Abstract
This study aims to explore the perceptions and attitudes toward Public Communication of Science and Technology of the researchers of the National Council of Science and Technology (Conacyt), in order to provide a diagnosis about the ways the Mexican scientists are involved in public communication and to contribute to the visibility of researchers’ needs in being able to popularize science. The results show significant differences among the researchers’ opinions with respect to their perceptions about science communication, the ways they participate in PUS activities and their identified needs. In general, the researchers of Conacyt perceived public communication as very important. However, lack of time and of academic recognition stood out as determining factors in their low contribution to science popularization. We conclude that, to achieve a culture of Public Engagement in public communication of science and technology among R&D institutions, the Mexican Administration should address the above-mentioned unfavorable professional circumstances.
Keywords
1. Introduction
Public Administrations in Mexico have shown increasing interest in the scientific literacy and culture of its citizens, leading to implementation of national studies on Public Understanding of Science (PUS). Our study was inspired by the results of the Public Perception of Science and Technology Survey (Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI), 2013), which showed two worrying facts: pseudoscientific beliefs are still strongly present among a great percentage of Mexican citizens, and almost 70% of the population thought that Mexican scientists put little effort into informing the public about their own scientific and technological work. If this perception of Mexican scientists is accurate, this may explain, at least in part, the failure of institutional measures aimed at increasing scientific literacy and interest during the last decades.
Since scientists themselves have a fundamental role in the processes of public communication of science and technology (S&T), our research focused on the governmentally funded scientific staff. In particular, our study aimed to know the opinions about public communication of the researchers who are working within the network of the Research Public Centers (RPC) that depends upon the National Council of Science and Technology (Conacyt, Spanish acronym), which is the State entity in charge of the science, technology and innovation policy in Mexico.
There are no studies from Mexico on scientists’ opinions and participation with respect to science communication aimed at the general public. Some quantitative studies related to this subject have been carried out, for example, Australia (Gascoigne and Metcalfe, 1997), the United Kingdom (Bhattachary, 2006; Corrado et al., 2001; Pearson, 2001), France (Jensen, 2011), Italy (Bucchi and Saracino, 2012) and in the United States (Pew Research Center for the People and the Press (PRCPP), 2009). In Spanish-speaking countries, similar surveys are from Argentina (Kreimer et al., 2011) and Spain (Martín Sampere et al., 2008; Rey-Rocha et al., 2006). Among them, some have also exclusively addressed their respective Science & Technology councils’ researchers (Jensen, 2011; Kreimer et al., 2011; Martín Sampere et al., 2008; Pearson, 2001).
Loosely following their approaches, between summer and autumn of 2016, we implemented an original survey, which followed these specific objectives:
Knowing the perceptions, attitudes and opinions of the RPC-Conacyt researchers toward public communication of S&T.
Determining the main participatory methods and tools used by researchers in science popularization.
Identifying the challenges that need to be met, according to them, in order to improve the scientists’ engagement in public communication activities.
The main aim of this work is to share the results of this first exploratory survey in Mexico, coupled with reflecting on them in terms of national science policy, explicit and implicit (Herrera, 1971).
The survey’s results showed that, while there is a general agreement about the fundamental importance of science popularization and about the requirement of their own involvement in it, these Mexican researchers rarely participate in popularization activities due to lack of time and the absence of career benefit.
The research also unveiled the predominant PUS model underlying Conacyt’s approach to public communication. Our analysis shows that classical models, added to the traditional conception on the scientific literacy of citizens as deficient, influence the researchers’ perception and the proposed popularization activities.
Our study points to the need to implement new institutional policies to create a public communication culture (in line with the ‘public engagement’ approach) in the Conacyt system. This will only be viable if scientists’ working contexts are taken into account.
2. Public communication of S&T at the research public centers of Conacyt
According to the Science and Technology Act of 2002, the general goal of the Mexican S&T policy is to drive the country to the Knowledge Society, which explicitly includes the requirement of increasing the scientific, humanistic and technological literacy of Mexicans (Chamber of Deputies, 2002). In doing so, Conacyt has implemented the Special Program of Science, Technology and Innovation since 2002, which establishes, among their specific objectives, the creation and support of mechanisms to encourage the public communication of science and technology.
