10.6092/issn.2038-3460/17055




Public Engagement (PE) is a marginalized field within a science institute’s "core business" of doing research. Using interview data from a range of science professionals working in European research institutions, this study addresses fundamental questions about science communication: What role do scientists think they should have in SiS activities? What audience do scientists think they should address? Despite an openess to experiment with PE initiatives, the deficit model remains dominant among research practitioners. The importance of the institutional factor emerges, namely research institutions failure to recognize SiS activities as an integral part of the research profession.




application/pdf
2038-3460
17055
2
en
Federico Neresini
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/
Tecnoscienza – Italian Journal of Science & Technology Studies
evaluation
Behind Closed Doors. Scientists’ and Science Communicators’ Discourses on Science in Society. A Study Across European Research Institutions
Text.Serial.Journal
https://tecnoscienza.unibo.it/
3
Essays
2013-01-06
2023-05-28
2013-01-06
2023-07-14
37-62
TS
Federico Neresini
2012
10.6092/issn.2038-3460/17055
37
University of Padova
2038-3460
2
evaluation
en
62
Behind Closed Doors. Scientists’ and Science Communicators’ Discourses on Science in Society. A Study Across European Research Institutions
https://tecnoscienza.unibo.it/article/download/17055/15943
3
                                                                                      Essay
Behind Closed Doors
Scientists’ and Science Communicators’ Discourses on
Science in Society. A Study Across European Research
Institutions1


Silvia Casini and Federico Neresini



       Abstract Public Engagement (PE) is a marginalized field within a science
       institute’s 'core business' of doing research. Using interview data from a range of
       science professionals working in European research institutions, this study ad-
       dresses fundamental questions about science communication: What role do
       scientists think they should have in SiS activities? What audience do scientists
       think they should address? Despite an openess to experiment with PE initiatives,
       the deficit model remains dominant among research practitioners. The
       importance of the institutional factor emerges, namely research institutions failure
       to recognize SiS activities as an integral part of the research profession.

       Keywords scientists; communication; public; engagement; space; evaluation.




Introduction
    In responding to the call made by Lévy-Leblond back in the 1990s (1992), re-
cent literature has started paying attention to scientific experts’ understanding of
the general public (Besley and Nisbett 2011; Davies 2008; Young and Matthews
2007; Burchell 2007), emphasising a need to engage with these often-neglected
questions: how do scientists perceive the public? What do scientists understand
by public communication and engagement? But, according to Davies, “little re-
cent work has specifically examined scientists’ ideas and assumptions about pub-
lic communication and engagement, despite the fact that these will certainly af-
fect the ways in which they engage in such activities” (Davies 2008, p. 415).
    How scientists engage with the public(s) is related to their broader under-
standing of so-called “Science in Society” (SiS), a field comprising activities in
both Public Communication of Science and Technology (PCST) and Public En-


1
    The research project for this paper was supported by Foundation Compagnia di S. Paolo (Italy).



TECNOSCIENZA
Italian Journal of Science & Technology Studies
Volume 3(2) pp. 37-62 - ISSN 2038-3460
http://www.tecnoscienza.net                       © 2012 TECNOSCIENZA
38   CASINI AND NERESINI



     gagement (PE), and to the different publics that scientists and communication
     experts address in their everyday working lives.
         "Science in Society" is a locution that has been recently proposed to replace
     the previous one "Science and Society". The reason for the change lies in the be-
     lief that speaking of "Science in Society" would better address the need to over-
     come a "diffusionist" conception of public communication of science. This last
     conception was centred on the belief that science was too complicated for the
     public and, consequently, there was the need for a mediation capable to make
     science understandable to non-scientists. These are some of the ideas underpin-
     ning the diffusionist conception, and in particular: "the notion of the media as a
     channel designed to convey scientific notions, but often unable to perform this
     task satisfactorily due to lack of competences and/or predominance of other pri-
     orities (e.g. commercial interests); the public as passive, whose default ignorance
     and hostility to science can be counteracted by appropriate injection of science
     communication; science communication as a linear, one-way process in cui the
     source context (specialist elaboration) and the target context (popular discourse)
     can not only be sharply separated, but only the former can influence the latter;
     communication as a broader process concerned with the transfer of knowledge
     from one subject or group of subjects to another; knowledge as being transfera-
     ble without significant alterations from one context to another, so that it is possi-
     ble to take an idea or result from the scientific community and bring it to the
     general public”(Bucchi 2008, p. 58). Often the diffusionist concept is referred to
     as "deficit model", although the latter more aptly refers to the second term of the
     previous list (Bucchi 2008), giving PCST the task of filling the gap of scientific
     culture that characterizes contemporary society. The weaknesses of the diffusion-
     ist conception and the necessity of overcoming it have been widely reaffirmed by
     the numerous criticisms of the deficit model. Those criticisms call for a relation-
     ship between science and society based on dialogue and engagement with citizens
     seen as active interlocutors and worthy of consideration (Funtowicz and Ravetz
     1993; Gibbons et al. 1994; Lewenstein 1995; Michael 2002; Nowotny et al. 2001;
     Wynne 1995). That is why the locution "science in society" sounds more appro-
     priate than "science and society". Science and society should not be interpreted
     as two separate entities to be related assuming that the first one should transfer
     something to the second, rather one as part of the other in an equal relationship.
     This is also the reason why to understand how scientists see their potential inter-
     locutors and how they envisage the interaction with them is particularly relevant
     for research in the field of Science and Technology Studies.
         In considering those issues, one should keep in mind that scientists are not
     isolated when they carry out research activities or when they interact with the
     public(s). In both cases, their attitudes and the actions they take are highly influ-
     enced, for better or worse, by the motivations and resources coming from the re-
     search institution to which they belong. The organizational culture of scientific
     institutions, therefore, cannot be overlooked when seeking to understand the ap-
     proach scientists have toward SiS activities as a whole. Similarly, one should not
     forget that scientists, in so far as they belong to a certain institution, may find
                                                              TECNOSCIENZA – 3(2)        39



themselves working side by side with other professionals such as those who are
engaged in communication and/or public relations (PR).
    At the same time, one should be able to analyze what public(s) is (are) ad-
dressed by researchers and science communication experts, given that “in the ar-
ea of science communication, as in any area, it is firstly important to ask who the
public is. The public of course includes the informed, educated, interested and
engaged populations as well as naive, uninterested and poorly educated groups”
(Turney 2006, p. 38). Nevertheless the most common tendency still seems to be
that scientists consider “the ‘public’ as a passive entity with ‘attitudes’ or ‘under-
standings’, but not as a bumptious technoscientific actor” (Haraway 1997, p. 94),
even though the willingness and capacity of the public to become actively in-
volved in technoscientific practices have been largely recognised (Funtowicz and
Ravetz 1993; Epstein 1996; Irwin and Wynne 1996; Callon et al. 2001; Jasanoff
2004; Bucchi and Neresini 2007). The general public is neither completely unin-
terested in science - especially when it senses its relevance for everyday life - nor
unable to actively contribute to science development, either by means of taking
part in the process of doing scientific research, or by getting involved in the initi-
atives of PCST (Felt and Wynne 2007).
    There remains much to be done in order to understand how scientists con-
ceive that part of their professional commitment that has gained increasing rele-
vance under the pressure of the public, the media and politics. Furthermore, the
increasing demand of public communication and engagement seems to conflict
with the traditional requirements put forth by the scientific community in terms
of laboratory work, exchange with colleagues, writing up of peer-reviewed pa-
pers.


