What’s in a Name? Exploring the Nomenclature of Science Communication in the UK

Introduction

Burns et al. (2003, pp. 183) define science communication as:

This robust definition covers most aspects of communicating science to the public under a number of different guises. Where things start to get complicated is in the semantics regarding the different types of science communication, and in their appropriate use and classification.

Science communication is often analogously and interchangeably referred to as science outreach, public engagement, widening participation, and/or knowledge exchange, but what do these terms actually mean? As well as institutional biases towards the ‘correct use’ of these terminologies there exists personal nuances in terms of their interpretation, which oftentimes depend upon the role of the person in question and how they perceive science communication to fit into their research & teaching practices, and beyond.

It can be argued that these definitions are simply a matter of semantics, but with science communication becoming more prevalent in grant applications and income generation (see e.g. the Research Council UK’s ‘Pathway to Impact’ report [http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/ke/impacts/]), it is important for there to be consistency in what is a developing field. The advent of ‘Science 2.0’ (see e.g. Nattkemper, 2012) and what it entails is also an important driver behind having a clear and consistent nomenclature associated with science communication. Science 2.0 proposes a systemic change in the modus operandi of doing research and organising science, in which science communication will play a key part. With potentially large pots of money available in future grants, under specific terms and conditions, there needs to be a consistent terminology that can be drawn upon by the academic community and beyond.

According to the European Commission public consultation into Science 2.0 (http://ec.europa.eu/research/consultations/science-2.0/background.pdf), something else that requires careful consideration is “the need to develop researcher and researcher reward schemes that reflect this (new) approach”. With potential reward schemes attributed to science communication activities, as well the creation of new job positions to fill these roles, it is important for all concerned to ensure that the language used in science communication is consistent.

This study, therefore, begins by discussing some of the definitions for science outreach, public engagement, widening participation, and knowledge exchange in the UK, derived from the common usage of these terms in the literature, and from the experiences of the authors. It then compares these definitions with the results of a survey of practicing science communicators from across the UK, and comments on the similarities and differences between the two, before identifying some suggestions for future nomenclature definitions within the field.

Literature analysis

The term ‘science outreach’ has been commonplace in research literature since the early 1990s, at which time the number of research articles on science communication started to increase. Many of these early articles describe science outreach as a school/education-linked activity, whereby academics are engaging with different groups of people such as the general public, students and teachers (see e.g. Greenler et al., 1993; Kelter et al., 1992). The term science outreach, which included activities such as mentoring, tutoring, giving presentations, supporting teachers and involvement with after-school clubs and summer schools, continued to become synonymous with school-related activity in to the 2000s, (e.g. Andrews et al., 2005; Krasny, 2005). Recently Ecklund et al. (2012) suggested that scientists involved in science outreach are often also engaged in some type of outreach involving school-aged children, demonstrating that the connection between school-related activity and science outreach remains strong.

Although much of the literature using the term ‘science outreach’ is based on work carried out in North America, this definition is similar to that used in the UK. Many organisations in the UK who fund science communication (e.g. Royal Society, Royal Society of Chemistry, Society of Biology, and the Wellcome Trust) use science outreach when explicitly discussing science communication with school children.

Although this link to school activity is present in the UK, there is some overlap with other commonly used science communication terms, in particular, public engagement; with some science communication practitioners using both terms together, e.g. schools outreach and public engagement.

In recent years there has been a shift from the deficit model of the ‘Public Understanding of Science’ towards a dialogue-based approach, which can be referred to as a ‘Public Engagement with Science and Technology’ (Schäfer, 2009, and references therein).

Public engagement can be thought of as a way to restore public trust in science, by developing a two-way dialogue between the general public and the scientific community (Wynne, 2006). Public engagement can foster global communication, enable shared experiences and methodology, standardize strategy, and generate shared viewpoints (Cohen et al., 2008). Furthermore, it can be defined as a deliberative process, promoted in both academic and policy circles, as a potential means to build public trust in risk decisions and decision-makers (Petts, 2008). With regards to policy makers, public engagement can be viewed as both relevant and useful in a regulatory context (see e.g. O’Doherty & Hawkins, 2010), with the results of public discussions with scientists being a worthwhile process in scientific development (Jones, 2007).

