Edna Einsiedel: ‘What the journal has done best is to illustrate the richness and diversity of the relationships between science and its many publics’

How did you become editor of PUS?

I inherited editorship of the journal from Bruce Lewenstein (Cornell). At that time, ‘appointments’ to such positions were rather informally arranged, and the only part of the process that I recall was being invited to take up the role by both Bruce Lewenstein and John Durant. I was part of the group that helped to oversee the publication of the early issues of the journal under John Durant’s editorship. It was quite intimidating to follow in the footsteps of these previous two editors.

What was your vision for the journal – was there anything you wanted to change?

To tell you the truth, I was not particularly excited about the journal’s name – which seemed to portray publics as ‘recipients’ of scientific knowledge. However, there it was – and there were many other things to attend to. During my tenure on the journal, I had an administrative appointment as Acting Dean and received two major research grants with international collaborative partners, so I had a lot to juggle.

That’s interesting! If you had been starting afresh, what name would you have chosen for the journal?

I probably would have chosen something more general like ‘Publics and Science’. ‘Public understanding of science’, I think, suggests the problem is with publics and how they might understand or misunderstand science. However, the journal has been more broadly inclusive of the intersections between publics and science writ large. In an editorial I wrote in 2007 (Einsiedel, 2007), I referred to this as ‘a field of study that has for some time felt the oppressive burden of a label that has been outgrown’. This was by way of introducing the articles in that issue that represented the more varied ways of thinking about publics and science.

With the name being already established, what did you choose to focus on for the journal’s development?

A key aspect I was hoping to emphasize when I was editor was to encourage more international submissions. I used international conferences as opportunities for promoting the journal and for submission of articles, usually bringing with me sample copies and flyers inviting submissions on relevant topics. I may have been one of the few or rare editors seen ‘hawking’ the journal she or he edited! International conferences I attended included PCST or Public Communication of Science and Technology, and IAMCR (International Association for Mass Communication Research, renamed as International Association for Media and Communication Research).

I note that Bauer and Howard’s (2012) analysis showed that by 2010, Public Understanding of Science (PUS) was accessible to 4231 institutions through individual, institutional or block subscriptions. In Levin and De Filippo’s (2021) analysis of PUS and Science Communication journals, the first decade of PUS showed seven countries represented in the journal; the second decade – 2000–2010 – showed this number increasing to 12 countries, with the trend continuing from 2010 to 2019.

In this issue, we learn that between 2016 and 2021 we had submissions from 76 different countries (where ‘submissions from’ records the country of the first author).

These stats are very impressive, I have to say! I know that during my tenure, the journal’s growth overtook its competitor, Science Communications, and caught up with Science, Technology and Human Values (Bauer and Howard, 2012). I think they speak to the increasing prominence of science issues that intersect with our lives and our policy concerns across many countries. There are also scientific developments and controversies in countries beyond Europe and the United States where the perspectives of expert authors from these regions can provide a richer and more in-depth perspective on such controversies. I am thinking of a recent piece in PUS on gene editing in China where the authors were clearly familiar with Chinese social media platforms and the subject was a domestic story that garnered considerable international attention. Just browsing through the issues in 2021 (vol. 30), the range of countries represented by the authors, the research problems investigated, the diversity of media (including social media) outlets examined, the methodological approaches and the topical range is striking and impressive to this researcher.

Were there any other themes or issues that you were particularly interested to observe in the journal during your editorship?

I was also interested in eclecticism in methodological approaches – having gone through the overdrawn debates and disagreements between qualitative and quantitative approaches/researchers which were prominent during my time. There are common features between both approaches (e.g. testing, categorizing, explaining and interpreting) that tend to get lost in the overemphasis on techniques. While I had my preferences (in making both approaches complementary), this was not something I necessarily sought out in submissions, though. When I encouraged submissions (either at conferences or from people I knew), this was with no methodological preference. With papers sent out for review, we worked with what we got. The range of topics and methodologies represented in the journal I think are the best ways of signalling to potential authors what would be found acceptable. I am pleased that the journal showcases a range of methodological approaches.

You oversaw some key changes in the organization of the journal too. . .

When I took over editorship, I was able to hire an editorial assistant with the (rather modest) funds then allocated to the editorship by Sage, and supplemented by my University department. My ‘editorial assistant’ (then a PhD student) worked on the journal one 6-hour day a week. I would not have been able to do the editorship without her. When I was getting ready to hand over the journal to Martin Bauer, I emphasized how important the role of editorial assistant was and to try to negotiate an increase in the pay rate for this position. Martin arranged for Sue Howard, who took on the expanded role of Managing Editor, to visit us in Calgary to see first-hand how we managed the day-to-day running of the journal. The Managing Editor’s role is absolutely critical to the organization, continuing growth and evolution of the journal and I am pleased that this role has been institutionalized under subsequent editors. Bauer and Howard (2012) recorded PUS’s increasing impact factor, which goes to show how they made the journal not just grow even more but really shine! This tradition, of course, has been continued and strengthened by both Massimiano Bucchi and Hans Peter Peters. I do remember that my decision to leave editorship of the journal was made easier by knowing there were capable and willing hands ready to take on the journal helm. While I was editor, I initiated an increase in the number of issues per year (from four to six) as we clearly did not have the ‘space’ to accommodate the growing number of submissions which passed review, and the publishers were supportive of the move. Under Martin’s tenure, the number of issues per year increased further to eight.