1. From deficit to engagement: which public and which role for
the scientists?
    According to available literature, the prevailing conception of the public
among scientists is the so-called "deficit model". In this respect, the scarce scien-
tific culture and the strong disinterest that characterizes lay people constitute the
basis of unfavourable attitudes toward science (Brossard and Lewenstein 2010).
Those attitudes might foster irrational behaviour - such as the rejection of GMOs
or the belief in horoscopes; additionally, they might render the study of science
and prospective careers less attractive to young people. The latter attitude de-
prives research institutions of necessary resources (Sturgis and Allum 2004).
    This dominant perspective emerges in a straightforward manner from the de-
tailed review recently presented by Besley and Nisbett, in which studies show
that "scientists believe the public is inadequately informed about science topics"
and that, at the same time, "is uninterested in becoming more knowledgeable"
(2011, p. 4). They agree with Davies (2008) that "these findings reflect, a tradi-
tional ‘deficit model’ of science communication" (Besley and Nisbett 2011, p. 4).
40   CASINI AND NERESINI



         This is further confirmed by a measured tendency among scientists to attrib-
     ute responsibility to others for a lack of scientific culture in the lay public; less
     than one third of scientists think that the problem stems mainly from scientists
     themselves (MORI-Wellcome Trust 2001). Science communication scholars also
     think that scientists “hold a deficit model perspective” thinking that the public
     have not meaningful opinions, even if “the members of the science community
     remain mixed in their views of the public” (Besley and Tanner 2011, p. 256). The
     prevalence of the deficit model among scientists, and the resulting tendency to
     interpret their interaction with the public as a one-way form of communication,
     however, is not inconsistent with more flexible positions. These may include sub-
     jects or situations about which lay people express interest in interacting with the
     scientists, such as topics or applications of science perceived as relevant to the
     public (Davies 2008, p. 417). On the other hand, findings from research by the
     Pew Trust in 2009 confirm that scientists may broadly view the lay population as
     ignorant, but remain in disagreement about whether or not this is a problem.
         Therefore, research concludes that most scientists frame SiS activities in terms
     of the deficit model, a fact that has consequences related to the way scientists
     perceive the public(s), and interact with it. This is a typical situation of self-
     fulfilling prophecy: "false conceptions of the public operate in science policy
     making and misguided efforts at communication of scientific institutions which
     alienated the public still further" (Bauer et al. 2007, p. 85). The naïve view scien-
     tists have of society and its interactions should not be surprising, as they are - like
     everyone else – obliged to assume some model of social reality in order to be able
     to interact with it (Wynne 1989). Moreover, scientists are encouraged to take as
     good models those that are ready at hand, namely those of common sense, such
     as: communication exchange described using the metaphor of the transmission of
     knowledge; the lack of knowledge explains the prejudices against science; the
     'others' tend to form a homogeneous whole uninterested - or even hostile - to-
     wards us even when we are – on the contrary – really engaged in what we do.
     There is no reason to believe that scientists are immune from the cognitive pro-
     cesses that typically come into play when ordinary people need to get an idea of
     how social interactions work (Besley and Nisbett 2011, p. 13). The deficit model
     is the combination of these elements of common sense; this explains, among oth-
     er things, its persistence, even among scientists. And for these reasons it is crucial
     to understand what scientists think of PE and PCST, now grouped in SiS. This
     goal can be declined in a number of issues that address very general questions.
     First, it should be understood who is (are) the public(s) that scientists address. It
     is already known that the predominant tendency is to characterize it as scientifi-
     cally illiterate and with very little interest in filling a knowledge gap. Simultane-
     ously, there is the belief that public perception is pervaded by scepticism, if not
     outright hostility, towards science. On these premises, it is logical to expect that
     the public is imagined as a homogeneous rather than as a differentiated entity.
     The data available confirm that we are heading in this direction. Therefore, Da-
     vies (2008) asserts, when scientists think of their interaction with the public they
     seem to have in mind three main objectives, in descending order of importance:
                                                                TECNOSCIENZA – 3(2)         41



to form scientifically literate people; to recruit potential future scientists and to
arouse interest in scientific research.
    The role scientists think they play or might play in SiS activities appears to be
much less clear. In this regard some indications come from how scientists view
their relationship with media. The conception scientists have of media, in fact,
comes into play in building their idea of the public and, therefore, in their under-
standing of the complex nature of SiS activities. The most recent and compre-
hensive research on the relationship between scientists and the media is the one
conducted by Peters and colleagues between 2005 and 2006. The opinions ex-
pressed by scientists interviewed about their relationship with the media are in
many ways ambivalent: on one side “ ‘possible critical reactions from peers’ were
considered important concerns for 42% of the respondents (while) a similar pro-
portion (39%) found ‘enhanced personal reputation among peers’ to be an im-
portant outcome of media contacts”; at the same time, “when assessing the quali-
ty of media coverage of scientific topics in general on four aspects (accuracy, use
of credible sources, presence of a hostile tone, and comprehensiveness), scientists
on average were neither clearly positive nor negative” (Peters et al. 2008, p. 203).
However, what is more relevant is the fact that "increasing the public's apprecia-
tion of science was the most important benefits mentioned by scientists as an in-
centive to interact with the media" (Peters et al. 2008, p. 204).
    When scientists talk about PCST they simultaneously build both themselves
and their audience (Davies 2008, p. 427): if others possess little knowledge, they
have a lot of it; if they are disinterested and passive, as scientists – as an interested
party – they have the task of taking the initiative; if scientists have a lot to say,
then the public should just be ready to listen. If the public should be educated to
look at science with goodwill, despite the difficulties involved in dealing with the
media, then scientists tend to define the public as a subordinate interlocutor, but
to look at it with favour. The monodirectionality associated with communication
via the media, especially the more traditional ones such as print and television,
reinforces the idea of a passive audience, receiving knowledge and information
from scientists.
    In any case, interaction between scientists and the lay public develops far be-
yond occasions created through traditional forms of media. There are indeed
many ways of being in contact or, to use Beaulieu’s concept, co-present. Bearing
in mind that being physically located in the same space might not be the same as
being ready to interact, as Beaulieu points out quoting Goffman; she defines co-
presence as a type of interaction that can take different modalities, such as face-
to-face or web-based interaction. The space, therefore, can be a physical location
or a virtual one: “Co-presence decentralizes the notion of space without exclud-
ing it” (Beaulieu 2010, p. 2). The web space, namely, can foster horizontal ways
of being in touch between the lay public and the researchers, thus emancipating
the public from a monodirectional communication dynamic.
    In this perspective, the contact with the research world that the public can
gain through a website is of particular importance and the websites of scientific
institutions become a strategic resource. However, direct experience of the la-
42   CASINI AND NERESINI



     boratories, through visits, and of the research centres as a whole, through open
     days, are still a unique opportunity for interaction between scientists and the
     public. This is why an institution’s organization of space in relation to the pres-
     ence of visitors who are not scientists themselves can tell a lot about how scien-
     tists conceive their relationship with the public and their role within it.
         Additional information can be derived from the meaning that scientists as-
     signed to evaluation activities in the context of SiS. Indeed, we are led to consid-
     er evaluation as a set of tools – more or less articulated and more or less reliable –
     through which one can determine whether and to what extent a particular initia-
     tive has produced those results for which it was undertaken. However, the way in
     which evaluation is designed and built can tell a lot about how the promoters of a
     given initiative think of themselves in the context of its realization. In the case of
     SiS it is clear, for example, that if scientists ask evaluation to detect only the
     changes produced in the public – a request which is very difficult to satisfy – or
     also to detect the changes possibly generated on scientists, the role of scientists is
     completely separate. While in the second case scientists and the public are imag-
     ined as part of a process that sees both of them actively involved, carrying differ-
     ent points of view but both recognized as an equal partner, in the first case, sci-
     entists place themselves in a position of relative supremacy, in so far as they as-
     sume that only others have to change, hopefully in the direction desired by scien-
     tists themselves (Pellegrini and Neresini 2008).
         Finally, as noted at the beginning, scientists do not work as isolated individu-
     als, but rather within organizations that make research possible and at the same
     time affect their activities. Here, then, the way in which scientists thematize the
     relationship with the scientific institutions to which they belong becomes an ad-
     ditional perspective from which to derive useful information on their role. Scien-
     tists can interpret their contribution to initiatives of communication and public
     engagement as part of their institutional role as researchers, attributing to this
     task a role more or less consistent with the activity of research strictly speaking.
     This attribution, however, will depend significantly on how research institutions
     define SiS activities: are they a mere appendix to delegate the task of interacting
     with the public or, conversely, a major component of their organizational culture
     to which all are called to contribute?
         Depending on the response, the role of scientists in SiS activities will obvious-
     ly be defined very differently. Within the general issue concerning the meaning
     they attribute to communication with and involvement of the public we can
     therefore identify some more specific questions, which can be summarized as fol-
     lows:
          1) Which audience do scientists address or think they should address?
          2) What role do scientists have or think they should have in SiS activities?