Recent years have seen increasing encouragement by research institutions and funding bodies for scientists to actively engage with the public, who ultimately finance their work (Bowler et al., 2012), and whilst many research institutions now have dedicated resources for public engagement activities, such activities are not yet considered essential (Neresini & Bucchi, 2011). It is also unclear as to whether the institutional approach to public engagement is to focus on engaging with the public to promote their research and raise understanding, or if it is to open up a two-way dialogue in order to get their opinion on scientific research and protocol, especially in relation to potential political and ethical ‘hot potatoes’, e.g. geoengineering (Parkhill & Pidgeon, 2011) and nanotechnology (Jones, 2007).

The American National Centre for Media Engagement (http://mediaengagedev.org/engagement/why-engage/difference-between-outreach-and-engagement) defines outreach as “a mechanism for delivering value-added content”, whereas engagement means, “collaboratively addressing community concerns.” This would seem to be consistent with the UK-centric arguments that have been laid out above, i.e. that outreach is a means of educating the general public (in particular school children), whereas public engagement involves a two-way dialogue in which the general public can offer advice and opinions as to the current state of scientific research. This approach to defining public engagement as something different from outreach is corroborated by Holliman et al. (2009, pp. 56) who state that:

However, there still appears to be some uncertainty as to the difference between these approaches, and also to potential overlaps with regards to audiences; it is also unclear as to whether these definitions are consistent at an institutional level. As Rowe & Frewer (2005, pp. 251) remark:

Widening Participation involves interventions targeted at social groups under-represented in Higher Education (HE), in order to encourage them to attend university. According to the Office of Fair Access (OFFA; http://www.offa.org.uk/) this includes:

With graduates benefitting from higher levels skills, knowledge, and access to the networks that are necessary to find higher paid work, the affordances of higher education are clear. Assuming disadvantaged social groups are afforded the same opportunities of access to employment through their university education, widening participation can help reduce social exclusion. It is not surprising, therefore, that the New Labour government largely reshaped the UK HE landscape in alignment with this ambition, with activity co-ordinated through Aimhigher, Lifelong Learning Networks, and the National Academy of Gifted and Talented Youth (see e.g. Frost, 2005).

However, the institutional landscape has since changed, with a greater onus now on the universities to independently deliver these objectives. In addition, university widening participation activity has come under greater scrutiny by the Higher Education Funding Council England (HEFCE), whereby universities opting to charge over £6k annual tuition fees, must also agree to Fair Access Agreements (McCaig & Adnett, 2009).

In practice, widening participation aligns with the Pipeline or Learner Pathway model (see e.g. Clewell & Villegas, 1999); involving interventions designed to raise awareness and expectations of HE at various points within a learner’s education. With the emphasis on social mobility, widening participation focuses largely on targeting younger students from disadvantaged backgrounds utilising quantitative measures of poverty and deprivation, for example, the Index of Multiple Deprivation (Deas et al., 2003) and the eligibility for Free School Meals datasets.

In addition, widening participation can also be thought of as a consideration of the student lifecycle, beyond pre-entry and transition, to include university curriculum design, student support and employability. This follows concern that students from disadvantaged backgrounds perceive universities as ivory towers, i.e. places that are beyond their reach and are not for the likes of people like themselves (see e.g. Mangan et al., 2010). It is important, therefore, to consider the impact of traditional university practices or institutional culture, not only on access, but also on the retention and progression of students from non-traditional backgrounds through HE.

Various conceptualisations of knowledge exchange have been in UK higher education discourse since the late 90s, when the Higher Education Reach Out to Business and Community (HEROBC) initially emerged. HEROBC was initially part of the so-called ‘third stream’ of funding, designed to sit alongside institutions’ teaching and research activities, and to provide funds for universities and colleges to pursue interactions with business and the wider community. At the time these interactions were exclusively centred on knowledge and/or technology transfer (rather than exchange), with the purpose of HEROBC being to develop the capacity and capability for knowledge transfer between Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) and other sectors. Typical activities that were funded through HEROBC included skills matching between university and business, and the provision of gateways to enable business to access university expertise and employability initiatives.

In 2001, HEROBC evolved into the Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF), which focussed on funding activities designed to increase the capability of universities “to respond to the needs of business, especially in instances that would lead to identifiable economic benefits” (HEFCE, 2005, pp. 5) HEIF has since featured in four separate funding rounds, with explicit reference to knowledge exchange (rather than knowledge transfer) first emerging as a prominent part in December 2003 around the call for HEIF-2.

