Inspired by the Cosmos: Strategies for Public Engagement in Nonpolicy Contexts

Abstract

Public engagement scholarship has explored science-policy settings at length. This work is being complemented by growing scholarly attention to engagement outside of policy spaces. As this expanding focus indicates, these spaces, where publics engage science with lower stakes and less confrontation, should be taken seriously. We explore what engagement in such contexts can look like, offering insights from one site, the planetarium. When coupled with a commitment to fostering public-science conversations, engagement strategies like dialogue, storytelling, analogy, and fostering agency can be instrumental for publics to be heard, which can enrich the efforts of nonpolicy venues. In turn, studying nonpolicy contexts can broaden our understanding of engagement.

Keywords

public engagement planetarium science policy science communication

In the past two decades, scientists, politicians, and scholars alike have increasingly acknowledged the need for public engagement in the sciences, to the point where such discourses “have become virtually hegemonic” (Braun & Schultz, 2010, p. 403). As evidenced by the broad support for this participatory turn and the development of numerous mechanisms to involve the public in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) (e.g., citizen juries, consensus conferences), Delgado, Kjolberg, and Wickson (2011) describes this time as the age of engagement (Callon, Lascoumes, P., & Barthe, 2010; Collins & Evans, 2007; Greenwood & Riordan, 2001; Leshner, 2003; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2017; Rowe & Frewer, 2005). As a result, interaction between scientists and publics has come a long way from the elitist expert model (Frewer & Salter, 2007; Rowe & Frewer, 2004).

Research on public engagement efforts has been well-developed in journals such as Science Communication, but much of this work focuses on engagement with policy (Bell, 2008; Geiger, Swim, Fraser, & Flinner, 2017; Krabbenborg & Mulder, 2015; Rose, Korzekwa, Brossard, Scheufele, & Heisler, 2017). Comparatively less attention has been focused on engagement outside of policy settings, a trend likely tied to the original goals that spurred interest in public engagement, like increasing democratic participation (Davies, McCallie, Simonsson, Lehr, & Duensing, 2009; Jensen & Buckley, 2012; Stilgoe, Lock, & Wilsdon, 2014). Undeniably important, a focus chiefly on policy “risk[s] ignoring or discounting places outside of the formally mandated engagement processes where publics do, or wish to, engage with science, technology, and innovation” (Stilgoe et al., p. 10).

In order to explore what engagement can look like outside of a policy context, we offer insights from the Manfred Olson Planetarium at the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee (UWM). Despite not being linked to policy formation, interaction in the planetarium does not have to be based on a deficit model. Even in contexts where the public does not speak much, they can still be heard. Certainly, publics need to be listened to, as Druschke (2014) points out, but this can look differently than just speaking more and being talked at less. We will demonstrate several ways through which planetarians can learn from their audiences, just as the public learns by attending planetarium shows. This symmetry in learning is another indicator of the two-way conversation that is a hallmark of engagement. We reflect on what we learned by listening to audiences at a series of Friday night shows on aurora (also known in the northern hemisphere as Northern Lights).

The Planetarium Setting

A planetarium is a theater in which a star projector is used to recreate the night sky with a wide range of equipment, ranging from the “machine in the middle of the room” projecting stars to digital theaters showing full dome animations. Whatever the technology, the objective is to demonstrate the movement of celestial bodies at any time or latitude on Earth. Planetariums offer a variety of educational and entertaining events, including stargazing, prerecorded documentary-style programs, and live presentations. The world’s 3,000 planetariums are found in schools, colleges, universities, museums, and science centers in all 50 U.S. states and in more than 100 countries around the world (International Planetarium Society, 2017). These planetariums are both fixed and portable, large (e.g., the Hayden Planetarium’s 87-foot dome holds 423 people) and small (e.g., a 10-foot inflatable dome where 15 children sit on the floor).

