibility will suffer if they overstate claims or are perceived as advocates for policies rather than neutral fact-givers (Jensen 2008; Horton et al. 2016). Intermediaries are regarded as knowledgeable if they work in an exhibit or park. Some have doctorates and accumulated expertise, but many are generalists, hired for their ability to communicate. Their credibility derives from their goodwill toward the public and perceptions of their trustworthiness (Fig. 1). In organizational literature, trustworthiness includes benevolence as well as ability and integrity. Mayer et al. (1995) argue that ability, benevolence, and integrity are important to trust, and each may vary independently of the others. Fig. 1 View largeDownload slide Scientists and interpreters derive credibility in different ways. Fig. 1 View largeDownload slide Scientists and interpreters derive credibility in different ways. Similar to firefighters, park rangers epitomize trustworthiness as their actions are predicated on concern for others’ safety and well-being. Looking at the criteria Mayer et al. (1995) set out for achieving trust, park rangers, like museum docents, and other intermediaries have little motivation to lie. They don’t benefit financially from their interactions with the public. They do not get ahead by misrepresenting research. Their mission is to reveal the significance of natural and cultural resources, to arouse wonder and awe (Ham 2013). Whereas scientists have an allegiance to data, to their subject, or discipline, interpreters’ stature and success are inextricably linked to visitors’ experience. If visitors are satisfied, comment positively, and return for more, the interpreters are successful. Transparency is critical to trust. When science is physically removed from many people’s view and daily life, a breach in transparency results. Perceptions of legitimate, transparent, and/or binding procedures enable confidence in others (Stern and Coleman 2015). Partnerships that give the science process visibility, such as the projects described in this volume, restore transparency and thereby contribute to the perception that science is a collective endeavor, a human enterprise with human stories of success and failure, creativity, and dogged determination. The contributing authors are active and visible in their fields. In more than one case, their contributions are synthesized slices of decades of work. But this compendium is a first for them to be published in each other’s company, visible to the community of organismal biologists. This is another aspect of transparency that is relevant to leveraging partnerships. Possible venues, allies, and outcomes In this volume, authors testify that new partnerships require an investment of time and energy and determination. Unfortunately, scientists, journalists, and educators concerned about research and learning do not have the luxury of putting them off for another day; basic research is under attack now (Zimmer 2018). As scientists seek new partners for outreach and education, all of the authors recommend explicitly discussing expectations (e.g., Alpert; King et al. this volume; as well as Gill et al. this volume and Harrower et al., this volume). Naming the expected outcomes, audience, funding sources, and time commitments keeps everyone’s expectations realistic. In this volume, we learn from those who have worked productively with environmental educators, designers, and others who can give visibility to the scientists’ research. The world of informal learning is extensive and varied, lifelong, and life-wide (Sacco et al. 2014). Researchers of informal education impacts are looking at the diversity of out-of-school learning as its own ecology (Bevan 2016). Therefore, we recommend that readers approach the articles by thinking about the venue and the allies being described, that is the intermediaries who are well-positioned to assist in bringing science into the public eye. In each venue, scientists will invest effort. What that investment looks like will vary from fund-raising to participating in professional development to sharing protocols. The possible outcomes on the public are equally varied (Besley et al. 2015) (see Table 1). Julie Risien and Martin Storksdieck’s article opens this issue, framing the importance of delineating an individual impact identity that takes into account variations in scientists’ individuals’ strengths, their institutional context, the nature of their research, and the desired outcomes of their public engagement activities. The authors argue that a more integrated approach toward research and outreach will ultimately benefit society, but also improve a scientist’s research success. Table 1 Possibilities for outreach efforts Venue Ally Investment Possible outcomes Parks Rangers Extended PD Museums Exhibit designers Funding and prototyping Play spaces Designers and learning experts Co-development Community Volunteers Protocols and training Public land for imperiled species US Fish and Wildlife Methods and briefings Venue Ally Investment Possible outcomes Parks Rangers Extended PD Museums Exhibit designers Funding and prototyping Play spaces Designers and learning experts Co-development Community Volunteers Protocols and training Public land for imperiled species US Fish and Wildlife Methods and briefings Table 1 Possibilities for outreach efforts Venue Ally Investment Possible outcomes Parks Rangers Extended PD Museums Exhibit designers Funding and prototyping Play spaces Designers and learning experts Co-development Community Volunteers Protocols and training Public land for imperiled species US Fish and Wildlife Methods and briefings Venue Ally Investment Possible outcomes Parks Rangers Extended PD Museums Exhibit designers Funding and prototyping Play spaces Designers and learning experts Co-development Community Volunteers Protocols