The network of RPC is one of its main strategic tools to implement the national ST&I policies, in general, and the public communication of science and technology policy, in particular. Therefore, apart from their main task of contributing to achieving national R&D goals, the researchers belonging to the RPC have a special responsibility in the popularization of Mexican science and technology. 1
To help them in this task, each RPC has a communication office and jointly have developed their own mass media infrastructure with available spaces to the R&D staff in press, radio, and Internet, and takes part in public events such as the National Science and Technology Week, International Book Fair, and the Citizens Agenda of Science, Technology and Innovation, among others.
However, the large governmental investment in science popularization during the last decade, which has been largely extended beyond Conacyt activities, is at odds with both the above-mentioned public opinion on scientists’ popularising work, and the data regarding levels of public scientific literacy.
Besides, if we also consider the numerous opportunities for public communication of S&T developed by public and private entities, it may be concluded that these results are not the consequence of a quantitative problem - not enough popularization - but qualitative - how and by whom science popularization activities are conceived and done.
As mentioned, Conacyt has been given an important role in national public communication of S&T; our study explored whether it is true that they are not active in this sense, and, if so, to know why and how, according to them, this situation could be inverted.
3. The survey
The questionnaire was implemented between 20 June and 15 October 2016, following two pilot polls designed to test the survey respondents’ understanding of the questions. 2
Hypotheses
The questionnaire was designed to test:
The research staff’s participation and perceptions on S&T communication may be influenced by their age, stage in their professional trajectory and/or by their scientific specialization.
Their engagement in public communication depends on various factors such as time, available channels and their popularization capability.
Public communication activities are understood and proposed under traditional models and conceptions of Public Understanding of Science.
Methods
An original questionnaire was implemented, following a quota sampling design, a non-probabilistic sampling technique in which the sample collected has the same proportion of individuals as the entire RPC network’s population with respect to the variables of interest: according to the professional status at the National System of Researchers (NSR) which is correlated to the age, 3 and to the R&D fields of their belonging Center: Exact and Natural Sciences, Social Sciences and Humanities, and Technological Development.
The survey consisted of a non-guided interview implemented online (Google Forms open program). We used SPSS 17 for quantitative analysis and ATLAS.ti for qualitative analysis. 4
The questionnaire
In accordance with the hypotheses, 20 questions were proposed as distributed among three thematic sets of questions, coupled with a first one aimed to obtain particular clustering data. They were as follows:
Set 0. Basic data: gender, age, professional status, and R&D Center belonging.
Set 1. Perceptions, motivations and interests in public communication of science, technology and innovation.
Set 2. Perceptions and attitudes toward public communication made by the media and communication technicians.
Set 3. Perceptions and opinions on the public communication policies of the Research Public Centers and Conacyt.
Finally, we also offered an optional open section for “Further Comments.”
Sample
The survey’s target population was all the R&D staff working at the Public Research Centers of Conacyt at that time (2422 researchers). 5 The network has a presence in 28 of 31 States of México, distributed in 61 cities with 105 branches and offices.
Of the total of researchers from the RPC network, 15% are candidates (363), 48% belong to the Level I-Junior (1163), 24% are in Level II-Senior (581), and, finally, 10% in Level III-International (242). These groups are associated with age: the youngest are Candidates and Level I, while the oldest are in Levels II and III. On the other hand, 57% belong to the area of Exact and Natural Sciences, 31% to Social Sciences and Humanities, while 11% work in Technological Development centers.
A total of 167 questionnaires were answered, which correspond to 7% of the total. 6
Table 1 shows that 55 questionnaires were obtained from researchers in Natural and Exact Science centers, of which 50% (28) correspond to Level I-Junior, 23% to Level II-Senior (13), 9% at the Level III-International (5), while between Candidates and those that are not in the NSR, correspond to 18% (10), which shows that the sample proportionally represents the distribution among the professional status of the whole population.