Located on campus, the UWM Planetarium offers live presentations delivered by an astronomer in a theater that seats 68 to 75 people. It attracts 10,000 to 15,000 people of fairly diverse ages, education, and ethnic/racial background a year. Under the direction of one of the authors, the Planetarium offers a range of astronomical and cultural programs to the general public (35% of visitors in 2016), schools (45% from K-12 students), university classes (5%), and private groups (15%). The theater is equipped with a Spitz A3P optomechanical projector that projects celestial bodies on the Planetarium’s 30-foot dome.

Planetariums are prime sites for public engagement, providing opportunities for people to consider astronomical concepts, reflect on their place in the universe, and ignite or strengthen their interest in science. Compared to other informal and formal public-science venues, such as schools or museums, planetariums are distinct. They straddle several divides. As opposed to a classroom, visitors are self-selecting, and yet they are not free to meander around exhibits as they would at a museum. Visitors are not experiencing nature as they would in a park, and yet they do enjoy a comfortable, precipitation-free experience watching stars. The immersive, physical environment (e.g., the size of the dome, the darkness, the visualizations) is unlike most other places people experience. Particularly in a domed space, people are able to observe in every direction, providing models that are not otherwise possible to visualize. Publics also have the opportunity to observe and engage with an expert presenter. It is true that these interactions can be one-way. However, there is a movement in the planetarium community toward more two-way interaction (Creighton & Toro Martell, 2010; Plummer et al., 2016; Small & Plummer, 2014).

Engagement in the Planetarium

As Alan Leshner (2003), former CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, has noted, “Simply trying to educate the public about specific science-based issues is not working. . . . We need to engage the public in a more open and honest bidirectional dialogue” (p. 977). Though Leshner does not specify, this call is just as important for sites, like planetariums, that are not policy-oriented. But what might an engaged approach look like? To explore this question, we highlight four distinct engagement strategies: dialogue, storytelling, analogy, and fostering agency.

Dialogue

One hallmark of public engagement is having multiple opportunities for interaction. In any UWM Planetarium program, the presenter uses several common techniques to interact with visitors. Types of dialogue, such as call-and-response and asking questions, directly involve the presenter in conversation with the audience, creating an energetic environment, and helping the presenter gauge interest and understanding. For example, the presenter asks the audience what constellations people know; based on their answers, she adjusts the stargazing portion of the program accordingly. Also, the audience repeats information that has been presented earlier in the program to help retain the ideas with the additional recall. Both these types of dialogue are commonly used in settings where the public can learn new ideas.

An even more interesting type of dialogue, we think, is the question period during which the presenter can address particular issues that people are interested in. Not all planetariums are able to offer this question period either because of time constraints or because presenters are not equipped to deal with the questions asked. The range of questions can be broad; for example, the presentation might be about the achievements of the Hubble Space Telescope and yet someone might ask about shooting stars. Additionally, fielding questions requires skills such as deciphering what people are actually curious about, restating the question so others understand its context, answering the question in a way that most people will understand, and admitting when one does not know the answer. At the UWM Planetarium, we find that answering questions is a great way to reach people, and people value talking with a “real scientist”; for some, it is the only scientist they have ever met.

Storytelling

Storytelling, a second engagement strategy, is also readily applicable in the planetarium. Whether bringing personal experience to the science or sharing a myth associated with a constellation, storytelling is well-recognized for its potential to help publics engage with science (Creighton & Martel, 2010; Dahlstrom, 2014; Spoel, Goforth, Cheu, & Pearson, 2008). Sharing constellation-related myths is one of humanity’s oldest forms of storytelling. Personal storytelling is powerful because it can capture audiences’ imaginations in a relatable way. For example, at the UWM Planetarium, the presenter spoke of three personal encounters she has had with aurora—getting out of her in-laws’ car in Calgary, Alberta; late at night while pushing her restless baby in a stroller; and onboard SOFIA, the world’s largest moving astronomical observatory. Telling personal stories makes the presenter more human and approachable.

Whereas sharing personal connections to astronomical phenomena certainly makes an astronomer more approachable, it still favors one-way communication. To make the interaction more two-way, the audience is asked, for example, if they can they share their experience of a total eclipse if they were lucky enough to see it. Of course, it is important to note that there are limits (dictated by context and convention) to how much one can and is expected to speak in such a setting.