and training Public land for imperiled species US Fish and Wildlife Methods and briefings Each article makes one or more of these aspects of collaboration explicit. Readers will thus find articles on: Venue and settings: Federal agency staff rely on scientists. Charged with protecting public lands Tim Watkins, Abraham Miller-Rushing, and Sarah Nelson, as well as Shauna Marquardt, Mandy Annis, Ryan Drum, Stephanie Longstaff Hummell, Dave Mosby, and Tamara Smith write about the possibilities for collaborations on public lands. Examples demonstrate how partnerships accomplish innovative research with a direct influence on conservation policy. The National Park Service provides abundant opportunity for biologists and other scientists to engage global audiences in learning, exploring, and even conducting science. Watkins et al. describe unique opportunities, present several examples that highlight the range of activities and lessons drawn from them, and invite scientists to conduct studies in parks and bring their science into the public eye. Allies for sharing science: Laying out the rewards of teaming up with informal science learning organizations, Carol Lynn Alpert offers some advice about when and how to approach them. When prospective partners begin discussions early in the proposal development process, they increase the likelihood of successful outcomes in funding, implementation, and impact. Alpert provides a strategic planning worksheet. Tapping into design sensibility: Nick Hristov, Carol Strohecker, Louise Allen, and Martha Merson introduce a set of design principles that lead to thoughtful visualizations offering not only simple and elegant expressions of information but also outlining ways of thinking about science through visual narrative. Teacher-educator Jocelyn Glazier, Katherine Gill, a landscape architect specializing in learning environments, and Betsy Towns, public artist and curriculum designer, weave together examples that illuminate the interdisciplinary design of landscapes that nurture learners’ curiosity and thinking. The design process resolves conflicting priorities in a natural-habitat zoo and lends a structure to an experiential learning lab where students of all ages experience embodied science learning. Examples from their exhibit and production experiences give a behind the scenes look at what it takes to create stunning displays that spark interest and inquiry as well as build their audience’s awareness of larger issues like species loss. Author teams, Denise King, Joyce Ma, Angela Armendariz, and Kristina Yu; and Jennifer Harrower, Jennifer Parker, and Martha Merson elucidate roles for artists, exhibit designers, and scientists in producing visual art for in-person and online consumers. Investing time: Grounding interpreters and volunteers in questions, methods, data collection, and discussion of results has tangible benefits. Louise Allen, along with co-authors Cynthia Char, Tracey Wright, Nickolay Hristov, and Martha Merson, comment on the principles informing their work and describe the impact when scientists invest in structures to support park rangers’ involvement in science and science communication. Julia Parrish, Hillary Burgess, Jake Weltzin, Lucy Fortson, Andrea Wiggins, and Brooke Simmons suggest that generate robust science outcomes can be produced with attention to the expectations for participants’ contributions—simplifying protocols at scale and investing more in training and support for complex. Taken together, these papers remind readers of the possibilities, acknowledge the complexity of partnerships, and offer examples that are realistic for emerging and established scientists. Although outreach is the focus, the links to research, teaching, and service are evident. Partnerships nurture new lines of research and bring new opportunities funding. Partners may help recruit and train volunteers to expand data collection efforts. Partners may model pedagogical strategies that scientists can adopt to increase engagement in their own classrooms. And as a mental health bonus, they may find respite from everyday pressures and rediscover joy and wonder alongside adults or youth exploring science ideas in an informal setting. Conclusion In this volume, authors testify that new partnerships require an investment of time and energy and determination. Unfortunately, we do not have the luxury of putting them off for another day; basic research is under attack now (Zimmer 2018). As scientists seek new partners for outreach and education, all of the authors recommend explicitly discussing expectations. Naming the expected outcomes, audience, funding sources, and time commitments keeps everyone’s expectations realistic. While winning support for a particular line of research might be foremost on a scientist’s mind, Besley et al. (2015) have written that scientists who do outreach with the public are more likely to accomplish a broad set of goals. Likely outcomes include: Changing perceptions of scientists’ motivations/honesty/warmth. Increasing excitement/interest/motivation in STEM. Changing sense of efficacy related to science learning. Increasing knowledge/awareness. Reframing how a person thinks about an issue, influencing policy. These are exciting possibilities. Together we can curate curiosity and entice others to engage. We hope this volume inspires scientists and others to initiate and sustain partnerships in order to place science in the public eye. Acknowledgments We three from TERC, Winston-Salem State University, and The Center for Design Innovation express gratitude to colleagues and friends who supported this undertaking. We especially thank the National Science Foundation, the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology, and the contributors to talks and papers as well as reviewers who gave constructive feedback. We thank