As public discourse surrounding climate change, gene editing, and other pressing issues gains momentum, expectations for scientists to engage with the public are expanding. And no issue has underscored the heightened relevance of today’s science society juncture quite like the COVID-19 pandemic.

But expectations don’t always match reality. Despite increasing calls for public engagement within the scientific community, scientists at all stages of their careers differ in their willingness to divert attention away from the desk, lab bench, or classroom.

This conundrum caught the attention of researchers from the Department of Life Sciences Communication (LSC) at CALS and the Science Communication Incubator Lab (SCI Lab) at the Morgridge Institute for Research. It led them to investigate what characteristics make productive scientists more likely than their peers to participate in public engagement.

Past studies affirm the value of public outreach and informal science education, but research institutions typically define, measure, and reward productivity based on the number of scholarly articles published in a scientist’s career. As a result, some scientists view participation in public engagement as an opportunity cost that takes time away from research.

However, events like COVID-19 highlight how critical it is for scientists to build credibility within communities. Without a bridge between research and the public, audiences find it difficult to trust science alone.

“There’s this perception that, if we provide people with the facts about science and technology, it will be enough to change opinions about certain issues,” says Mikhaila Calice PhD’23, a Morgridge research associate who works with the SCI Lab. “But there are decades of research to show that’s just not how human psychology works.”

Recent shifts in how the public consumes and interprets information have led to a growing need for researchers to become effective science communicators. Realizing that this will require large-scale change, the SCI Lab decided to start with finding answers to an underlying question: What influences scientists to engage with the public?

Their study surveyed more than 5,000 tenure-track faculty from 30 landgrant universities with a very high level of research activity, as defined by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Respondents were asked about their willingness to participate in two categories of public engagement: public scholarship and informal science education.

Public scholarship refers to engagement activities such as meeting with policymakers, being interviewed by journalists, writing popular news articles or op-eds, and participating in public meetings. Informal science education includes activities such as giving a public lecture or talk at a science café, participating in a science festival or open house event, and working with K-12 students. The willingness of scientists to engage in these two types of engagement was then compared to several related variables, such as level of science communication training, self-efficacy, and career-related institutional incentives.

Findings revealed a positive relationship between productivity and willingness to participate in public scholarship. However, that willingness slightly declined when research organizations failed to support engagement through monetary or career related incentives.

The exclusion of public engagement from the tenure process highlights the disconnect between institutions and scientists on what equates to research excellence — an assertion that prior SCI Lab studies support. “While younger, pre-tenure faculty seemed really motivated to engage with the public and to find ways to engage, they often felt like the culture of their lab or institution wasn’t necessarily supporting that,” Calice says.

The study suggests that with more institutional support and incentives for engagement, rather than the status quo of prioritizing only research productivity, scientists could expand the impact of their research. Incorporating engagement into the culture of institutions is essential in generating excitement surrounding not only the scientific methods of research but also the teaching of it.

“Participating in public scholarship and informal science education exposes researchers to how their work intersects with society and why considering that component can be incredibly useful for both connecting with people about science and improving scientific research,” Calice says.

Nonetheless, a shift in cultural attitudes surrounding engagement involves a change at the institutional level. Dominique Brossard, professor and chair in LSC and SCI Lab codirector, emphasizes this point for academia and beyond.

“Encouraging effective public scholarship and engagement from researchers at all levels is a key part of our mission,” Brossard says. “Institutional change will support not only our researchers but also the broader community.”

Looking forward, the SCI Lab plans to assess the effects of upward pressure from early career scientists on mentors and research departments to prioritize engagement. Over time, this institutional change can have a profound impact on how research is conducted and disseminated to the public.