Number of respondents by fields and professional status within the National System of Researchers.
Cut-off date: 15 October 2016.
The TD centers have less NSR permanent personnel because their main objective is the provision of services and not scientific research.
There were 112 questionnaires obtained from the other two research fields (SS&Hs and TD), although they only represent 43% of all the researchers; thus these fields are over-represented in the sample.
If we suppose that the survey was answered by those more interested in public communication, this over-representation in our sample corresponds with the results obtained from Technological Development’s researchers, who reported more PUS activity than those belonging to Social Sciences and Humanities, as we will see. Finally, it is worthwhile also to mention here that our analysis did not offer any significant outcome with respect to the gender and regional/geographical factors.
4. Results
On public communication of science and technology
In general, the results of the survey show that the researchers of Conacyt consider public popularization of science and technology (S&T) as an important activity. Up to 96% of them agree about the necessity of public communication of Mexican science, while 93% think that there would have to be a particular communication policy at the R&D centers (Table 2).
Perceptions toward public communication of S&T, Reasons given to participate in it, and Attitudes toward the S&T popularization done by the media (expressed as percentage of respondents).
Among the given reasons regarding the importance of communicating, the first option was “to encourage scientific vocations” (95%), and “because it generates positive social attitudes and support towards science and technology” (91%). In addition, Mexicans also considered popularization is part of the scientific work (91%), although 29% perceive it as inferior to research (see below Table 5).
With respect to who should be in charge of this duty, the majority of researchers consider that it is a job in which diverse actors have to participate equally (66%): researchers, journalists, communication technicians, and teachers in all levels. Communication technicians (37%), followed by researchers (36%) and journalists (23%) were individually listed in the first positions.
These results are in accordance with their opinion about the work already done by the mass media (see Table 2). Half of the respondents (55%) think journalists do not have the knowledge, or the skills, to appropriately treat scientific issues and, in the opinion of 67%, the relationship between scientists and communication professionals could be better.
Except for a few researchers who claimed to know about some of the communication strategies of their own R&D center, most respondents seem uninformed about available infrastructure and activities for public communication at Conacyt. This circumstance could explain why most researchers have taken a neutral position with respect to their opinion about the professionals’ work on science communication (Table 2), as well as their request for technical support (see Table 5 below), when there is at least one communication technician at each R&D center. This contrasts, for example, with the situation in other countries, like in the United Kingdom, where most scientists are aware of the communication services available at their own institutions (e.g. Corrado et al., 2001). Meanwhile, Mexicans’ lack of knowledge about public channels to communicate are similar to the AAAS researchers (76% had not heard, or had heard little, about this), but their opinions contrast with the high American and Italian disagreement with the media’s work (PRCPP, 2009; Bucchi and Saracino, 2012).
In relation to what should be the main goal of public communication of science and technology, the survey shows that 86% of researchers consider it is the education of citizens and the achievement of social needs and interests (77%). There follow the scientific (37%), ludic (34%) and political (20%) objectives.
With respect to the particularities that may regard the different segments of researchers, it is worth mentioning that, when talking about “public accountability” of science (as reason for public communication), most Junior researchers are the ones who strongly agree the most (Non-permanent staff with 96% and Candidates with 100%). The percentages significantly decrease with respect to the already institutionalized researchers within the NSR (Table 3).
Significant differences among the researchers’ opinions on reasons for public communication of S&T (expressed as percentage of respondents).
ExNat: Exact & Natural Sciences; SS&H: Social Science & Humanities; TD: Technological Development.
Regarding science communication as helpful “to make informed decisions,” the engineers (personnel from the TD centers) clearly support this idea less (64%) than the researchers from Exact and Natural Science (93%) and Social Sciences and Humanities (86%).
Finally, in spite of the overall low support for popularization to “follow political aims,” the Humanities and Social Science researchers most support this statement (34%).