HEFCE, through the annual Higher Education Business and Community Interaction Survey (HEBCIS), now leads the categorisation of knowledge exchange activities. HEBCIS requires universities to report expenditure across various knowledge exchange categories including contract research, consultancy, CPD, business start-up, employability programmes etc. As university HEIF allocations are tied to levels of expenditure reported through HEBCIS, this exercise has been a big influence on what UK universities prioritise, resource and define in terms of knowledge exchange.

Despite the focus on expenditure, the important social, cultural and community role that universities play in wider society has not been entirely ignored. Influential voices have emerged around these concepts, most notably Professor David Watson (ex-Vice-Chancellor at Brighton University) who has been a champion of this societal agenda and the role that universities have to play within it, focusing on “civic and community” partnerships (Watson, 2007).

Watson’s conceptualisation of knowledge exchange is rooted in a more engaged ‘two-way’ relationship between universities and external partners that sets out a much broader notion of knowledge transfer and knowledge exchange. John Goddard, the emeritus Professor of Regional Development Studies at Newcastle University UK, has also commented on the positions of universities as powerful engines of local and regional economic growth (see e.g. Goddard, 2009).

The most recent HEFCE definition states knowledge exchange “refers to HEIs’ engagement with businesses, public and third sector services, the community and wider public” (http://www.hefce.ac.uk/glossary/#letterK). This adoption of a more explicit referencing of engagement within the knowledge exchange landscape has largely come about through a subtle yet important shift within funding council priorities prefaced, for example, within the Beacons for Public Engagement initiative (2008–2012) and leading towards the uptake of the impact agenda within the UK’s Research Excellence Framework.

Survey

In order to assess the current opinion relating to the definitions of outreach, public engagement, widening participation, and knowledge exchange in UK HEIs, a survey conducted in the UK asked participants to relate their experience of science communication and its nomenclature.

The survey was conducted using Bristol Online Surveys (https://www.survey.bris.ac.uk/), and comprised 8 questions delivered with a mixed-method approach (i.e. qualitative and quantitative questions). The focus was to evaluate the participant’s views on what constituted outreach, public engagement, widening participation, and knowledge exchange. It also aimed to assess whether or not the participants felt as though their own opinions aligned with those of colleagues and their institution. A copy of the questionnaire is included as Supplementary material.

The survey was advertised via email, social media accounts, and the ‘psci-comm’ mailing list hosted by JISCMail. This study was carried out according to the British Educational Research Association’s (BERA) ethical guidelines for educational research, with all of the data in this study fully anonymised.

Results & Discussion

In total, 47 people participated in the survey, and all bar one of them stated that they currently participated in outreach, public engagement, or widening participation events at their institute or company. Of the actively involved participants, 44 were located solely in UK, one in the Netherlands, and one was based in both the Netherlands and the UK.

Figure 1 shows the results of the survey in relation to how the participant’s personal definitions differed from those of their colleagues and institutes/companies.

Figure 1. Stacked columns showing how participant’s personal definitions differed from those of their colleagues and institutes/companies.

Sixty-six per cent of the participants agreed that their definitions of outreach, public engagement, and widening participation aligned with those of their colleagues, whilst 64% felt that their personal definitions matched those of their institute.

Only five of the participants felt as though the alignment of their definitions was different when comparing colleagues to institutes. Of these five, three of the participants felt as though their definitions matched those of their colleagues but not those of their institute, whilst two of the participants considered their definitions to be aligned with those of their institute, but not of their colleagues. These results suggest that in a still emergent field, the participants of this survey are likely to be the driving influence behind the definition of science communication at an institutional level.

It is also worth noting that whilst the majority of the participants felt as though their personal definitions of outreach, public engagement and widening participation matched those of their colleagues and institutes, there were approximately a third that did not feel as though this was the case. If the participants that took part in this survey represent a fair cross-section of people working in science outreach, public engagement, and widening participation across the UK then it is somewhat alarming that such a significant proportion of them feel as though the fundamental basis on which their work is founded lacks such clemency in its definitions.

What is not clear from the above statistics is if there is any agreement between the participants’ personal definitions of outreach, widening participation, and public engagement. As such, in addition to the questions regarding how the participants felt their definitions matched those of their colleagues and institutes, the survey also contained the following questions, which aimed to further explore how these different facets of science communication are defined in the UK:

From the responses to these open-ended questions, word clouds were created, in which an image was composed of the words used, for which the size of each word indicates its frequency. These word clouds are shown in Figure 2–Figure 5, all of which were produced using the web-based application Wordle (http://www.wordle.net). In the generation of these word clouds the key word(s) addressed in the question were removed, and all of the words were capitalised (so as to avoid repetition). For example, for the question concerning knowledge exchange, only the words ‘knowledge’ and ‘exchange’ were removed from the text used in the generation of the word cloud.