Analogy

A third engagement strategy is the use of analogy, which is readily used in astronomy. For a simple planetarium-related example, if we treat the whole sky as a puzzle, then the 88 official constellations make up the pieces of the puzzle. To describe a more complicated phenomenon, such as the Sun’s activity, magnetic field lines can be described as elastic bands. As the Sun rotates at different rates, the elastic bands stretch until they break.

Further attempting to use this strategy to engage audiences with fairly abstract technical material, the authors developed an extended analogy as part of a program on aurora. The analogy compared the key concept of electron transitions to a bank account. The person whose account we were following had fixed expenses (i.e., housing). The person, like an electron, would be able to “absorb” only the paycheck that exactly matched his expenses. We developed an animation that showed multiple paychecks flowing by the person; he would grab one, and the audience would determine if this was a paycheck that he could keep. If he could not keep it, then he would let the paycheck go. If there was a match with his rent, for example, then his bank account would jump from its baseline to a higher value and then drop back to the baseline when the rent was paid. This bank account analogy, from daily life, captured the nature of electron transitions.

Fostering Agency

A fourth engagement strategy is that people should do something as a result of the communication. What can agency as a result of a planetarium program look like? Many planetariums offer audiences the opportunity to comfortably see the current night sky and a few constellations, which visitors can later seek out on their own. Laser pointers and/or a projected outline on the sky are commonly used to highlight, for example, a bear or an eagle. Most people intuit that different cultures group stars differently from each other, and yet, looking at the night sky in wonder is a common experience that people have across the world.

But a connection to the cosmos might be better fostered with some active participation. To that end, UWM Planetarium audiences are encouraged to point to projected star patterns, such as the Pleiades. As Creighton and Toro Martell (2010) found, this activity augments an audience’s ability to identify constellations. What happens after they leave the planetarium is perhaps more significant. People report enjoying being able to point out the summer triangle to their grandchild or to identify which planet they are seeing before sunrise. Building their confidence in navigating the night sky enables community members to engage more with it, and the natural world in general, and to share what they have learned with others.

Being Heard

Responding to the one-way communication that has long marked interactions between experts and publics, another characteristic of public engagement is an increased emphasis on listening. The assumption here is that experts should talk less to make room for others’ voices. Certainly, publics need to be (and feel) heard, but this does not have to correspond with spoken word alone. Doing so limits the conversation—both in terms of the kind of information and the variety of voices. For example, whereas call-and-response can be a form of interaction, it favors a small number of confident, extroverted people.

There are a number of ways for people to be heard in the planetarium without actually speaking. For example, audiences can use response systems (clickers) for anonymous, immediate feedback. At the UWM Planetarium, not only is the usage of this device high (more than 85%) but also people delight in receiving a clicker, possibly because they enjoy the gadget aspect of it and/or they celebrate that they will be able to express their opinions. The low-tech solution, when the room is dark, is to ask people to clap if they think they can see a particular constellation. This gives a voice to introverted audience members who might hesitate to respond to a question even in the dark. People are also encouraged to point at different astronomical objects in the stargazing portion of the program. Whereas pointing to different constellations in a dark room is a “safe,” entirely anonymous activity, showing the shapes of constellations with one’s hands seems to engage the audience more. In addition, people are asked to copy gestures to describe astronomical phenomena (such as fists representing two black holes merging).

Questionnaires are another tool through which planetarium visitors can be heard. Both quantitatively and qualitatively, questionnaires can give the audience a voice—and often on a scale that far exceeds what could be done verbally. Without ever speaking, this asynchronous exchange can shape planetarium experiences that are more effective, accessible, and engaging. Most recently, we designed a short paper questionnaire, which was distributed to audience members after each presentation to assess audience reaction to aurora (see Creighton, DeVasto, & Gallagher, 2017). Along with the more informal assessment that occurs during a presentation, these questionnaires provided visitors with another way to make their voices heard. Certainly, they conveyed their grasp of the material. For example, 91% understood key facts about aurora formation and 45% went deeper, demonstrating more detailed understanding of the technical concepts involved. Additionally, only 24% of those who completed the questionnaire (70 out of 287) said they understood aurora prior to the show, but 98% said they understood it better after seeing the show.

