Public engagement with postgraduate research june 2013

Public engagement with postgraduate research:

purpose; process; performance Richard Holliman, Trevor Collins and Ann Grand

email: [email protected]

session objectives• introduce the OU’s RCUK-funded Catalyst project

• What does PER mean to you?

• reflect on engagement with a range of disciplinary fields

BREAK

• planning for engagement

• consider forms of engagement (theory and practice)

BREAK

• introduce current UK agenda for PER

• explore career and professional development need

• short-term practicalities—longer-term planning2

Scholarship of engagement

• Civic renewal of universities: the Academy’s role in

addressing social, civic, economic and moral problems

• Scholarship comprises 4

– discovery: finding new things out

– integration: making connections across disciplines

– application: knowledge developed through use

– teaching: transforming and extending knowledge

3

(Boyer, 1990 & 1996)

An open research university: Embedding public engagement

within the research culture of the OU• EDGE self-assessment tool

(Embryonic, Developing,

Gripping, Embedding)

– purpose: mission,

leadership, communication

– process: support, learning,

recognition

– people: staff, students,

public4

publicengagement.ac.uk/

support/self-assess

introduction

• split into pairs and introduce yourselves

1. briefly describe your research interests to your partner

2. briefly describe a public engagement with research

experience:

– either as a researcher or non-academic participant

– was this a good experience; why, or why not?

3. What do you hope to get out of this session?5

Are we talking about the same thing?

http://www.publicengagement.ac.uk 6

Done well, public engagement with research will

generate benefits, changes and effects for

all participants as they share knowledge,

expertise and skills; researchers will be rewarded

and recognised for their excellent contributions.

purpose

process

performance

Characteristics of first, second & third order thinking (adapted from Irwin, 2008)

First Order Second Order Third Order

Main focus Public ignorance and

technical education

Dialogue, engagement,

transparency, building

trust

Direction, quality and need for

socio-technical change

Key issues Communicating

knowledge, informing

debate, getting the

facts straight

Re-establishing public

confidence, building

consensus,

encouraging debate,

addressing uncertainty

Setting academic knowledge in

wider cultural context, enhancing

reflexivity and critical analysis

Communication

style

One-way, top-down Two-way, bottom-up Multiple stakeholders, multiple

frameworks

Model of

academic

governance

Academic-led,

‘knowledge’ and

’politics’ kept apart

Transparent,

responsive to public

opinion, accountable

Open to contested problem

definitions, beyond government

alone, addressing societal

concerns and priorities

Socio-technical

challenge

Maintaining rationality,

encouraging academic

progress and expert

independence

Establishing broad

societal consensus

Viewing heterogeneity,

conditionality and disagreement

as a societal resource

Overall

perspective

Focusing on academic

knowledge

Focusing on

communication and

engagement

Focusing on academic/political

cultures

from the ‘heroic’ to ‘quality’ (Bucchi, 2012)

“Long before the official shift away from the deficit model,

research [...] contradicted the prevailing account of

publics and their ways of reacting to science and

technologies [4]

This reflected our own listening to ordinary citizens in

qualitative fieldwork research situations: public

meetings, structured focus group discussions,

interviews, participant observation and so on.”

(Wynne, 2006)8

• Extract focuses on the Royal Institution:

– argues that science—public relationship has partly

changed, partly stayed the same

– diffusion of knowledge and information

– critical interrogation, discussion, reflection

1.What are some of the implications of these changes for

academic researchers?

2.How have or could these changes influence your

research?

3.What are the benefits for you of engaging with publics?

9

benefits

• economic

– public money: value for money

• social

– valuable/meaningful knowledge

– partnerships

• personal

– reward and recognition

implications/changes

• economic

– less time for research?

– less funding for research?

• social

– epistemological?

– publics, what publics?

• personal

– fewer post-doc research posts?

– greater post-doc impact posts?