On researchers’ participation in science communication
In all, 77% of the researchers range from “interested” to “very interested” in making public communication (Table 4). However, data show that most of them only participate in popularization activities occasionally (between two or three times annually). The highest ranked activity is the direct interaction with the public at public events (63%) such as at the National Science Week or at science and technology fairs. The second highest answer is “press interviews” (61%), followed by “collaboration with the media” in general (51%). Meanwhile, most of the respondents do not participate in scientific blogs (76%) and nearly half do not use social networks (44%).
Ways in which researchers participate in public communication of S&T and significant differences by population segments (expressed as percentage of respondents).
Ex Nat: Exact & Natural Sciences; SS&H: Social Science & Humanities; TD: Technological Development.
When the researchers were asked for the reasons they do not participate more often in these activities, half of them said because of lack of time (45%), in contrast with 22% of respondents who considered they do not have the proper skills or ignored the ways they may do it (24%).
We did not find significant differences in their engagement in science popularization in general, as has been found in other countries: as in France and Argentina, where social scientists are more active (Jensen, 2011; Kreimer et al., 2011), or in France, the United Kingdom and Spain, where researchers with senior categories tend to be more active in science communication (Corrado et al., 2001; Jensen, 2011; Martín-Sampere et al., 2008).
However, there are significant particularities with respect to the types of participation in Mexico. For instance, younger (30–45years old) and non-permanent researchers are distinctly those who more frequently use blogs. The generational gap between the ICT users and those who think these channels are not even appropriate for public communication is, then, clear.
Another difference is the fact that engineers have the highest participation in the rest of the activities: granting interviews, using social networks and collaborating with the media. Researchers from Exact and Natural Sciences are next likely to collaborate with the media. These last results are similar to the US corresponding findings (PRCPP, 2009). Mexican and French social scientists coincide in being more active in interviews and collaborating with the press (Jensen, 2011).
On the researchers’ needs to popularize
More than the half (55%) of the researchers would like to learn techniques to write popularization articles. On the other hand, a high percentage also wants to know how to organize workshops and other kinds of open events (46%). Much less attention was given to get any “successful interview guide” or oratory course. (Table 5)
Identification of the researchers’ needs to contribute to public communication of S&T and significant differences by segments.
Ex Nat: Exact & Natural Sciences; SS&H: Social Science & Humanities; TD: Technological Development.
There was also a high interest in the incorporation of personnel specialized in science communication at each R&D center (68%), in the creation of spaces and resources to publicly communicate (56%), as well as in the implementation of institutional dissemination of their scientific works through social networks (53%). Finally, half of responders think that it is necessary to continuously promote popularization courses aimed at them (50%).
One noticeable result is that 75% of the respondents consider very important the institutional recognition of public communication among the academic merits to improve science communication within the Conacyt R&D system (see Table 5). Among those who state that career recognition is a requirement to improve public communication of science, there have been significant differences according to their R&D center. Most Exact and Natural scientists agree on that (84%), while engineers agree less (46% of them think institutional recognition is not necessary).
The results show younger researchers would participate more often if they could get public speaking courses (37%) and if they knew how to organize open events (60%). The Humanities and Social Science researchers are the most uninformed about channels and resources to popularize (32%), while the TD researchers are the ones who agree the most on the necessity of creating spaces for public communication (67%).
Open questions showed higher interest in answers such as “I do not invest more time in popularization activities because …” (15%) and “I would do it more often if I could count on …” (27%). Word frequency shows that the majority of these answers were in relation to “time”; while “support” was the word less used.
Analysis of the open commentaries shows that, although in general the researchers positively consider public communication of science, “time” as a factor is decisive in not increasing their contribution to it. Also regarding “time,” the respondents expressed their disagreement with the excessive variety of tasks they should do as researchers. This perception remains the British complaint about lack of time even to research (56% of the UK researchers thought so) (Corrado et al., 2001).
Therefore, Conacyt researchers say they would usually sacrifice popularization activities (even when they know about available related publications and events). They also perceive public communication as a personal matter, since the National productivity assessment systems do not recognize popularization as a valuable merit. Scientific papers are the only professionally valuated production, according to them.