Figure 2. Word cloud of participant’s responses to the question “How would you define outreach?”

Figure 3. Word cloud of participant’s responses to the question “How would you define public engagement?”

Figure 4. Word cloud of participant’s responses to the question “How would you define widening participation?”

Figure 5. Word cloud of participant’s responses to the question “How is knowledge exchange related to outreach, public engagement and widening participation?”

Regarding the responses to the definition of outreach (Figure 2), what is immediately noticeable is the frequency with which the word ‘schools’ is used. Nearly half (46%) of the respondents made a direct association between science outreach and school education, whereby it was the job of the academic/scientist to translate their research/knowledge into an activity that would ensure a student would understand, become engaged and hopefully inspire into considering science at a higher level.

One respondent stated it was not an act solely for school students, but generally for young people under the age of 20. Others noted that outreach takes place outside the university campus (in any location) or specifically targeted communities that are considered ‘hard-to-reach’, or generally disengaged from university education.

Interestingly, some respondents explicitly discussed the connection between outreach and public engagement. One respondent stated they believed outreach was “more educational than public engagement”, whilst two respondents believed outreach to be a subsection to public engagement, but did not elaborate on how the terms were differentiated. One respondent suggested that outreach was “More one-way focused, having a scientist talk to a non-expert, not necessarily in a two-way conversation.”

From the results of the survey, the largest collective response to the issue of defining public engagement was that it was a two-way dialogue used to share information between two distinct groups, with 18 of the participants referring to something that was ‘two way’ or involved a sharing of ideas, rather than a one-way discourse. This is evidenced by the prominence of the words ‘two’, ‘way’ and ‘two-way’ in Figure 3. Some of the sample responses that matched this definition included: “Public engagement can be a two-way process, with academics learning and incorporating feedback from the public”, “Public Engagement is ideally a two-way process, by which information is shared between two different groups”, and “Activities in which members of public audiences communicate with specialists in a way that has the potential to influence the specialists' activities.”

This definition of public engagement being a two-way conversation between scientists and general members of the public would also seem to match that which was discussed in the introduction to this paper, and it is encouraging that the most popular philosophy matched the most common consensus of the literature. However, it should be noted that not all of the participants viewed public engagement as being defined in this manner. Some of the other definitions of public engagement included: “Audiences not associated with schools and colleges”, “Public engagement is meeting and engaging with the broader public to improve understanding and transparency of university teaching and research”, and “Any activity done with or to members of the public not in an organised educational group.”

Whilst the most popular participant response to the nature of public engagement involved some sort of two-way communication, it is interesting to note that this accounted for only ~38% of the participants. Considering that 66% of the participants felt that their definitions of outreach, knowledge exchange, and public engagement agreed with those of their colleagues, this would appear to be counterintuitive. Instead, the results of this survey would seem to indicate that the participants’ definitions of public engagement are in fact many and far ranging.

The analysis of the results from responses to definition of widening participation, encouragingly reveal a broad consensus. A vast majority (89%), for example, articulated in various ways that widening participation refers to broadening access to university to include a wider range of social groups, in particular, people from groups currently under-represented in higher education, as evidence by the prominence of these terms in the word cloud shown in Figure 4. That said, three respondents claimed to have not have heard of the term widening participation before, whereas two expressed a rather cynical perception that widening participation had become “hijacked by university recruitment agendas”, and another respondent referred to “the annoying habit of targeting minority groups.”

The survey reveals less clarity, however, in terms of identifying specific target groups (some respondents referred to one or more target groups):

A large number of responses refer to atypical social groups, people who express certain characteristics that appear to be defined against some notion of what constitutes a normal student, for example “those with different cultural attitudes and ideals.” This finding chimes with the concern that university staff continue to understand diversity in a way that reproduces the notion of universities as places for some normalized subject, defined against an atypical Other. Only one respondent, for instance, referred to widening participation in terms of curriculum support/design for widening participation of students already in HE.

In the survey, participants were asked how they felt knowledge exchange related to outreach, public engagement and widening participation, the results of which are shown in the word cloud in Figure 5. What is immediately clear is that there is no consistent definition or understanding of knowledge exchange amongst respondents. There are instead a broad range of concepts, definitions and views of knowledge exchange in evidence.