Any questions?

break for tea/coffee

11

session objectives



BREAK



BREAK



• short-term practicalities—longer-term planning 12

planning PER activitiesSplit into two groups—your task is to generate a plan for a public

engagement festival or programme of related activities. Each of

you should contribute a PER event or activity of some kind. In

planning your festival and activities, you should consider:

• Who are your typical user communities, stakeholders, publics,

etc.? (Who have you worked with in the past? Who would you

like to work with? Could you create a public? How and why?)

• What are the aims and objectives of your festival and

activities?

• When do you (and your publics) want to engage; at what

stages of the research cycle? How often will you engage with

your publics?

• What methods are you planning to use, and why? What has

worked well in the past? How would you like to experiment?

• Where do you want to engage; which places/spaces do you

and your publics value?

• What resources might you need to support your activities?

• How will you evaluate your festival and activities?

• Do you require any training/career development? What could

this involve?

inspiring

consulting

collaborating

why this public?

purpose

research

expectations

time/skills

why might public

want to work

with you?

challenges

concerns

Who? Is it clear who they chose

to engage with? Did they have a

clearly identified audience /

need? Did they take steps to

‘tune’ their engagement activity

to the interests of this audience?

Why? Do they have a clear purpose / rationale

for their engagement, which is clearly

explained?

With what impact? Did they build

in mechanisms to capture

feedback (and to act on it)? Did

lessons learned from the

engagement feedback into the

research process? Have they

provided convincing evidence of

the outcomes; intermediate

impacts; impacts of their activity?

When? Depending on their purpose, did they

engage with the public at the appropriate points in

the research cycle? Did they manage the ‘closure’

or the engagement so that the participants were

clear on what happens next? Did they address the

sustainability of the engagement activity?

How? Did they chose

techniques appropriate to their

purpose? Did the public have a

meaningful and purposeful

interaction with the research

process / outputs? Have they

identified how contextual

factors (e.g. user receptiveness)

influenced the engagement and

impact?

What does a ‘quality’ engagement process look like?

This slide captures the five key questions that any evaluator or experienced assessor would

use to inform their judgements of a ‘good’ engagement project or process

Any questions?

break for tea/coffee

15

session objectives



BREAK



BREAK



• short-term practicalities—longer-term planning 16

PER mandate1. Research organisations have a

strategic commitment to public

engagement

2. Researchers are recognised

and valued for involvement with

public engagement activities

3. Researchers are enabled to

participate in public engagement

activities through appropriate

training, support and

opportunities

4. The signatories and supporters

of this Concordat will undertake

regular reviews of their and the

wider research sector’s progress

in fostering public engagement

across the UK17

purpose

performance

performance

process

funding landscape for research• REF2014 Research impact 20%

– How many PGRs or

supervisors have spent 20%

on research impact?

• Pathways to Impact planning

– people; purposes; processes;

– participation & performance

– resources and training

– teamwork & infrastructure

– What proportion of research

funding could/should you

claim? 18

• REF Impact 2019/2020?

– +20% of overall submission?

– Minimum research quality?

– Dates for outputs and impact

will become more recent

• Greater reliance on

Pathways to Impact plans

• Could you and/or supervision

team be part of a 2020 REF

Impact case study?

Is this significant for PGRs?

20

• Learning

Provide opportunities

for learning and

reflection and provide

support for continuing

professional

development and

training.

Domain D3:

Engagement and

Impact

researcher development framework• ‘public engagement lens’

• Which of these skills can you already demonstrate?

• In what areas do you need to

introduce/develop/generate evidence?

• What are your priorities?

21

planning and practicalities

short-term

• DBS checks

• risk assessments

• ethical clearance

• resources and funding

• line manager support/approval

longer-term

• plan to deliver a REF 2020

Impact Case Study?

• CDSA and workload planning

• employability: connect with the

Researcher

Development Framework

22

Any final questions?

Have a great weekend

and happy engaging

23

Public engagement with postgraduate research june 2013

Education

Transcript of Public engagement with postgraduate research june 2013