ArticlePloS one2022
Public engagement: Faculty lived experiences and perspectives underscore barriers and a changing culture in academia.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dysbiosis and succession in the scientific infobiome.Nature microbiology · 2026Article
- Getting It Out There: Reflections on the Process and Impact of Public Engagement Activities in a Study on End-of-Life Care Planning With People With Intellectual Disabilities.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Impact of a large-scale interactive and immersive science pop-up shop about infection and hygiene on visitors and volunteers.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Understanding healthcare professionals' participation in social media health knowledge popularization: insights from the UTAUT model and perceived risk theory.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- 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 · 2025Article
- University scientists' willingness to participate in public engagement: A concept explication.PloS one · 2025Article
- Ethical and Transformative Scholarly Public Engagement: Pitfalls, Possibilities and Promises.Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante · 2024Article
- Interdisciplinary public engagement: untapped potential?Biology open · 2024Article
- Dissemination or participation? Exploring scientists' definitions and science communication goals in the Netherlands.PloS one · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.