Martin Storksdieck for timely and valuable contributions to this introduction. These institutions provided support for the symposium, including: Char Associates, COASST, the Exploratorium, Institute for Learning Innovation, JuniperHarrower.com, the Museum of Science, Boston, the National Park Service, North Carolina School of the Arts, Oregon State University, Tributary Land Design+Build, US Fish and Wildlife Service, University of California Santa Cruz, the University of Minnesota, and the University of Washington. Funding The symposium and its proceedings were made possible with support from the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology, in particular, the Divisions of Animal Behavior, Comparative Biomechanics, Comparative Endocrinology, Ecoimmunology and Disease Ecology, Neurobiology, and Vertebrate Morphology and the National Science Foundation [DRL-123030 and DRL-1514776]. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the National Science Foundation. References Besley JC , Dudo A , Storksdieck M. 2015 . Scientists’ views about communication training . J Res Sci Teach 52 : 199 – 220 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Bevan B. 2016 . STEM learning ecologies. Issue 1. Research to practice, practice to research. (http://csl.nsta.org/2016/03/stem-learning-ecologies/). Char C. 2015 . To be more inquisitive in the natural world: evaluation of the Interpreters and Scientists Working on Our Parks (iSWOOP) pathways project (http://iswoopcave.com/?page_id=32). Firestein S. 2012 . Ignorance: how it drives science . New York (NY ): Oxford University Press . Ham SH. 2013 . Interpretation: making a difference on purpose . Golden (CO ): Fulcrum Publishing Inc . Holt H. 2017 . Channeling scientists . Leg Mag 28 : 6 – 8 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Horton CC , Peterson TR , Banerjee P , Peterson MJ. 2016 . Credibility and advocacy in conservation science . Conserv Biol 30 : 23 – 52 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed Irwin A , Wynne B , (eds.). 1996 . Misunderstanding science . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Jensen JD. 2008 . Scientific uncertainty in news coverage of cancer research: effects of hedging on scientists’ and journalists’ credibility . Hum Commun Res 34 : 347 – 69 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS MacDonald B. 2013 . Interpreting conservation: communicating about natural resources, scientific research, and critical environmental issues at Cape Cod National Seashore [thesis]. [Amherst (MA)]: University of Massachusetts. Mayer RC , Davis JH , Schoorman FD. 1995 . An integrative model of organizational trust . Acad Manag Rev 20 : 709 – 34 (http://www.jstor.org/stable/258792). Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS McCallie E , Bell L , Lohwater T , Falk JH , Lehr JL , Lewenstein BV , Needham C , Wiehe B. 2009 . Many experts, many audiences: public engagement with science and informal science education. A CAISE Inquiry Group Report, 1. Merson M , Char C , Hristov N , Allen L. 2017 . Seeking park-based science information: interpreters at the gate . George Wright Forum 34 : 368 – 80 . National Academy of Sciences . 1995 . National science education standards. Washington (DC): National Academy Press. Chapter 6, Science content standards. p. 105 (https://www.nap.edu/read/4962/chapter/8#105). National Research Council . 2009 . Learning science in informal environments: people, places, and pursuits. In: Bell P , Lewenstein B , Shouse AW , Feder MA , editors. Informal environments. Board on Science Education, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education . Washington (DC ): The National Academies Press . Nisbet MC. 2014 . Engaging in science policy controversies: insights from the U.S. debate over climate change. In: Bucchi M , Trench B , editors. Handbook of the public communication of science and technology , 2nd ed . London (UK ): Routledge . p. 173 – 85 . Olson R. 2009 . Don’t be such a scientist: talking substance in an age of style . Washington (DC ): Island Press . Sacco K , Falk JH , Bell J. 2014 . Informal science education: lifelong, life-wide, life-deep . PLoS Biol 12 : e1001986 (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001986). Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed Selvakumar M , Storksdieck M. 2013 . Portal to the public: museum educators collaborating with scientists to engage museum visitors with current science . Curator 56 : 69 – 78 (https://doi.org/10.1111/cura.12007). Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Stern MJ , Coleman KJ. 2015 . The multidimensionality of trust: applications in collaborative natural resource management . Soc Nat Resour 28 : 117 – 32 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Storksdieck M , Stylinski C , Bailey D. 2016 . Typology for public engagement with science: a conceptual framework for public engagement involving scientists . Corvallis (OR ): Center for Research on Lifelong STEM Learning (https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/content_files/AAAS_Typology.pdf). Storksdieck M , Stylinski C , Canzoneri N. 2017 . The impact of portal to the public: creating an infrastructure for engaging scientists in ISL. Summative evaluation. Corvallis (OR ): Oregon State University . Zimmer C. 2018 . Science and scandal: reporting on science in an age of controversy, Plenary-1, Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology annual conference, 3–7 January 2018. San Francisco (CA). © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology. All rights reserved. For permissions please email: journals.permissions@oup.com. This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/about_us/legal/notices)

Journal

Integrative and Comparative Biology – Oxford University Press

Published: Jul 1, 2018

There are no references for this article.