What does “success” in public engagement activities mean? A comparison of goals, motivations and embedded assumptions in four polar outreach activities.

Abstract:

Using four very different polar outreach case studies, we will discuss scientists' motivations, expectations, and institutional incentives (and dis-incentives) to engage with the public, and argue that improved training, evaluation, and academic value needs to be associated with scientist-led communication efforts – as well as clearer fora for sharing best practice in this field. We will illustrate our argument using examples from an Antarctic festival with public lectures and science cafes, outreach associated with an Antarctic expedition, the global launch of a climate change documentary that had a significant focus on Antarctica, and a series of "Polar Weeks" led by an international community of scientists and educators.

While there is an excellent culture of accountability in both formal and informal science communication sectors, the same rigour is not applied to the majority of ‘outreach’ activities that are initiated by the science research community. Many of these activities are undertaken based on 'what feels right' and opportunism, and are proclaimed to be a success based on little or no formal evaluation. As a result, much of this work goes undocumented, is not evaluated from the perspective of the science community, and is rarely subject to peer-review and its associated benefits, including professional rewards. We therefore recommend new opportunities for publication in this field that would encourage science communication theory and practice to better inform each other, and for scientists to gain professional recognition for their efforts in this arena.