Finally, economic and human resources, in general, as well as close contact with communication technicians were suggested by those who mention “support” as needed to popularize. This is in accordance with the previously seen requirement of communication personnel at their respective centers. 7
5. Discussion
As we have seen, the Mexican responses confirm our starting hypothesis: age, professional stage at the NSR and their fields of expertise prompt researchers’ perceptions on public communication and the ways they participate in it. The study has shown (see Table 3) that, in general, the Conacyt researchers consider Mexican S&T popularization as an activity of importance, although less important than research.
This consideration corresponds to the general trend found among the existent studies on scientists’ opinions toward public communication of science. However, Mexican researchers express low engagement regarding their own role in public communication: they do not perceive themselves as the main actors of popularization but as equal to journalists or communication professionals. This is similar to what the Spanish Council’s researchers think (Martín Sampere et al., 2008) but both contrast, for example, with the results of the largest British survey. British scientists considered themselves the most responsible actors in the popularization of science (Corrado et al., 2001).
The great majority of the Conacyt respondents perceived public communication as part of their professional role (although this could be partly explained by a social desirability tendency). Meanwhile, only 5% of the researchers who belong to the British Scientific Research Council considered PUS activities as part of their scientific work. Actually, only 10% of these respondents said that their participation in public communication followed a general sense of duty (Pearson, 2001) (see also similar results in Australia, in Gascoigne and Metcalfe, 1997).
In any case, the Mexican researchers acknowledged they rarely participate in popularization, although they do not do it much less, for example, than the British, Italian or Argentinians (Bhattachary, 2006; Bucchi and Saracino, 2012; Corrado et al., 2001; Kreimer et al., 2011), but in contrast with 77% of the AAAS’ researchers, if we consider they “often or occasionally talk with non-scientists about science” (PRCPP, 2009).
As a reason, most Mexicans stated their necessity to be trained in public communication of science in diverse ways. With respect to this, survey answers also confirm our second hypothesis: the amount of researchers’ engagement in public communication activities depends on factors such as their technical capability, available communication channels and time to perform science popularization.
Conacyt’s researchers acknowledge their lack of knowledge about public communication: about technical criteria, kinds of audiences and /or about the public’s motivations or interests. With some differences among the Mexican researchers, the offer of writing courses and training in events organization were in general chosen as important requirements to help them to communicate more often (see Table 5). These self-evaluations also differ from elsewhere, for instance, British scientists stated they knew more about their own communication infrastructure and felt themselves as capable (three-quarters of them thought so), although they also did not identify themselves as the professionals more qualified to popularize (Corrado et al., 2001).
However, when analyzing the open questions and comments, most of the Mexican responses were not linked to requiring more communication skills or technical support, but to lack of time and the absence of career benefit of popularizing.
From the beginning of this kind of surveys, and in different countries, researchers have already highlighted “lack of time” as a reason to not communicate (Corrado et al., 2001; Gascoigne and Metcalfe, 1997; Rey-Rocha et al., 2006) often as the main determinant factor (Bhattachary, 2006; Kreimer et al., 2011). However, “career recognition” is a factor of more recent appearance. In one of the first surveys (Gascoigne and Metcalfe, 1997), Australian researchers offered inconsistent opinions about whether popularization should be taken into account for academic promotion or not. Since then, this matter has been acquiring more importance. In the largest British survey (Corrado et al., 2001), the most frequently mentioned factor as possible positive incentive for the scientists’ engagement was the public institutions and funding authorities’ encouragement of investing time in it (coupled with training in dealing with the media). In Spain, lack of time and of institutional recognition were also highlighted as main demotivating issues (Rey-Rocha et al., 2006) and, in Argentina, researchers from the National R&D centers considered lack of time and “of institutional support or encouragement” as more determinant of their engagement in public communication than technical barriers (Kreimer et al., 2011).
Mexican circumstances show the incongruence to which the public communication of science is submitted at the Mexican National S&T system. Both researchers and Public Administration are explicitly committed to it, asserting its high importance. Conversely, without any career recognition among the criteria for the excellence assessment within the NSR or, at least, among the internal RPC rewards system, 8 S&T popularization is not promoted in practice – especially if researchers perceive they should make an extra effort beside their already diverse and intense work tasks as scientists.