        This second question can be divided into three more specific questions:
        a) Which kinds of interaction do they prefer, direct or mediated? And how
              does the interaction influence the organization of space in research cen-
              tres?
                                                              TECNOSCIENZA – 3(2)        43



   b)   What do they understand about evaluation of SiS activities?
   c)   Which value do scientists believe research institutions assign to SiS activi-
         ties?

   In order to answer to these questions the present study uses data coming from
extensive fieldwork undertaken as part of a broader research project in which a
set of interviews with researchers and communicators working in leading re-
search institutions in various European countries. Choosing institutions where
SiS activities are not minimal, allowed us to compare the opinions of scientists
engaged in research with those of their colleagues only or mainly engaged on the
front of SiS.


2. Methodology
    This article stems from a broader research project which consisted of two dif-
ferent phases. During the first phase (2006-2008), the largest European scientific
research institutions were surveyed in order to map and analyze their SiS activi-
ties. The second phase (2009-2010) centered on the actors involved in such activ-
ities; they were asked to be interviewed about the meaning assigned to PCST and
PE by their research institution. A sample of researchers and communication
practitioners was selected for interview from among those working at the re-
search institutions already surveyed in the first part of the project. Two main cri-
teria guided the sample selection: a) the importance of SiS activities in the re-
search institution; b) the size of the research centre, which was calculated by con-
sidering the number of staff employed rather than the budget of the institution,
because this latter parameter varies considerably according to the research field.
    Because there are differences in SiS activities, due to the research fields of the
institutions, 6 of the 12 selected work in biomedical sciences and 6 in advanced
physics. Finally, the institutions surveyed are distributed across several European
countries: the United Kingdom, Germany, Portugal, Sweden, the Netherlands,
Romania and Italy. The number of research institutions surveyed is not suffi-
ciently large to constitute a representative sample with which to depict the cur-
rent situation of biomedical and physics research organizations at European level.
Nevertheless, we can identify a number of common trends that help us highlight
the interviewees’ perceptions of SiS without widening the gap between the schol-
arly understanding of SiS and its concrete understanding among scientists and
communication experts.
    Four different professional profiles were interviewed at each research institu-
tion: the head of communication/PR, the director (if not available, a manager
with an executive role), a senior researcher, and an early-career researcher. Each
interview was scheduled to last between 40 and 50 minutes. The common lan-
guage among all participants was English and so this was utilized in the face to
face interviews. The population sample therefore consists of 48 individuals be-
longing to different professional groups: 24 researchers (equally distributed be-
44   CASINI AND NERESINI



     tween early-career and senior), 12 professionals in charge of communication and
     engagement activities, 12 with top-level managerial responsibilities (directors of
     research centers and/or deputy directors). One-third of the interviewees are
     women, with a large majority belonging to the category of communication pro-
     fessionals. But only one woman was interviewed among the 12 top-level manag-
     ers, reflecting the well-known under-representation of women occupying senior
     positions in scientific organizations (Blickenstaff 2005; Probert 2005).
         Comparative analysis is limited to scientists and those professionals involved
     in communication and PR activities. While working on the data from the inter-
     views, in fact, we realized that the major differences were between those two
     broad categories. We also detected some differences between women and men,
     between biomedical and physics research institutions, between junior and senior
     scientists, but the differences noticed are not relevant for the purposes of our re-
     search questions.
         The face-to-face interviews were conducted using a semi-structured grid pre-
     pared by the researchers on the basis of the questionnaire used in the first part of
     the research project. The interview grid is structured around the following main
     topics: range of concrete activities implemented by the research institution and
     regarded as S&S; the interviewee’s perception of the role of media in science
     communication and his/her conception of the public(s); the interviewee’s atti-
     tude to the relationship between science and society (science and territory, sci-
     ence and publics); the interviewee’s opinion on the purposes of science commu-
     nication; the use of evaluation and feedback tools. Clearly, these topics give an
     idea of some of the issues addressed, without representing all the themes encoun-
     tered in the course of the face-to-face interview.
         While designing the interview grid, we did not to use the expressions ‘public
     engagement’ or ‘science in society’ in our questions so that interviewees would
     not be conditioned by them. From this we determined that the vast majority of
     the scientists and communicators surveyed did not use the term “engagement”
     when describing the range and type of science communication and PE activities
     that they undertook. Almost none of the researchers and communicators used
     the expression “science in society”, instead preferring the locution “science and
     society”. For this reason, in what follows we prefer to use the term “S&S” instead
     of “SiS”, an expression that might look more appropriate from a theoretical
     point of view – as we have seen in the introduction – but less adequate for de-
     scribing the positions of the interviewees.
         All the interviews were transcribed using a slightly modified version of the
     standard conventions of transcription (see the legend in the annexes for details).
     Their content has been analyzed in order to identify key themes and concepts
     (Silverman, 2001; Flick, 2002). We look at the themes and issues discussed in the
     conversation samples selected with the aim of bringing out what scientists think
     about their involvement in PCST and PE activities. Therefore, the interviews
     were transcribed and then analyzed identifying parts relating to the research
     questions.
                                                             TECNOSCIENZA – 3(2)        45




3. Science and society: the scientists’ point of view
    The research centers considered by this study fall into two main categories:
    1) institutions where S&S activities are managed by the communication-PR
          department/office;
    2) institutions where the organizational unit responsible for S&S activities
          operated separately from the one dealing with PR and communication.
    An institution of the first type tends to promote a conception of S&S closer to
a deficit-oriented model, while one of the second type is more inclined toward a
dialogue-participatory model. The former collapses S&S into the public commu-
nication of science in general, whereas the latter generally takes primary and sec-
ondary schools as the main targets of its S&S activities with an organizational
unit – department or office – dealing specifically with education and outreach ac-
tivities.
    In both cases, however, there is a general lack of awareness of the existing dif-
ferent models for pursuing public engagement and science communication. This
can be regarded as a gap present in the research centers at institutional level.
S&S activities were enacted without being part of a broader strategy capable of
profoundly influencing the structure of the research center itself. In fact, “it is
particularly important to establish whether the commitment to public engage-
ment takes the form of an extension of the range of activities undertaken by re-
search institutions – adding extra tasks without altering their overall structure
and underlying rationale – or whether a more profound process of organizational
change is actually in progress” (Neresini and Bucchi 2011, p. 65). This is espe-
cially the case in research institutions where there is no department or office spe-
cifically devoted to S&S, but only a PR and communication office.
    However, it would be wrong to conclude that most of the research centres
surveyed are exclusively deficit model oriented and that S&S is mainly under-
stood as being the communication of scientific content to the general public. In
some cases, the deficit model has been superseded by individual initiatives that
put dialogue, debate and engagement into action. These initiatives are often un-
dertaken because of the particular circumstances (social, geographical, economic)
of the area in which the research centre is located, even if they are generally pro-
moted by individuals wanting to implement particular activities for communi-
cating science.


3.1. Who is (are) the public(s)?
   From the data analysed it becomes evident that interviewees attempt to ad-
dress different audiences. However, the segmentation is often poorly developed,
since/because neither communication practitioners nor scientists seem fully
aware of the need to differentiate their activities according to the group and
stakeholder targeted.
46   CASINI AND NERESINI



         Very few interviewees seem aware of the need to shape each S&S activity ac-
     cording to different segments of the public. Despite this lack of attention to the
     existence of many different publics, some interviewees show that a number of re-
     search centers made efforts to engage various kinds of atypical publics (i.e. politi-
     cians, particularly gifted children, persons aged over sixty-five, and so on) which
     do not belong among the categories most often targeted by S&S.
         Contrary to what might be expected, the category of politicians and decision-
     makers is overwhelmingly understood as privileged in bridging the gap, or ena-
     bling mutual understanding, between scientists and the public, although not vice
     versa. Politicians are often seen as mediators between scientists and non-experts.
     Some interviewees explicitly mention politicians as one of the publics to which
     their research institution addressed its communication policies: according to this
     view, scientists must “convince” politicians (who in their turn will convince the
     voters) of the goodness of investing public money in research because they (poli-
     ticians) are the people who can influence public opinion. In the words of a junior
     researcher:

