?In an age where misinformation spreads faster than facts, it has never been more crucial for scientists to engage the public. From climate change denial to vaccine hesitancy, there are far-reaching consequences when there is public distrust and misunderstanding of science. This reality has sparked a shift in approach: from one-sided science communication toward engaged dialogue and genuine exchange with diverse audiences.
On Monday, 19 May 2025, Public Squares hosted its first lecture of 2025. The lecture, titled From Science Communication to Public Engagement: Optimising Benefits, Mitigating Barries, was presented by Prof. Marina Joubert. Prof. Joubert is a senior science communication researcher and Associate Professor at the Centre for Research on Evaluation Science and Technology (CREST) at Stellenbosch 中国体育彩票. The lecture explored the shift from science communication to public engagement, highlighting its importance, benefits, challenges and practical measures for effective and meaningful public engagement.
From Science Communication to Public Engagement
At its core, science communication involves conversation and making knowledge accessible to wider audiences. Buch and Trench (2021) describes science communication as the “social conversation around science”. It’s not just about passing down facts or talking at people; it’s also about dialogue and co-producing knowledge. Prof. Joubert defined science communication as “making science visible, relevant, meaningful, accessible, and memorable”. In other words, it helps public audiences see the value of science and why it matters in everyday life.
Science communication goes beyond end results – it also gives importance to how research is done and how it impacts society ethically and morally. However, despite it seeming all encompassing, science communication has limitations that can be addressed through genuine public engagement.
Science communication offers a range of benefits such as scientists gaining increased recognition which can help them influence policy, attract more funding and reach broader audiences. These benefits, however, tend to revolve around scientists and institutions, leaving communities and their contributions sidelined.
Public engagement addresses this shortcoming by fostering intentional and meaningful interactions. Instead of assuming that non-scientists lack knowledge and need to be educated through a top-down approach, public engagement promotes a more inclusive approach. It encourages scientists to involve people, seeing their experiences, perspectives, knowledge and values as meaningful contributors to knowledge production.
In his book, “The engaged scholar”, Andrew J. Hoffman discusses the mutual benefits of public engagement, highlighting the enriching impact for both researchers and communities.
When scientists engage public audiences, they become both an expert and a citizen. Their engagement is characterised by humility, listening, reflection, and the willingness to learn from and work with others. Communities become collaborative partners in this process of knowledge production as they shape research and outcomes. This fosters trust and accessibility, ensuring that research addresses issues that to communities, enhancing social equity, diversity, and inclusivity.
Despite its benefits for both researchers and communities, scientists who engage in the practice of public engagement face barriers to implementation that can hinder its positive effects. The top down “scientist-to-public” approach in the dissemination of knowledge is still firmly entrenched academia resulting in the value of community knowledge and contribution being overlooked. Institutional structures like media officers and press releases tend to reinforce one-way communication instead of meaningful dialogue. Additionally, public engagement is sometimes reduced to a tick-box exercise for scientists to gain funding or public policy support, essentially stripping away the intentionality that is at the heart of public engagement.
Effective public engagement relies on clear communication, transparency, and mutual trust. Researchers should openly share their affiliations and intentions, set expectations early, and prioritise engaged dialogue over one-sided conversation. Using plain language, relatable examples, and personal stories helps build emotional connections and makes complex ideas more accessible. These practices can help mitigate the barriers to public engagement.
An illustrative example, as cited by Prof. Joubert in the lecture, is Prof. Salim Abdool Karim - a distinguished public health physician, epidemiologist, and virologist. He was appointed to lead the 45-member South African Ministerial Advisory Committee and played a central role in shaping the country’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Through numerous media appearances, he not only provided expert analysis and scientific insight but also connected with the public on a human level. By openly expressing his personal concerns for the health and wellbeing of his family, he built trust and credibility between scientists and public audiences at a time marked by widespread uncertainty and polarised discourse around the virus and vaccination.
Insights from the lecture
The lecture was well attended and had a diverse audience ranging from researchers, professors, lecturers, postdoctoral fellows, and students. Below are some insights from two of the audience members.
Dr. Berna Gerber, Senior Lecture: Speech-Language and Hearing Therapy and member of the Public Square on Early Intervention and Child Mental Health
“I really like the concept of engagement and of co-creation. I think that is definitely the root that science communication on early life research needs to take. So, it was very inspiring. I really liked the message about telling stories, acknowledging people’s emotions, sharing your own uncertainties, etc. as a researcher”.
Solomzi Mphambo, BA Philosophy, Political Science and Economics (PPE) student
“Something that stood out for me was Professor Joubert’s emphasis on public engagement and how its needed within the sciences, whether that be hard sciences or the soft sciences. Science does not exist in a vacuum, and it always needs consultation with the public”.
Ultimately, being an engaged scholar means realising that facts alone do not change minds, and more knowledge does not equal more support for science. People do not process information in a linear manner. Rather, the path from information to idea is shaped by various factors including values, confirmation bias, intuition, and social influences.
The idea that effective public engagement requires more than just facts is not new. Aristotle taught that effective communication relies on three things: 1) logos: arguments or facts, 2) ethos: credibility and character of the speaker and 3) pathos: emotional appeals. These elements can be seen as the three pillars of a stable chair – relying on only one or two will not hold the weight. For public engagement to be truly effective, scientists must appeal to audiences in all three areas. As Prof Joubert put it simply, “facts are the core, but emotion is the key”.
Watch the full lecture on our YouTube channel here.
.png)