Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35704652›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Public engagement: Faculty lived experiences and perspectives underscore barriers and a changing culture in academia.

Mikhaila N Calice, Becca Beets, Luye Bao, Dietram A Scheufele, Isabelle Freiling, Dominique Brossard, Noah Weeth Feinstein, Laura Heisler, Travis Tangen, Jo Handelsman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Our changing information ecosystem for science and why it matters for effective science communication.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Mikhaila N CaliceDepartment of Life Sciences Communication, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-5296-6729
Becca BeetsDepartment of Life Sciences Communication, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-3323-1281
Luye BaoDepartment of Life Sciences Communication, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-3355-6630
Dietram A ScheufeleDepartment of Life Sciences Communication, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America.
Isabelle FreilingDepartment of Communication, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.ORCID 0000-0002-6046-4005
Dominique BrossardDepartment of Life Sciences Communication, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America.
Noah Weeth FeinsteinDepartment of Curriculum and Instruction, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America.
Laura HeislerWisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America.
Travis TangenWisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America.
Jo HandelsmanWisconsin Institute for Discovery, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The idea of faculty engaging in meaningful dialogue with different publics instead of simply communicating their research to interested audiences has gradually morphed from a novel concept to a mainstay within most parts of the academy. Given the wide variety of public engagement modalities, it may be unsurprising that we still lack a comprehensive and granular understanding of factors that influence faculty willingness to engage with public audiences. Those nuances are not always captured by quantitative surveys that rely on pre-determined categories to assess scholars' willingness to engage. While closed-ended categories are useful to examine which factors influence the willingness to engage more than others, it is unlikely that pre-determined categories comprehensively represent the range of factors that undermine or encourage engagement, including perceptual influences, institutional barriers, and scholars' lived experiences. To gain insight into these individual perspectives and lived experiences, we conducted focus group discussions with faculty members at a large midwestern land-grant university in the United States. Our findings provide context to previous studies of public engagement and suggest four themes for future research. These themes affirm the persistence of institutional barriers to engaging with the public, particularly the expectations in the promotion process for tenure-track faculty. However, we also find a perception that junior faculty and graduate students are challenging the status quo by introducing a new wave of attention to public engagement. This finding suggests a "trickle-up" effect through junior faculty and graduate students expecting institutional support for public engagement. Our findings highlight the need to consider how both top-down factors such as institutional expectations and bottom-up factors such as graduate student interest shape faculty members' decisions to participate in public engagement activities.

Indexed as

FacultyStudentsFinancing, OrganizedHumansOrganizationsUnited StatesUniversities

Identifiers

PMID35704652
PMCPMC9200360

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.