Higher and wider

by Jack Stilgoe

Yesterday, the previously small world of public engagement with science made some important new friends. RCUK and Hefce launched six "Beacons for public engagement," based at British universities, aiming to connect them to their local communities and other public groups in new ways. Ian Pearson, the science minister, seemed excited. And he seems to understand better than his predecessors that public engagement is not, as he put it, "just speaking slower and louder." The conversations that science needs to have with society are fundamental. And through the beacons, these conversations can hopefully take us closer to a model of engaged academia.

The beacons launch follows an announcement last week from John Denham, the Secretary of State for universities among other things, that the Research Assessment Exercise, which has for years stood in the way of engagement, needed to change. We made the same argument a couple of years ago. The new look Times Higher magazine has been following this, with a story last week, and a comment piece from me this week.

Richard Jones

Jack, it's clear that the RAE is going to change, but it's not so obvious that the change will be for the better. The current proposed replacement, which combines citations, research income and postgrad students in an algorithmic way, would be even less friendly to your agenda (with which, as I you know, I am very sympathetic) of broadening the definitions of the public value that come from publicly funded science and of making space for more reflection and public engagement. The danger with the "Beacons for public engagement program", good as it is in many ways, is that it will allow HEFCE to say that they appreciate that the RAE replacement doesn't encourage public engagement, but that doesn't matter because they've provided another funding stream for that sort of thing. This, of course, will quite defeat the bigger goal of trying to incorporate engagement and reflection into the working practices of the scientific community as a whole.Will you be responding to the HEFCE consultation on this?

Jack Stilgoe

Richard, thanks as ever for the comment. My perspective is hopeful rather than evidence-based, I agree. But it is prompted by an admission from a secretary of state that the RAE should change for the better. In terms of Hefce's overall support for this, I would hope that they have been reading their systems theory. The systems that make up science comprise a number of feedback loops, and they all need to be pushing in the same direction, otherwise one will counteract the other. Research Councils have been making funds for public engagement available for years but found them hard to give away because of the Hefce's pillar of funding pushing in the other direction. So it's a matter of getting them both aligned. I hope.

New Comment