Seventeen per cent of respondents admitted that they had not come across the term “knowledge exchange” before, with 19% identifying knowledge exchange as related to interactions between universities and business partners, leading to increased economic activities. By far the largest number of respondents (36%) felt that knowledge exchange was related to all three activities including outreach, public engagement and widening participation, often conceptualising it as (in the words of one respondent) “an essential part as it allows external stakeholders to influence our activities but also allows us to share expertise.”

From the word cloud of these results, shown in Figure 5, it is perhaps surprising that the word outreach is so dominant, given that the earlier definitions in the survey (Figure 3) generally reference outreach activities as those within schools rather than commercial or income-generating partnerships with business or industry. The prevalence of public engagement (and widening participation) in the participants’ responses is perhaps to be expected, given the relationship between the professional support for knowledge exchange and public engagement within most institutions. Given the more business-oriented nature of knowledge exchange that was laid out previously, it was perhaps surprising to see less use of words such as commercialisation, HEIF, business, and enterprise.

Conclusion

Perhaps the most noticeable result from this study is that the open-ended responses to the survey resulted in a wide range of definitions of outreach, public engagement, widening participation and knowledge exchange amongst the participants, despite the quantitative data indicating that two thirds felt that their definitions of outreach, knowledge exchange, and public engagement agreed with those of their colleagues. This would seem to indicate that further communication is required both within and between institutes to ensure a level of consistency amongst science communicators.

Based on the current literature, and the results of this study, the following broad definitions are offered for each of the four considered topics:

Outreach: a one-way discourse, in which scientists communicate their research to the general public.

Public Engagement: a two-way dialogue, in which scientists converse with members of the general public in a mutually beneficial manner.

Widening Participation: any activity that engages with social groups under-represented in HE, in order to encourage them to attend university.

Knowledge Exchange: any activity that involves engagement with businesses, public and third sector services, the community and the wider public, and which is monitored for funding purposes.

It is acknowledged that there is still some overlap between these definitions, for example a school assembly given by a university researcher at a local school might well be classed as being an outreach, widening participation, and knowledge exchange activity. In such instances it is important to consider the context of these classifications. In this example, the researcher’s faculty might classify the activity as outreach, the university’s widening participation team (or equivalent) may catalogue it as a widening participation activity, and the knowledge exchange offices (or equivalent) could acknowledge it in their records for HEFCE.

It is important for science communicators to consider the context in which their activity takes place, because depending on its classification, the activity may be eligible for different amounts of funding from different areas of resource. This consideration of context is especially important when applying for external funding, where science communicators will be expected to outline the specific area(s) in which their activity can be categorised.

The main limitations of this survey were the sample size, and also the fact that the participants were mainly active science communicators. For future work, it would be conducive to pursue responses from active researchers who did not consider themselves science communicators.

The results of the survey also indicate that the respondents were less comfortable defining terminology around knowledge exchange than they were about outreach, public engagement and widening participation. The job titles and functions of respondents may be an important factor here, and further work is needed to confirm this. A future study is planned which also aims to assess how the different perceptions of science communication nomenclature would break down according to stakeholders. For example, the ways in which an academic, museum and learned society view these definitions might be very different. An international study, with a much larger target audience, is also required so as to assess differences in perceptions of the science communication lexicon between countries, both those traditionally associated with the field and those that are not.

It is also worth noting that no mention has been given to the effect of science communication on the researchers, i.e. the sector of the field that is concerned with improving the effectiveness and engagement of scientists in communicating their research to a variety of audiences. A future study would also aim to assess how this aspect of science communication fitted in with the external facets discussed above.

This study, via a consideration of the literature, and a survey of science communicators, has presented concise and workable definitions for outreach, public engagement, widening participation and knowledge exchange. However, as with all names it is important that the people using them feel comfortable with them, and also that there is at least some form of consistency within the field (and beyond) as to their usage. This consistency will only come about by communication both within and between institutions, and this study aims to act as a starting point for such conversations, with planned future work aiming to further explore the perceptions of science communication and its nomenclature amongst a much wider target audience.

Data availability

Dataset 1. Answers to science communication questionnaire. These are the responses to the questionnaire that was used in this study to assess practitioner’s definitions of nomenclature in relation to science communication. http://dx.doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.6858.d97179 (Illingworth et al., 2015).