As the journal has evolved over the years, what developments have you been most pleased to see, and what do you think are the journal’s strengths?

I see broader approaches – methodologically and theoretically – reflected in PUS today, in addition to the broader contexts – political, cultural, social – afforded by a growing interest in the different ways publics and science relate to each other. The range of issues has also evolved with the times – from BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) to climate change and now Covid. But the journal has not turned away from historical examinations which continue to provide rich lessons.

The sites where publics encounter science are rich and diverse – from the home kitchen to museums to wherever birds (or other animals) can be observed, counted and so on. The introduction of new technologies in society and engagement of different publics have also been discussed in the journal’s pages (Levin and De Filippo, 2021). What publics do with science and scientists also range widely – from cooperation to opposition to active rejection. One can encounter this diversity in the pages of PUS today.

What the journal has done best is to illustrate the richness and diversity of the relationships between science and its many publics, some of the variety of channels and sites of interaction, how publics construct (or reconstruct) ‘science’. Even ‘science in the making’ offers a site for examination. It has been fun to see the evolution of the journal – from ‘the olden days’, as they say, to the present time which includes the variety of social media outlets – and the journal now even has a social media editor to boot!

Were there any ambitions for the journal that you weren’t able to see through?

I would have loved to see a yearly Reflection/Analytical piece on some aspect of the publics and science relationship that went deeper into how this might be changing – whether from the different platforms that have emerged, the changing relationships and connections between publics and scientists modulated by different issues or contexts or the different types of publics and varying forms of engagement in different international contexts (extending from knowledge, attitudes). In other words, a deeper dive into the different dimensions of ‘publics’, ‘understandings’ and ‘science’ was on my editorial plate. These have thankfully received greater attention subsequently. Still, many worlds remain to be explored. Attention to science-in-the-making has been highlighted by our current editor, Hans Peter Peters, with Covid-19 providing a timely laboratory for study.

There were some ‘curiosity’ questions I did not get to attend to which I thought were relevant to the journal’s ‘inclusivity’, reach and review effectiveness. For example, while I was interested in expanding the scope of authorship, I thought expanding the readership and peer-reviewer base was also important.

What challenges do you see for the journal currently, and/or in the future?

I am aware of the current environment of tightening library budgets and the challenges for institutional subscriptions. The growth of PUS since my early tenure is reason for celebration. At the same time, I also think of the continuing and expanding accessibility of the journal for more international institutions, authors and readers beyond Europe and North America, given that submissions have come from more authors beyond these regions. The growing international interest in publics-and-science issues in more countries outside of Europe and North America is only going to expand. I’m also uncertain about the sustainability of subscription-based models in light of open access trends. It will be interesting to see how PUS navigates through the next set of challenges it might be facing.

Your own work is notable for its great richness and diversity – you have written about many different areas of science and technology, as well as many different aspects of its relationship with the public(s). Did each focus move inevitably to the next, or does the variety of your work simply come from having broad intellectual interests?

Well, I wish I could say that there was a master plan or set of ideas for my work but my very broad interests and funding opportunities provided the bedding for my research, allowing me to investigate different publics (the so-called ‘general’ public, activist and expert publics) and their different forms of engagement with science (in general or in particular). If there was a direction, it was a recognition of the complexity of each of the terms ‘publics’, ‘understanding’, and ‘participation’ and ‘science’ and what I hope is a more nuanced exposition on their connections (Einsiedel, 2021).

The richness and diversity of the relationships between science and its publics can be challenging to comprehend for those who are new to the field – do you have any advice to new readers of the journal for how to navigate it? Is it a labyrinth, or is there a map. . .?

There is no map – and I hope that’s a good thing. I would simply pose each term with a question mark: what do we mean by ‘publics’ (emphasis is plural) and which ones are we talking about? What does ‘understanding’ entail and how is this enacted? What goes under the umbrella of ‘science’ and whose science are we talking about? All of these terms and their different connections display a richness that will continue to offer new understandings with varying issues and locales (see for example Shein et al., 2014). I think if we are examining their relationships or connections and keep an open mind for each of these terms – as has been demonstrable in the journal, this would be a helpful guide.