         To receive funds, to get students to buy equipment and instruments or simply to have a
     pay check to go on simply doing what you do , you have to convince someone somewhere,
     and not directly the public (again, perhaps put this in the direct contact section, scientists long
     for a direct contact with the public but seek for a direct contact with politicians as mediators
     between them and the public, politicians need to respond to the public an= but someone
     who responds to the public, and this is a link between the public and the researcher. (JR,
     male, id10, biomedicine)

         In this case, it is clear that in the view of scientists PCST and lobbying are
     blurred, although the pressure on politicians to get public funds to support
     research should be confined in an area quite distinct from PCST.
         Only in one case does the public itself request and delegate scientists to study
     certain phenomena, exerting influence on the management policies of the re-
     search institution itself. In this particular case, the politicians do not act as inter-
     mediaries; on the contrary, it is the public that enable researchers to reach politi-
     cians in an attempt to affect policy-making. In another case, the interviewee re-
     calls the important role played by the research centre in terms of policy-making
     and its ability to attract the attention of those who decide on specific issues:

        Prevention becomes a key element for the sustainability of the National Health Service
     (xxx)= we had an important role in raising public awareness on rare diseases.
                                                                      (D, male, id11, biomedicine)

        Overall, however, politicians are an audience to be reached directly, either as
     part of decision makers who control research funding, or as intermediaries in the
     relationship with the general public which remains rather undifferentiated.
                                                              TECNOSCIENZA – 3(2)        47



3.2. The scientists’ role: reaching the public through direct or
mediated contact
   All interviewees emphasize the importance of direct involvement between the
public and scientists. The S&S activities most frequently cited as examples of
successful ways to engage the public are those in which direct contact takes place
between researchers and the public, such as visits to laboratories, lectures or con-
ferences: “Human beings do not want distance learning (x) screens” (SR, male,
id9, biomedicine). The S&S initiatives cited, in fact, are primarily guided tours of
laboratories, educational workshops conducted within or close to schools and
open days. All these activities make it easier for the public to contact researchers,
indeed often sharing the same space with them: “there is no substitute for having
real scientists involved in public engagement. Professionals are mainly helpful as
mediators or facilitators, but they cannot deliver authentic access to real scientific
practice, or the latest expert findings” (Turney 2006, p. 88).
   Research institutes active in the biomedical field stress that people should be
more involved in matters concerning their bodies and their health. This is hardly
surprising because biomedicine, more than physics, has been directly involved in
research connected with health issues, sometimes inducing both scholars and the
general public to re-consider and re-think notions of personhood. Science in this
case seems literally able to touch the public in their bodies. Interestingly, inter-
viewees use the word “touch” both in its literal and metaphorical meaning. In
fact, they refer to the way a scientific concept can touch the public in the sense of
reaching the audience’s interest and imagination, and to the way can touch the
public as something that is felt through the body, via a bodily feeling or sensa-
tion. In this second case, the word “touch” has a literal meaning being an actual
contact between the body and then concept. For example, all four of the inter-
viewees working at the same biomedical research centre recall a conference orga-
nized on the topic of the stomach. The evening did indeed touch many people:
“in your daily life you do not think of having a brain= but you are always in con-
tact with your stomach” (SR, male, id9, biomedicine). In this context, direct con-
tact means the possibility to experience a scientific concept with and through the
body. Many interviewees at physics research centers, on the contrary, propose
the public interest in the origins of the universe as a means for scientists to touch
their audience.
   The main opportunities for direct encounter between scientists and the public
are open days and visits to laboratories. Besides activities planned with schools
and universities, open days and visits to research institutions are two key events
where the general public – not solely youngsters – can meet scientists in their
working environment: “the visitors’ appreciation of an encounter with ‘science in
reality’ or, in other words, of authenticity as the crucial quality of the visits also
seems to interrelate with visitors’ views that the visit programs are seen as a kind
of demonstration of the research centre’s openness to the public” (Neresini et al.,
2009, p. 24).
48   CASINI AND NERESINI



         Opportunities to access and visit laboratories are crucial for communicating
     with and involving different audiences, whilst open days do not seem particularly
     significant in engaging the public, even though they are certainly the most popu-
     lar means by which research spaces and activities are available to all those inter-
     ested. In particular, although at least half of the interviewees consider open days
     important for communicating research and enabling encounters between scien-
     tists and the public, open days are considered rather expensive and their effec-
     tiveness has to be demonstrated with suitable evaluation tools. Notwithstanding
     the large amount of energy and money invested in the organization of an open
     day, there is no certainty about its results in terms of PCST and/or PE. In fact,
     whilst the majority of interviewees describe open days as occasions that people
     “like a lot” (HC, female, id3, physics), there is no agreement on numbers or on
     the ability to attract audiences not already involved in scientific research. For ex-
     ample, the head of communication at one of the research institutions says that
     “4,000 visitors a year are a significant number of visitors” (HC, male, id12, phys-
     ics), whereas the director of the same institution stated that “the numbers are
     very low” (D, male, id12, physics).
         The main reason for criticising open days is their explicit spectacular dimen-
     sion (a word frequently used was “magic”) often proposed to the people taking
     part in them:

         Science is often seen as something that can provide all the answers (x) what scientists are
     classically trained to do is to look for alternative explanations (xx). Talking more about the
     methodology, the rational, give people a greater understanding of what science cannot tell
     you. (JR, male, id7, physics)

         Researchers seem particularly worried about this aspect, but some of the
     communication practitioners interviewed also asked “what is the value of an
     open day?” (HC, female, id6, biomedicine). Again, “openness is about allowing
     people to interact ((articulating words)) rather than opening for a day” (D, male,
     id6, biomedicine). Furthermore, some interviewees note that open days tend to
     always attract the same audience, generally represented by people already inter-
     ested in science, whereas occasional initiatives designed to reach other, more spe-
     cific, audiences may be more successful:

         There are always the same people, families and so on at the open days, we should make ef-
     fort to attract new visitors” (JR, male, id5, physics); “the photographic competition was suc-
     cessful because it really managed to involve new people , I mean not the same we already saw
     during the open days. (HR, male, id3, physics)

         In contrast to open days, educational activities are regarded as essential. This
     may stem from the predominance of the deficit-transmission model of science
     communication. The interviewees see training and teaching activities as im-
     portant for three main reasons: first, as one of them points out, educational activ-
     ities are gratifying for researchers because they can “confront them with a new
     and fresh vision” (SR, female, id2, biomedicine). Second, these initiatives enable
                                                                    TECNOSCIENZA – 3(2)           49



highly-specialized scientists to contextualize their research in a broader setting:
“scientists sometimes lack the overall picture” (JR, male, id7, physics) and there-
by “remember why I chose ((laugh)) this caree:r” (JR, female, id1, physics). Final-
ly, young researchers can decide whether they want to continue with research or
to engage in science education and communication. This latter option indicates
that research and science communication are perceived by interviewees as two
separate activities requiring different skills, and which cannot be undertaken
simultaneously – a belief that we will investigate later.


3.3. Space as medium
    The concrete space of the scientific laboratory has always been represented by
the media as a fascinating and mysterious place capable of attracting the lay pub-
lic. According to this imagery, the doors of the lab are kept closed in order to
protect the research undertaken inside. To gain access to this space means to gain
access to knowledge, to share (sometimes to steal) knowledge with those who
produced it – the scientists. The curiosity and the strangeness of the equipment
often present in the laboratory drives visitors as an interviewee explains: “It’s the
curiosity of going inside hidden spaces, it’s the possibility to see odd things. Like
the machines we have in the experimental lab” (SR, male, id12, physics).
    In the words of the interviewees, however, “space” is used also to denote
those rooms devoted to visitors of the research institution. The availability of
spaces suitable for welcoming the lay public (a visitors’ centre, a dedicated area,
or even a simple lobby) is regarded as essential for a fruitful engagement with the
public. Most of the interviewees, whether scientists, communication officers or
directors, were aware of the role space played in creating a fruitful exchange be-
tween scientists and the public. In one case, for example, the research centre has
neither an obvious entrance nor a hall for welcoming visitors. A senior scientist
stresses that it is always necessary for someone to "accompany" visitors, whereas
if there were a reception room with posters, brochures, and other illustrative ma-
terials, the visitor would not need a guide to feel comfortable and would start
understanding the general kind of research undertaken at the institute.
    The notion of space is too often dismissed in discussions on how to engage the
public, or it is defined only in terms of the presence of a museum within the re-
search center. By contrast, the interviews demonstrate that the particular organi-
zation of space can empower and emancipate the visitor.2 The head of communi-
cation at one of the research organizations, for example, stresses that the centre
in question has a space specially designed to welcome visitors with tables and
chairs arranged in a circle to encourage horizontal interaction between scientists
and audience: “it is important to have a space where people can feel comfortable