This situation is not exclusive to Mexico. The work of Torres-Albero et al. (2011) explains that in Spain, despite the governmental rhetoric, the Spanish S&T quality assessment system takes into account mainly the international indexed scientific publications. In Mexico, as in Spain, researchers are required to collaborate in science communication, given its supposed social importance, but as extra work. Spanish National Research Council respondents, as the Mexicans and also the British researchers, view their participation as a personal choice (Martín-Sampere et al. 2008; Pearson, 2001). Similar considerations were found in Australia (Gascoigne and Metcalfe, 1997).
In our view, at least regarding Mexico, such a paradox, coupled with the confirmation of our third hypothesis (see below), is evidence of the inexistence of an actual culture of science engagement in public communication of S&T within the National institutions and, consequently among their scientific personnel.
Public communication culture at Conacyt
Our third hypothesis stated that, at the R&D centers of Conacyt, science popularization is understood and practiced according to PUS classical models and conceptions. This is backed up by several observations.
A high percentage of respondents perceived public communication of science as important because it generates supportive and positive attitudes toward science and technology, and because it promotes scientific vocations among young people (see Table 2). These opinions coincide with those obtained, for example, from the Spanish National Council researchers (Martín Sampere et al., 2008). But these opinions are not generalized among the Spanish-speaking countries. They deeply contrast with the answers of the Argentinian National Council researchers, who stated, “To inform about the importance of science in everyday life” and “To contribute in public debates regarding scientific subjects” as the main reasons after “sense of duty” (Kreimer et al., 2011). In contrast, Mexican and Italian researchers (Bucchi and Saracino, 2012) think public communication should be mainly developed according to educative motivations, as did Australians 20 years ago (Gascoigne and Metcalfe, 1997).
Reasons such as educating people, coupled with “to know science is to love it,” removing fears against science and technology, and making them understand the importance of S&T are the typical reasons for public communication under the traditional conceptions, which seem still very present among the scientific world, as qualitative studies have also shown (e.g. Davies, 2008).
Following this, our results suggest that Conacyt researchers’ conceptions on public communication are influenced by the science literacy “Deficit model,” which determined the first PUS analyses and indeed the first Western National science policies, since these motivations were already suggested in the Davis study of 1958 and the Bush Report (1945). Therefore, in accordance to the “PUS periods” highlighted by Bauer et al. (2007), these Mexican perceptions show researchers’ understanding of public communication as closer to the “Scientific Literacy” paradigm (e.g. Miller, 2000) than the “Science and Society” conception: less than half of the respondents strongly agreed on the statement that science popularization helps citizens in making political and daily decisions.
Although some Conacyt respondents thought popular communication of S&T is important because it is part of the public accountability of science (chosen, like in Italy, as the third main reason), we found significant differences among the answers (see Table 3). The responses showed that, with the progressive professional researchers’ consolidation within the National System of Researchers, their commitment with paying back to society the R&D investment – in terms of popularization – diminishes. This datum leads us to the idea that there is a lack of a culture of public communication of S&T among the Conacyt staff.
This is not true elsewhere: Corrado et al. (2001) showed that, in the United Kingdom, older researchers were the ones who considered that the most important audience to science communication, following their own peers, were general public/tax payers (see, also, in Bhattachary, 2006). What is more, according to Bauer and Jensen (2011), an Argentinian survey (Kreimer et al., 2011) showed no differences between the center and the periphery of the academic world regarding the moment in which the researchers are more engaged in PUS activities. In Argentina, as in France (Jensen, 2011), the United Kingdom, Italy (Bucchi and Saracino, 2012) and Spain (Torres-Albero et al., 2011), senior/older researchers are the most engaged in public communication. However, in Mexico, it is the opposite (see Table 4).
