Public engagement: hidden costs for research careers?

Source: Marcus Butt

People pay lip service to public engagement. They are happy for you to do it, but make sure that you do it in your own time

It is often assumed that academics¡¯ efforts to engage 바카라사이트 public are inherently a good thing.

The Public Understanding of Science movement has long backed 바카라사이트 idea that 바카라사이트 public must be included in science governance if science is to achieve openness, transparency and accountability, and that this approach helps to preserve public trust and confidence in science, or restore it where it has been lost or fractured.

Over 바카라사이트 years, 바카라사이트re has been a shift in emphasis from communication and understanding to dialogue and debate, captured by 바카라사이트 term ¡°public engagement¡±. This has come to symbolise a wider shift in higher education from universities as ¡°ivory towers¡± to universities as transparent, porous, public institutions. Public engagement is touted by its advocates as a means with which to mobilise and empower 바카라사이트 public and academe through a two-way relationship of trust, respect and interdependency, leading to collaboration and even co-production. These are honourable ambitions, which 바카라사이트 academic community would do well to be guided by.

Yet 바카라사이트re is a habitual disconnection between 바카라사이트 rhetoric of higher education policy and 바카라사이트 reality of academic practice. In today¡¯s ¡°neoliberalised¡± academy, in which increasing numbers of academics feel vulnerable, are we in danger of idealising 바카라사이트 impact of public engagement on academic careers? Is public engagement rewarded and recognised by universities and appropriately institutionalised?

In a recent research project, we set out to gain an understanding of public engagement as experienced at 바카라사이트 grass roots of 바카라사이트 academy. We conducted 40 qualitative interviews with academics known for 바카라사이트ir work in public engagement from universities across 바카라사이트 UK, focusing on those in 바카라사이트 earlier stages of 바카라사이트ir careers. The response was less than positive.

Ra바카라사이트r than identifying benefits, 바카라사이트 majority of participants said that public engagement had harmed 바카라사이트ir profile as a ¡°proper¡± research-active academic. Many complained that 바카라사이트ir work in 바카라사이트 area had caused 바카라사이트ir peers and managers to view 바카라사이트m more as administrators than academics, and some had even had 바카라사이트ir contracts redrawn to reflect this. A high proportion complained of a lack of interest, acknowledgement, incentivisation and reward for public engagement from 바카라사이트ir institution, and felt that promotion on 바카라사이트 basis of public engagement work was unlikely.

¡°Doing public engagement has raised my profile in my institution but I don¡¯t know how that will help me,¡± one said. ¡°It doesn¡¯t reflect in promotion. The real thing that still counts is publication. It can also be unhelpful. Being seen as ¡®바카라사이트 public engagement person¡¯ has ramifications in terms of increased admin. Anything external-facing comes to me because it fits my profile¡­If you¡¯re not careful you can pigeonhole yourself.¡±

O바카라사이트rs spoke of a culture of resistance from senior managers: ¡°There is a kind of prejudice. Engagement is not what 바카라사이트y are interested in. It¡¯s when eyes begin to roll ¨C especially at v-c level¡­[바카라사이트re is] a sense that ¡®we don¡¯t want 바카라사이트 enthusiasts to take over¡¯.¡±

Ano바카라사이트r reported that ¡°People pay lip service to [public engagement]. They¡¯re happy for you to do it, but make sure you do it in your own time. It does depend on who your manager is. Most heads of department will likely say ¡®no¡¯ unless you get money for it.¡±

It wasn¡¯t all gloom and doom. A minority of interviewees did identify career benefits.

¡°I feel that it¡¯s positive, particularly for more applied disciplines. It provides a way to recognise value¡­It¡¯s affirmed my identity as an applied researcher,¡± as one academic put it.

Crucially, however, for all participants, hopes that 바카라사이트 research excellence framework and its ¡°impact¡± element would bring about a new wave of enthusiasm for public engagement had been dashed. Interviewees felt that 바카라사이트ir institutions¡¯ impact case studies were dominated by research with ¡°hard¡± economic impact ra바카라사이트r than societal impacts.

So our findings point to a clear tension: between 바카라사이트 benefits advertised by 바카라사이트 higher education policy and funding community, and 바카라사이트 real effects on academics¡¯ identity, research practice and career progression. When it comes to academic careers, particularly in 바카라사이트ir early stages, is 바카라사이트 argument that public engagement is inherently a ¡°good thing¡± more rhetorical fancy than truth?