2
  A contemporary theoretician who has closely examined the role of space in emancipating
people is the French philosopher Jacques Rancière, especially in his The Politics of Aesthetics
(2004).
50   CASINI AND NERESINI



     in (x) even just a simple room with chairs in a circle” (HC, female, id6, biomedi-
     cine). Researchers and visitors sitting around a table can enable an exchange be-
     tween the two actors where the roles are not already assigned and kept static.
         The lay public can emancipate itself from being passive receptors of a message
     or knowledge transmitted by those who know (scientists) and those who do not
     know by sitting side by side with scientists in the same room or by gaining access
     to spaces that are normally kept closed. A research institution can question tradi-
     tional roles assigned to researchers and visitors not for the purpose of turning vis-
     itors into scientists but with a view to empowering them, assigning them a role in
     dialogue and exchange with scientists. This can be done, for example, when
     spaces of play and experimentation are maintained, such as the open-days or the
     photographic competition organized by one of the research institutions surveyed.
     In this second case, the photographs of the lab taken by the lay public became a
     sort of neutral territory, an area of interest not completely monopolized by either
     scientists or non-experts, an area in which the public(s) enters. The photographs
     taken by participants showed a reality of the space of the laboratory very much
     different from what one would expect, a photographic representation that
     thwarted people’s expectations. Furthermore, through photography, participants
     gained access to previously inaccessible spaces. As the head of communication
     explains, that competition furnished an alternative image of the spaces of the la-
     boratory, spaces that were not “clear”, “empty”, “ordered”, “glossy” as is often
     the case with corporate communication campaigns, but instead more truthful
     about the real life of a laboratory – messy, creative, full of objects, wires and busy
     people.
         In one case, an interviewee described the transformation of the research la-
     boratory into a television studio where two episodes of a popular television pro-
     gram were recorded. This moment in the history of the research institution, is
     remembered as being:

         particularly funny creating disarray and amusement (xx) those people came fore by with
     the crew , there were cables everywhere ((amused moving the hands to convey the sense of
     mess)) , their cables with ours, a total mess = we even got involved a school class from Turin
     who was just visiting us by chance. (HC, male, id12, physics)

        Space plays an even stronger role when the interaction between researchers
     and the public(s) gives rise to misunderstandings and controversy. Assigned roles
     and possibilities can sometimes also be inadvertently thwarted. Presenting re-
     search findings or new technological instruments in front of a specific audience is
     sometimes highly influenced by where the presentation takes place. One inter-
     viewee gives an example of a lecture held in the research centre to explain to a
     female audience the future installation of a diagnostic instrument. In this case,
     there was a clear gap between the words used by the researcher to describe the
     project which were reassuring about the technology, highlighting the fact that it
     was safe and user-friendly, and the physical reality of the space where the meet-
     ing took place: “what people saw at that time were steel tubes, rather messy ca-
                                                              TECNOSCIENZA – 3(2)        51



bles everywhere” (D, male, id12, physics). As a consequence, the interviewee re-
membered, one of the women said: “You don’t want to put a woman in here, do
you ? ((mocking the gestures and facial expression of those women)) It’s far too
dangerous” (D, male, id12, physics).
   Scientists, however, can also have contact with the public in a mediated way.


3.4. The media and the web
    Media in general, and more specifically television and newspapers, are largely
dismissed by interviewees as ineffective means to engage with the public. They
are perceived much more as communication tools useful to advertise scientific
findings, but often at the expense of correct interpretation. This is hardly surpris-
ing, given that other studies and reports have shown that scientists have a gener-
ally negative view on the quality of news coverage of scientific issues (Peters et al.
2008). Some interviewees explicitly use the word “quality” when discussing the
role played by media in science communication. The presence of the research in-
stitution in the media arena does not seem per se to assure the quality of scientific
communication, which seems instead to depend on the capacity to develop and
maintain good relationships with journalists or PR officers. At the same time, the
majority of interviewees regard the quality of the scientific information conveyed
by the media as rather more important than its quantity.
     Another indirect means to reach the public is the World Wide Web and its
related modalities: sections of the research organization’s website dedicated to
the public, newsletters, interactions with existing social networks, scientists’
blogs, and so on. But in the majority of cases, the website of a research institution
is not a medium privileged over print and television. Only in one case does the
website play a crucial role in providing real-time information, and it does so for
people seeking information in special circumstances such as natural disasters.
One respondent stresses the importance of the website for reaching the audience
of fellow scientists, and considers the website a communication channel of lim-
ited effectiveness compared with visits: "there are obviously special cases to be
displayed on site of ((name research institution)) as highlights of research, but I
think the most important thing is visits by people"(JR, male, id3, physics). Direct
contacts therefore seem to ensure the quality of the relationship between scien-
tists and the public: "stronger contacts for a smaller number of people" (SR,
male, id12, physics). In only a few cases interviewees working in communication
and PR departments call for greater use of the Web, as well as for its renewal, es-
pecially in terms of design and social networking. Only one research centre of the
twelve surveyed gives the Web a prominent role in providing researchers and sci-
ence communicators (also those working at other research institutions) with ma-
terials to engage the public: “we support researchers to do communication that
we do not tend to do ourselves” (HC, female, id6, biomedicine). It is therefore
easy to conclude that the Web and social networks are still in their infancy as
52   CASINI AND NERESINI



     means for PCST and PE by those who run communication offices at scientific
     research institutions.
        The preference for direct contact should not be interpreted, however, as an
     instance of a participatory model for reaching the public(s). It can be deficit-
     oriented, hiding the will to control what kind of information is released and the
     reaction of the public, without trusting science communicators and journalists as
     mediators.


     3.5. Evaluation
         Despite the lack of agreement on what outcomes should be sought in terms of
     communication and public engagement, all the interviewees personally involved
     either in research or specifically in PE and PCST state that the outcomes of S&S,
     i.e. the long-term impact and effectiveness of those activities, should be detected,
     measured and evaluated. Furthermore, outcomes, not outputs, are a means for
     interviewees not to waste resources in terms of budget, staff and time:

        To have at our disposal feedback and evaluation tools might be important to understand
     what we do and how we can improve what we do. (HC, female, id8, physics)

        I would like to have more feedback (xx) it is really difficult to evaluate how it goes. (SR,
     male, id6, biomedicine)

        We need to have reliable indicators that would allow us not to waste resources. (SR, male,
     id12, physics)

         Evaluation is a very interesting topic , it’s good that you work on that because we need to
     get better (xxx), there is so much money spent in this field , blasted into papers that are not
     read , that don’t have an impact at all. It’s much more important to analyze what really is
     working and functioning (xx) so to analyze the impact and the long-lastingness of information
     that you pass on. (D, male, id4, physics)