On the other hand, except for the scientific fairs aimed at school children, the majority of activities and implemented channels for public communication proposed by Conacyt are initiatives where the audience is expected to listen to the experts. This traditional non-participatory or “one-way” approach to public communication is in accordance with the Mexican survey’s responses. As we have already seen, most researchers do not use one of the most interactive and direct current ways to communicate their work: the Internet (and Social Networks) (Table 4). What is more, a high percentage highlighted the importance of counting on communication technicians as mediators in science popularization, and, when they talked about what they need to do it themselves, writing courses stood out among the answers (Table 5).
These considerations are, then, closer to the “Diffusion Model” than to the more interactive proposed conceptions for public communication, such as the “Continuum Model” (e.g. Bucchi, 2008), which some authors identify as the foundation required to develop public engagement of scientists (Bauer and Jensen, 2011).
As is known, among the aims of the newest PUS proposal, the “Public Engagement” approach, are the involvement of multiple perspectives in S&T practice and the achievement of expert-society mutual learning throughout processes, that generate greater citizen civic empowerment (see, e.g. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), 2017) and to develop more responsible research and innovation (European Union (EU), 2013). However, in our opinion, the strength of the “Public Engagement in Science” approach (European Communities, 2008) is not the emphasis on the interactive dialogue between science and society – which already has a long tradition within the PUS literature – as that it highlights the need for a real commitment of scientists to society, as well.
In spite of what is mentioned in Conacyt’s official documents about implementing public communication of S&T as part of the roadmap to increase the scientific literacy and culture of the Mexican population (Chamber of Deputies, 2002), the measures taken have not been enough to make scientists feel engaged with society, motivated and comfortable in terms of public communication. The Mexican survey’s results have showed how far Conacyt and its researchers are from such a new paradigm and its requirement of a greater involvement of scientists in the public dialogue.
In our view, this is largely because Mexican science policies have not taken into consideration yet the fact that scientists’ engagement cannot only mean to learn how to popularize differently and or to maintain some sense of duty. Institutional promotion of an updated science policy to these ends should start, at the very least, by making possible the circumstances that will give scientists a real chance to be active in public communication. But, while there still exists the gap between Conacyt’s explicit and implicit S&T public communication policies – in which public communication is strongly encouraged but not professionally recognized – any attempt to generate a “Public Engagement” culture among scientists themselves will result in frustration.
6. Conclusion
Our study has confirmed the three starting hypotheses. (a) The perceptions and opinions of the Conacyt scientific staff toward public communication of science are determined by their age, their professional status at the National System of Research and field of expertise. Some of their main differences have been related to the reasons to participate, the ways of getting involved, and the kind of goals that public communication would have to achieve. Nevertheless, all agree that public communication of science, in general, is an important activity.
(b) The participation of researchers in popularization activities depends, according to them, on the availability of communication channels and spaces, as well as on their technical capability to do it. In addition, lack of time and the absence of career benefit proved to be the main factors to slow down their engagement in public communication.
Finally, (c) S&T communication is understood within by the majority of the Conacyt respondents under traditional conceptions of the scientific literacy of the audience, and popularization activity is mostly conceived according to classical models of diffusion of scientific knowledge.
In sum, Conacyt researchers in most cases have access to the necessary resources and tend to be willing to engage in public communication of science. However, not only do they lack time, but moreover this kind of activity does not receive sufficient recognition in terms of career opportunities within the public R&D institutions. And when they engage in science communication, researchers (as well as their institutional environment) mostly take approaches that have already been superseded by the Public Engagement in Science model of public communication.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
It is worthwhile to mention that several respondents voluntary expressed their pleasure with the implementation of this survey and suggested the study’s results be made public in order to improve science communication in Mexico. For more details or research data, please, contact the authors. The authors would like to thank the participant researchers and colleagues from Conacyt and Conacyt itself for the collaboration, as well as to the International University of Valencia. In addition, we deeply appreciate the advice given during the study and the revision of this article by our colleagues: J. Luis Hernández-Stefanoni, José L. Luján and Oliver Todt.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The contribution of Noemí Sanz Merino to this study has been made as part of the following Spanish National R&D projects: “Concept and dimensions of risk culture” (Ref. MINECO-2015-FFI2014-58269) and “Standards of proof and methodological choices in the scientific basis of the health claims” (Ref. FFI2017-83543).