Through the questionnaire, visitors also indirectly helped us learn about our own assumptions. For example, after the first two presentations, we realized that the atomic structure diagrams on the questionnaire were not as transparent as we thought. 45% of the people answered this question incorrectly, and several people commented on not understanding the diagrams. In response, we revised the section. Additionally, visitors challenged our assumption that analogy would support their understanding more than a technical discussion of aurora formation. There was not a noticeable difference in understanding between the analogy and non-analogy shows. In fact, people indicated a preference (55%) for the more technical explanation. While self-reported preference does not necessarily indicate effectiveness, people who preferred atomic structure–based explanations were most likely to answer all the questions correctly. This suggests that simply decreasing or translating science content through the use of analogy is not necessarily a panacea.

To further increase conversation and assess engagement, the questionnaire also included an open-response section about what was interesting and difficult from the show. While the topics that people found interesting varied, they readily engaged with aurora formation (43%), specifically the part of the process involving solar winds and the sun’s magnetic field (Figure 1). Encouragingly, if people responded, they never said “nothing” was interesting; they either found something interesting or left the item blank. Only 17% had no response at all, suggesting low engagement with the material and with us. People were more likely to engage with what they found interesting than difficult. 80% shared something that was interesting, regardless of whether or not they correctly answered the content questions. But a majority of people (58%) were still willing to articulate what they found difficult. This willingness to reflect and be vulnerable suggests a more profound level of interaction.

Figure 1.

Topics found most interesting by audience members across all Northern Lights shows.

Time to Engage

In 2006, the International Astronomical Union proposed reclassifying Pluto. People in the field, who were aware of new developments that were gradually chipping away at Pluto’s status, were not surprised. But the public backlash was intense. Twelve years later astronomers still get questions about Pluto’s reclassification. Inventing a label of “dwarf planet” did not help much; people still feel that the planet they knew since first grade got demoted, and sometimes all they are told is that Pluto is just too small. This resulted in animosity and distrust between some of the public and scientists. These reactions reiterate the importance of engaging the public in conversation with scientists, of treating science as an interesting story that is unfolding slowly and requires repeat encounters with. Then, when something significant happens, people have already been included in the conversation are ready for the next episode and can put any new information in context.

Of course, this is often easier said than done. One of the challenges with astronomical topics is that they are often not perceived as pressing issues. They are not often at the core of science-policy decision making in the same way as nanotechnology or climate change. Seldom do dramatic astronomical events, such as total solar eclipses, happen on short time spans. Cultivating and supporting that desire to engage (even in the absence of high-stakes issues or dramatic events) is crucial. Sites like planetariums provide lower stakes environments in which scientists and publics can interact positively and without confrontation, building the relationships that are crucial for supporting higher stakes conversations. We need to take advantage of the places where the public chooses to engage with science. These places may not be the traditional policy-related sites of engagement scholarship, but they are well-positioned to help bridge public/science divisions. As we have attempted to demonstrate, engagement strategies, even if developed in different contexts and for different initial purposes, are still relevant and beneficial for nonpolicy contexts. Particularly when coupled with a commitment to fostering conversations between scientists and publics, engagement strategies can enrich the important work already being done in planetariums and other science venues. Likewise, by expanding our scholarship to include places like planetariums, we can also clarify and enrich our understanding of engagement.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We thank Sam Gallagher for his technical support and assistance with data collection.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Danielle DeVasto is a visiting assistant professor in Public Rhetorics and Community Engagement in the Department of English at the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee. She is also an affiliate researcher at the Public Engagement and Science Communication Laboratory. Her research primarily explores how expert and public stakeholders communicate about risk and uncertainty, especially in the contexts of natural hazards and science-policy decision making.