         In referring to evaluation during the interviews, some interviewees explicitly
     use the word "quality" in conjunction with terms such as “engagement” and “in-
     teraction” referring to the need to measure the impact of efforts undertaken by
     research centers to engage with the public: “Depth of engagement, quality of en-
     gagement and quality of interaction are key factors to measure the success of S&S
     activities” (HC, female, id6, biomedicine); the majority of interviewees, however,
     introduce the word “quality” when talking about the personal capacity of scien-
     tists to know their own topic thoroughly and be able to explain it to the general
     public: “Quality means knowing what you are talking about and making it un-
     derstandable” (D, male, id11, biomedicine).
         On considering types of evaluation and feedback tools, the interviewees seem
     skeptical concerning quantitative methodologies like questionnaire-based sur-
                                                              TECNOSCIENZA – 3(2)        53



veys. They prefer focus groups or other - not further specified - qualitative meth-
odologies applied to evaluation: “Questionnaires are excessively used nowadays
in our society (x) they don’t give anything back to me (x) they are so reductionist
in interpreting reality” (SR, male, id5, physics); “Questionnaires are too didactic,
too rigid, focus groups are better” (HC, female, id6, biomedicine); “Focus
groups . a more interactive evaluation would be more interesting” (HC, male,
id11, biomedicine). This distrust of quantitative research methods is coherent
with the interviewees’ opinions concerning the need to evaluate the quality of
S&S activities rather than measure the general level of agreement of participants.
    Insistence on the importance and necessity of evaluation seems, however, to
conceal different meanings. On the one hand, evaluation can be seen as an op-
portunity to re-think what has been achieved or to think about what has been not
considered from the outset; it can also enable reflection on the meaning that sci-
entists and science communicators attribute to S&S activities, to their roles as
professionals, and to the role played by their research institutions. On the other
hand, evaluation is often evoked as a tool primarily intended to measure the im-
pact of S&S activities upon an addressee, which is the public(s).
    In this second case, the change of perspective envisaged by interviewees re-
gards the public alone, whilst scientists and communicators are extraneous to
processes that they too contribute to creating. A conception of evaluation fo-
cused on the idea of the impact on a (passive) public and determined by the joint
efforts of (active) scientists and communicators may reinforce the bases of the
deficit model (Neresini and Pellegrini 2008). Nevertheless, the two meanings at-
tributed to evaluation as illustrated above should not be understood in purely
oppositional terms. In fact, evaluation of the impact exerted by S&S activities can
be used for reflexive analysis of how resources have been employed (efficiency);
on the other hand, reflexive evaluation (the re-thinking of PE and PCST process-
es in light of the initial goals) may remain trapped in the deficit model if those
objectives are not dialogue-oriented; nor are they able to engage all the actors in-
volved, including scientists and communicators.
    Despite these ambiguities, the interaction between scientists and public(s)
may encourage self-reflexive processes. This is perceived by most of the inter-
viewees without relevant differences among the various categories (junior and
senior researchers, communication practitioners, high-profile managers/directors
of the research institution) and across the two scientific areas surveyed (biomedi-
cine and physics). S&S activities therefore become opportunities for researchers
and communication practitioners to rethink their roles.
    In this respect, it becomes evident that S&S activities are not highly regarded
by scientists in comparison with research. Some interviewees, in fact, think that
carrying out S&S activities makes it possible to pursue a career in science com-
munication rather than in scientific research: in this case only those who realize
that they are not particularly good as scientists might decide to dedicate them-
selves to science communication and public engagement. Many of the science
communication practitioners interviewed describe themselves somehow as
'unfulfilled scientists': that is, they realized that they would rather continue their
54   CASINI AND NERESINI



     careers within the communication field, either because they felt themselves un-
     suited to the lifestyle required of a scientist (too long working hours, flexibility
     which is difficult to combine with a family, etc.), or because they felt they were
     not good enough as scientists:

         I realized I was not going to win the Nobel Prize (xx) ((laughing))= I was not as goo:d a
     scientist as I wanted to be. (D, male, id6, biomedicine)

        From this point of view, S&S activities might sound like the negative counter-
     part in defining the researcher’s professional identity.


     4. Deficit model, but…
         The variety of positions that emerged from the interviews clearly indicates the
     impossibility of incorporating into a single definition the expression "science and
     society”. However, there is one point on which all interviewees, both senior and
     junior researchers and communication practitioners, seem to agree without ex-
     ception: the requirement that S&S should communicate the results of research
     work to the public. The frequent use of terms like “duty” and “responsibility”
     sometimes goes together with the awareness of the role of science in advancing
     society and in particular:

         We do good science and we want to bring society forward (x) showing humanity that we
     gather new knowledge” (HC, male id4, physics) or: “we have three tasks (x) to undertake re-
     search, to teach new researchers and to disseminate science. (D, male, id11, biomedicine)

        However, the relationship between science and society weights much more on
     the first term in the expression:

         Society needs science, society lives with science, science is a tool for society. (…) the other
     way around is probably not obvious? There is a direct need from the society’s point of view to
     have science, to understand science, to make it more accessible. Whether science needs socie-
     ty I don’t know (x) well, in principle obviously we need society otherwise we wouldn’t exist
     (x) nobody would finance our research? But the impact is less obvious. The public needs to
     understand science. (SR, male, id4, physics)

        But researchers, in contrast to communication practitioners and directors of
     research institution, tend to ask the public to be more active, to demand the right
     to be both informed and involved by scientists.
        In only one of the twelve research centres the interviewees define S&S as “the
     capacity to promote and facilitate debate” (HC, female, id6, biomedicine) with-
     out considering the transmission of knowledge as one of its primary tasks:

         To facilitate a debate without taking it personally and being able to see the others’ point of
     view ? is not something that comes naturally (xxx)in this sense we have a course which is
     called (x) ‘science and society’. So now science communication is now science and society.
                                                                       TECNOSCIENZA – 3(2)           55



How do you engage and involve your audience and offer opportunities for interaction and
debate? (D, male, id6, biomedicine)

    Certainly, other research organizations have researchers and communication
practitioners who understand S&S as a participatory-dialogical relationship: the-
se, however, are exceptions that do not represent the institutional policy adopted
by the research centre as a whole.
    In some cases, the emphasis is on the transmission of knowledge in order to
bridge the gap between science and society: “S&S means the overall aim to
bridge the gap between scientific research and society” (HC, male, id5, physics),
trying to disseminate scientific contents so that they are accessible:

    Complexity is not understandable (x)((shaking head)) it needs to be reduced (x), it is im-
portant that the outside world understand what we are doing” (D, male, id4, physics). Again:
“we can provide updated scientific information (x.) it is really difficult to translate these data
into something understandable = unfortunately , it is not written in the statute that we must
undertake public understanding of science. (HC, female, id7, physics)

    Interviewees frequently used the word ‘translate’ to describe the communica-
tion task. This reveals the persistence of a transmission-oriented concept of
communication that, unavoidably, relegates the public to a subordinate – if not
entirely passive – role.
    In other cases, a specific S&S activity means at the same time stimulating the
curiosity of the public by providing information and urging it to ask questions
and decide: “to awaken in the listener the desire to discover (xx) to offer oppor-
tunities for people to form an idea (x.) have a basis to decide" (SR, male, id5,
physics); “You have to hit people in the head” (SR, male, id9, biomedicine). The
conceptual movement enacted thanks to S&S activities incorporates an emotion-
al, a cognitive and a social moment: it starts off from the desire to know, the pos-
sibility to formulate an idea, a concept around an issue to move, then, to forming
a decision, to take a position. In one case in particular, the term ‘debate’ was ex-
plicitly used to state that all the activities called S&S coincide with “the capacity
to promote and facilitate debate” (D, male, id1, physics). The interaction be-
tween scientists and the public, even when its purpose seems only to remedy a
shortage of scientific knowledge in the public, may thus become a tool for 'em-
powerment' which turns the public into an active player.
    As a consequence, the experiences and activities cited by the interviewees as
examples of S&S do not fit neatly into any of the existing theoretical models of
science communication and public engagement. Actions whose main goal seemed
initially to be the transmission of science and the filling of the knowledge gap be-
tween scientists and the public could then become projects that fostered dialogue
and participation as well. According to several interviewees, especially research-
ers, the transmission of scientific knowledge is essential in so far as it enables the
public to develop adequate awareness of its responsibility to form an opinion
about technoscientific issues. By contrast, scientists often regard S&S as compris-
56   CASINI AND NERESINI



     ing communication activities that recall the deficit model of transmission from
     the experts to the general public.
         Although the large majority of the research institutions surveyed enacted
     strategies of public engagement in science that were deficit and transmission-
     model oriented, even in those cases there were signals of more differentiated,
     complex, and multifaceted attempts to engage the public with science. These
     may have been minority discourses, but their presence is nevertheless encourag-
     ing (Davies 2008). Moreover scientists and even communication practitioners
     may not be fully aware of the potential novelty of the activities that they imple-
     ment and the approaches that they adopt, such as, for example, role-playing in
     S&S activities, nor aware of the impact of controversies in challenging transmis-
     sion/deficit-based models of science communication, or of the relationship be-
     tween gender issues and S&S. The main theoretical models describing the sci-
     ence and society relationship – referable, in general, to the opposition between
     deficit/transmission model and participatory/dialogical one (Bucchi 2004, 2008;
     Brossard and Lewenstein 2009) – are certainly useful for understanding what re-
     search centres do under the heading “science and society” and how they inter-
     pret their role in this context. However, these models do not accurately reflect
     the variety of orientations and activities actually implemented by the various sci-
     entific institutions. Furthermore, different approaches often co-exist within the
     same institution and within the same subject, even if one model tends to domi-
     nate the others and determine the types of S&S activities implemented.
         Furthermore, the research centers are engaged in an intense search for new
     tools, strategies and activities able to ensure or enhance the long-term impact and
     effectiveness of science communication and PE. The problem is that this appar-
     ent dynamism of tools is not matched by an equal dynamism of objectives: the
     long-run goal, in fact, remains that of communicating scientifically sound con-
     tents to those who, not being scientists themselves, are believed to be in need of
     becoming more scientifically-informed. In this regard, the situation of leading re-
     search institutions across Europe appears to still be characterized by the deficit
     model, despite some isolated cases where a dialogic and participatory-oriented
     model is in place.
         Scientists, as well as communicators, tend to have a generic understanding of
     the public as a largely undifferentiated entity from which only two categories can
     emerge: those of students and politicians. In the case of students, it is evident
     that they are perceived as “young, still in the learning phase” and this confines
     them to a subordinate position; in the case of politicians, they are more often
     recognized as interlocutors if only because they are often seen either as decision-
     makers who determine the availability of important resources for research, or as a
     mean to communicate with the general public.
         Scientists assign themselves a prominent role in the context of the relations
     between science and society: it is their responsibility to take the initiative, it is
     they who have something to offer (scientific knowledge), and others have to
     change. Conversely the public, especially when understood in a generic sense, is
     defined as a passive interlocutor both to be solicited in order to make it ready to
                                                              TECNOSCIENZA – 3(2)        57



receive but not to give, and to be observed to see if, appropriately stimulated, it
changes knowledge and attitudes in the direction hoped for. Scientists, but not
infrequently also communicators, perceive themselves as actors involved in a
process that should fall under their control. Therefore, they prefer direct contact
with the public, while they somehow distrust mediated contact. The media are
seen – often quite naively – as mere instruments of transmission, although
inclined to betray the expectations when they simplify or embellish, when they
attempt to translate the knowledge that scientists possess.
    All this, however, tends to clash with a problem that emerges repeatedly
whenever the interest in the relationship with the public and the importance that
is attributed to it materializes in a concrete commitment. Scientific institutions, in
fact, scarcely recognize SiS activities as part of the profession of scientist, often
leaving them to individual goodwill and confining them in marginal sectors. This
is why many of the scientists interviewed know little or nothing of what their
research institutions do in the field of SiS. On the other hand, the organization of
space within the research centers testifies to a general lack of attention to the fact
that the same space is used by persons who are not engaged in scientific research
work.


5. Conclusions
    According to our data, the concrete and everyday practices of staff working
on SiS activities at research centers are still regulated by a deficit-oriented model,
rather than by a model organized around dialogic communications and strategies
of active engagement with the public. With a few exceptions, in fact, most inter-
viewees, regardless of whether they were scientists or communication/outreach
practitioners, understood the two terms in the expression “science and society”
as being regulated by a top-down relationship.
    Despite the prominence of the deficit-oriented model, different practical solu-
tions are at work in the activities of communication and engagement carried out
by research institutions. Although this general orientation prevails, it seems that
there is enough flexibility capable of fostering more dialogue-based and partici-
patory activities. Furthermore, owing to the research institution’s specific socio-
cultural context, the deficit model is necessarily cross-fertilized with other theo-
retical models of science communication (the dialogue and the participatory
ones, for example), thus fostering forms of public communication and engage-
ment different from those usually associated with science (Brossard and Lewen-
stein 2009).
    The range of activities and strategies described by the interviewees as means
to communicate with the public demonstrates that direct contact with the public
is preferred to other, more mediated, forms of communication. This is also one of
the reasons why the interviewees were generally sceptical concerning the role of
the media in reaching the public in a fruitful way. Scientists may not be enthusi-
astic about the need to consider science communication and public engagement
58   CASINI AND NERESINI



     as part of their research activities, but they are willing to take responsibility for
     them, especially the former. Scientists trust themselves more than any other actor
     in creating and maintaining a relationship with the public. According to the in-
     terviewees, opportunities to interact with scientists either through direct contact
     during an open day or through virtual contact via the Web, or through mediated
     contact via a third actor, are capable of revitalising the scientist/public relation-
     ship. This relationship usually becomes stronger when it comes under strain, for
     example because of a controversial situation in which both actors feel compelled
     to start a confrontation.
         Scientists trust themselves as authoritative interpreters of S&S activities. Sim-
     ultaneously, however, they perceive their commitment on this matter as an ad-
     junct to their research work, something that takes up time and resources that
     should instead be devoted to research. On the one hand, therefore, scientists
     want to be directly involved in the relationship with the public; on the other, this
     involvement may seriously hamper their work/careers as scientists. This
     contradictory situation is determined by the fact that while scientific institutions
     and the organization of research activities do not recognize SiS as part of their
     efforts, scientists are increasingly required their direct involvement in such
     activities, both by institutions that support scientific research financially, and by
     society as a whole. The contradiction just outlined is currently being resolved by
     relegating SiS activities at the margin of the work of scientists, and by leaving the
     burdgen to invest in them to scientists’ willingness. Clearly, this appears to be a
     precarious solution which poses serious obstacles to the development of PCST
     and the PE.
         Also for that reason, despite the difficulty of classifying within a single theo-
     retical model both the SiS activities carried out by research centres considered
     and the way those activities are interpreted by scientists and communicators,
     without question the deficit model maintains a dominant position. This
     substantial immobility, however, flies in with an interest in experimenting with
     new ways of designing and implementing initiatives of PCST and PE. This
     constant search for new means to achieve the same goal – namely to render the
     public scientifically literate – is not contradictory and does nothing but provide
     further validation of the elements suggested by Young and Matthews (2007), that
     scientists like to maintain a position of control even when scientific knowledge
     comes into play in the context of everyday life and thus directly implicates other
     social actors.
         From this point of view the fact that scientists give a positive evaluation of
     their relationship with the media is compatible with their negative judgment
     towards the way the media talk about science; similarly, the preference given by
     scientists for the direct interaction with the public is easier to understand (i.e. in
     those occasions in which the scientists’ presence can guarantee the goodness of
     what is communicated). On the other hand, the persistence of the deficit model
     is a significant element in the transmission metaphor that underlies the idea
     scientists have of communication. Consequently, instead of recognizing that
     communication always has uncertain outcomes, they prefer to place
                                                                      TECNOSCIENZA – 3(2)           59



responsibility for the unsatisfactory results of PCST on media professionals and
imagine that the direct interaction between scientists and the public could
improve things.
   However, if opposing the dynamism of means to the immobility of goals
might seem a contradiction at a first look, there is, on the contrary, a real
contradiction, because the personal commitment of scientists in SiS activities
conflicts with the recognition that they do not have the time, or, rather, that they
should take time away from their "real" activities: doing research. Interaction
with the public becomes a task to be delegated to others or is a marginal
occupation compared to the 'core business' of doing research. In this way the
importance of the institutional factor emerges, namely the lack of recognition by
research institutions of undertaking SiS activities as an integral part of the
profession of the researcher.