Jean Creighton studied physics (BSc, University of Athens, Greece), astronomy (MSc, Saint Mary’s University, Canada), and astrophysics (PhD, University of Waterloo, Canada) to better understand how the universe works. Since 2007, she has been director of the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee Manfred Olson Planetarium. In 2014, she was selected by NASA to be an Airborne Astronomy Ambassador and to spend 20 hours in the stratosphere.

References

Bell

(2008). Engaging the public in technology policy: A new role for science museums. Science Communication, 29, 386-398.

Braun

Schultz

(2010). “. . . a certain amount of engineering involved”: Constructing the public in participatory governance arrangements. Public Understanding of Science, 19, 403-419.

Callon

Lascoumes

Barthe

(2010). Acting in an uncertain world. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Collins

Evans

(2007). Rethinking expertise. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Creighton

DeVasto

Gallagher

(2017). Illuminating aurora: Exploring science communication in the planetarium. Planetarian, 46(3), 8-12, 36.

Creighton

Toro Martell

(2010). Constellations for all: Studying identification techniques. Planetarian, 39(2), 20-25.

Dahlstrom

(2014). Using narratives and storytelling to communicate science with nonexpert audiences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U S A, 11, 13614-13620.

Davies

McCallie

Simonsson

Lehr

J. L.

Duensing

(2009). Discussing dialogue: Perspectives on the value of science dialogue events that do not inform policy. Public Understanding of Science, 18, 338-353.

Delgado

Kjolberg

K. L.

Wickson

(2011). Public engagement coming of age: From theory to practice in STS encounters with nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 20, 826-845.

10.

Druschke

C. G.

(2014). With whom do we speak? Building transdisciplinary collaborations in rhetoric of science. Poroi, 10(1). doi:10.13008/2151-2957.1175.

11.

Frewer

L. J.

Salter

(2007). Societal trust in risk analysis: implications for the interface of risk assessment and risk management. In Siegrist

Earle

T. C.

Gutscher

(Eds.), Risk management and public trust (pp. 143-158). London, England: Earthscan.

12.

Geiger

Swim

J. K.

Fraser

Flinner

(2017). Catalyzing public engagement with climate change through informal science learning centers. Science Communication, 39, 221-249.

13.

Greenwood

M. R. C.

Riordan

D. G.

(2001). Civic scientist/civic duty. Science Communication, 23, 28-40.

14.

International Planetarium Society. (2017). IPS official statement on the role of planetariums in education. Retrieved from www.ips-planetarium.org/?edstatement

15.

Jensen

Buckley

(2012). Why people attend science festivals: Interests, motivations and self-reported benefits of public engagement with research. Public Understanding of Science, 23, 557-573.

16.

Krabbenborg

Mulder

H. A. J.

(2015). Upstream public engagement in nanotechnology. Science Communication, 37, 452-484.

17.

Leshner

A. I.

(2003). Public engagement with science. Science, 299, 997.

18.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Communicating science effectively: A research agenda. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

19.

Plummer

J. D.

Ghent

Crowl

Callanan

Gurton

Hurst

Jipson

Palmquist

(2016). Inspiring and engaging activities for 3- to 5-year-old audiences. Planetarian, 45(4), 40-43.

20.

Rose

K. M.

Korzekwa

Brossard

Scheufele

D. A.

Heisler

(2017). Engaging the public at a science festival: Findings from a panel on human gene editing. Science Communication, 39, 250-277.

21.

Rowe

Frewer

L. J.

(2004). Evaluating public participation exercises: A research agenda. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 25, 3-29.

22.

Rowe

Frewer

L. J.

(2005). A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 30, 251-290.

23.

Small

K. J.

Plummer

J. D.

(2014). A longitudinal study of early elementary students’ understanding of phenomena after planetarium and classroom instruction. Planetarian, 43(4), 18-21.

24.

Spoel

Goforth

Cheu

Pearson

(2008). Public communication of climate change science: Engaging citizens through apocalyptic narrative explanation. Technical Communication Quarterly, 18(1), 49-81.

25.

Stilgoe

Lock

S. J.

Wilsdon

(2014). Why should we promote public engagement with science? Public Understanding of Science, 23, 4-15.