APPENDIX: Transcription Conventions:


Punctuation markers are not used as grammatical symbols but for intonation:

.    “dot” is used for falling intonation
?    “question mark” is used for raising intonation
,    “comma” is used for raising and falling intonation
:    “colon” indicates that the prior syllable is prolonged
//   “double oblique” indicates the point at which a current speaker’s talk is interrupted by the
     talk of another
= “equals” sign indicates no interval between the end of a prior and start of a next section of
     talk
(xx) “numbers in parentheses” indicate intervals without speech in tenths of a second
_ “underscoring” indicates stressing of a word or of a group of words
() “empty parentheses” indicate talk too obscure to transcribe. Words or letters inside such
     parentheses indicate the transcriber’s best estimate of what is being said or who is saying
     it.
(( )) “words in double” parentheses indicate transcriber’s comments, not transcriptions
60   CASINI AND NERESINI




     References
     Bauer, A., Allum, N. and Miller, S. (2007) What Can We Learn From 25-Years of
        PUS Research? Liberating and Expanding the Agenda, in “Public Understand-
        ing of Science”, 16 (1), pp. 79-95.
     Beaulieu, A. (2010) From Co-location to Co-presence: Shifts in the Use of Ethnog-
        raphy for the Study of Knowledge, in “Social Studies of Science”, 40 (3), pp.
        453-470.
     Beaulieu, A. (2002) Images Are Not The (Only) Truth: Brain Mapping, Visual
        Knowledge, and Iconoclasm, in “Science, Technology, & Human Values”, 27
        (1), pp. 53-86.
     Besley, J. and Nisbett, M. (2011) How Scientists View the Media, the Public and
        the Political Process, in “Public Understanding of Science”, 20, pp. 1-16.
     Besley, J.C. and Tanner, A.H. (2011) What Science Communication Scholars
        Think About Training Scientists to Communicate, in “Science Communica-
        tion”, 33 (2), pp. 239-263.
     Blickenstaff, J.K. (2005) Women and Science Careers: Leaky Pipeline or Gender
        Filter?, in “Gender and Education”, 17 (4), pp. 369-386.
     Brossard, D. and Lewenstein, B. V. (2010) A Critical Appraisal of Models of Pub-
        lic Understanding of Science: Using Practice to Inform Theory, in L. Kahlor and
        P.A. Stout (eds.), Communicating Science New Agendas in Communciation,
        New York and London, Routledge, pp. 11-39.
     Bucchi, M. (2008) Of Deficits, Deviations and Dialogues: Theories of Public Com-
        munication of Science, in M. Bucchi and B. Trench (eds.), Handbook of Public
        Communication of Science and Technology, London, Routledge, pp. 57-76.
     Bucchi, M. (2004) Can Genetics Help Us Rethink Communication? Public Com-
        munication of Science as a 'Double Helix', in “New Genetics and Society”, 23
        (3), pp. 269-283.
     Bucchi, M. and Neresini F. (2007) Science and Public Participation, in E.J. Hack-
        ett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch and J. Wajcman (eds.) Handbook of Science
        and Technology Studies, Boston, The MIT Press, pp. 449-473.
     Burchell, K. (2007) Empiricist Selves and Contingent “Others”: The Performative
        Function of the Discourse of Scientists Working in Conditions of Controversy,
        in “Public Understanding of Science”, 16 (2), pp. 145-162.
     Callon, M., Lascoumes, P. and Barthe Y. (2001) Agir dans un monde incertain.
        Essai sur la démocratie technique, Paris, Seuil.
     Davis, S.R. (2008) Constructing Communication: Talking to Scientists about Tal-
        king to the Public, in “Science Communication”, 29 (4), pp. 413-434.
     Epstein, S. (1996) Impure Science: AIDS, Activism and the Politics of Knowledge,
        Berkeley, University of California Press.
     Felt, U. and Wynne, B. (2007) Taking European Knowledge Society Seriously. Re-
        port of the Expert Group on Science and Governance to the Science, Economy
                                                            TECNOSCIENZA – 3(2)        61



   and Society Directorate, Bruxelles, Directorate-General for Research, Europe-
   an Commission.
Flick, U. (2002) An Introduction to Qualitative Research, London, Sage.
Funtowicz, S. and Ravetz, J. (1993) Science for the Post-Normal Age, in “Fu-
   tures”, 25 (7), pp. 739-55.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. and Trow,
   M. (1994) The New Production of Knowledge: Dynamics of Science and Re-
   search in Contemporary Societies, London, Sage.
Haraway, D. (1997) Modest Witness@Second Millennium. FemaleMan©Meets
   OncoMouse™: Feminism and Technoscience, New York and London,
   Routledge.
Irwin, A. and Wynne, B. (eds.) (1996) Misunderstanding Science? The Public Re-
   construction of Science and Technology. Cambridge, Cambridge University
   Press.
Jasanoff, S. (2004) States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and Social
   Order, London, Routledge.
Lévy-Leblond, J. M. (1992) About Misunderstandings About Misunderstandings,
   in “Public Understanding of Science”, 1 (1), pp. 17-21.
Lewenstein B. V. (1995) Science and the Media, in S. Jasanoff, G.E. Markle, J.C.
   Peterson and T. Pinch (eds.), Science Technology and Society Handbook,
   Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage, pp. 343-359.
Michael, M. (2002) Comprehension, Apprehension, Prehension: Heterogeneity and
   the Public Understanding of Science, in “Science Technology and Human Val-
   ues”, XXVII, pp. 357-378.
Miller, S. Fahy, D. and The ESConet Team (2009) Can Science Communication
   Workshops Train Scientists for Reflexive Public Engagement?: The ESConet
   Experience, in “Science Communication”, 31 (1), 116-126.
MORI/Wellcome Trust (2001) The Role of Scientists in Public Debate, available
   at:        http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/About-us/Publications/Reports/Public-
   engagement/WTD003429.htm
Neresini, F., Dimopoulos K., Kallfass M. and Peters H.P. (2009) Exploring a
   Black Box. Cross-National Study of Visit Effects on Visitors to Large Physics Re-
   search Centers in Europe, in “Science Communication”, 30 (4), pp. 506-533.
Neresini, F. and Bucchi, M. (2011) Which Indicators for the New Public Engage-
   ment Activities? A Study of European Research Institutions, in “Public Under-
   standing of Science”, 10 (1), pp. 64-79.
Neresini, F. and Pellegrini, G. (2008) Evaluating Public Communication on Sci-
   ence and Technology, in M. Bucchi and B. Trench (eds.), Handbook of Public
   Communication of Science and Technology, London, Routledge, pp. 237-251.
Nowotny, H., Scott, P. and Gibbons, M. (2001) Re-Thinking Science. Knowledge
   and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty, Cambridge, Polity Press.
Peters, H.P., Brossard, D., de Cheveigné, S., Dunwoody, S., Kallfass, M., Miller,
   S. and Tsuchida, S. (2008) Science-Media Interface: It’s Time to Reconsider, in
   “Science Communication”, 30 (2), pp. 266-276.
62   CASINI AND NERESINI



     Pew Research Center for the People and the Press (2009) Public Praises Science;
         Scientists   Fault     Public,    Media,      Available   at:  http://people-
         press.org/reports/pdf/528.pdf
     Probert, B. (2005) I Just Couldn’t Fit It In’: Gender and Unequal Outcomes in
         Academic Careers, in “Gender, Work & Organization”, 12 (1), pp. 50–72.
     Rancière, J. (2004) The Politics of Aesthetics, London, Continuum.
     Silverman, D. (2001) Interpreting Qualitative Data, London, Sage.
     Sturgis, P.J. and Allum, N. (2004) Science in Society: Re-Evaluating the Deficit
         model of Public Attitudes, in “Public Understanding of Science”, 13 (1), pp.
         55-75.
     Turney, J. (2006) Engaging Science: Thoughts, Deeds, Analysis and Action, Lon-
         don, Wellcome Trust.
     Young, N. and Matthews, R. (2007) Experts’ Understanding of the Public:
         Knowledge Control in a Risk Controversy, in “Public Understanding of Sci-
         ence”, 16 (2), pp. 123-144.
     Wynne, B. (1989) Frameworks of Rationality in Risk Management: Toward the
         Testing of Naïve Sociology, in J. Brown (ed.), Environmental Threats:
         Perception, Analysis and Management, New York, Belhaven Press, pp. 33-47.




         Silvia Casini, University of Venezia Ca’ Foscari
         Dipartimento di Filosofia e Beni Culturali
         Dorsoduro 3484/D - 30123 Venezia (Italy)
         Email: silvia.casini@unive.it

         Federico Neresini, University of Padova
         PaSTIS – Dipartimento di Filosofia, Sociologia, Pedagogia e Psicologia Applicata
         Via Cesarotti, 10/12, 35122, Padova (Italy)
         Email: federico.neresini@unipd.it
