Presentation by Rick Holliman for PGRS Residential June 2013

1. Public engagement with postgraduate research:
purpose; process; performance
Richard Holliman, Trevor Collins and Ann Grand
email: Richard.Holliman@open.ac.uk

2. session objectives
• introduce the OU’s RCUK-funded Catalyst project
• What does PER mean to you?
• reflect on engagement with a range of disciplinary fields
BREAK
• planning for engagement
• consider forms of engagement (theory and practice)
BREAK
• introduce current UK agenda for PER
• explore career and professional development need
• short-term practicalities—longer-term planning
2

3. Scholarship of engagement
• Civic renewal of universities: the Academy’s role in
addressing social, civic, economic and moral problems
• Scholarship comprises
–discovery: finding new things out
–integration: making connections across disciplines
–application: knowledge developed through use
–teaching: transforming and extending knowledge
3
(Boyer, 1990 & 1996)

4. An open research university:
Embedding public engagement
within the research culture of the OU
• EDGE self-assessment tool
(Embryonic, Developing,
Gripping, Embedding)
–purpose: mission,
leadership, communication
–process: support, learning,
recognition
–people: staff, students,
public
4
publicengagement.ac.uk/
support/self-assess

5. introduction
• split into pairs and introduce yourselves
1. briefly describe your research interests to your partner
2. briefly describe a public engagement with research
experience:
– either as a researcher or non-academic participant
– was this a good experience; why, or why not?
3. What do you hope to get out of this session?
5

6. Are we talking about the same thing?
http://www.publicengagement.ac.uk 6
Done well, public engagement with research will
generate benefits, changes and effects for
all participants as they share knowledge,
expertise and skills; researchers will be rewarded
and recognised for their excellent contributions.
purpose
process
performance

7. Characteristics of first, second & third order thinking
(adapted from Irwin, 2008)
First Order Second Order Third Order
Main focus Public ignorance and
technical education
Dialogue, engagement,
transparency, building
trust
Direction, quality and need for
socio-technical change
Key issues Communicating
knowledge, informing
debate, getting the
facts straight
Re-establishing public
confidence, building
consensus,
encouraging debate,
addressing uncertainty
Setting academic knowledge in
wider cultural context, enhancing
reflexivity and critical analysis
Communication
style
One-way, top-down Two-way, bottom-up Multiple stakeholders, multiple
frameworks
Model of
academic
governance
Academic-led,
‘knowledge’ and
’politics’ kept apart
Transparent,
responsive to public
opinion, accountable
Open to contested problem
definitions, beyond government
alone, addressing societal
concerns and priorities
Socio-technical
challenge
Maintaining rationality,
encouraging academic
progress and expert
independence
Establishing broad
societal consensus
Viewing heterogeneity,
conditionality and disagreement
as a societal resource
Overall
perspective
Focusing on academic
knowledge
Focusing on
communication and
engagement
Focusing on academic/political
cultures

8. from the ‘heroic’ to ‘quality’
(Bucchi, 2012)
“Long before the official shift away from the deficit model,
research [...] contradicted the prevailing account of
publics and their ways of reacting to science and
technologies [ ]
This reflected our own listening to ordinary citizens in
qualitative fieldwork research situations: public
meetings, structured focus group discussions,
interviews, participant observation and so on.”
(Wynne, 2006)
8

9. • Extract focuses on the Royal Institution:
– argues that science—public relationship has partly
changed, partly stayed the same
– diffusion of knowledge and information
– critical interrogation, discussion, reflection
1.What are some of the implications of these changes for
academic researchers?
2.How have or could these changes influence your
research?
3.What are the benefits for you of engaging with publics?
9

10. benefits
• economic
– public money: value for money
• social
– valuable/meaningful knowledge
– partnerships
• personal
– reward and recognition
implications/changes
• economic
– less time for research?
– less funding for research?
• social
– epistemological?
– publics, what publics?
• personal
– fewer post-doc research posts?
– greater post-doc impact posts?

11. Any questions?
break for tea/coffee
11

12. session objectives
• What does PER mean to you?
• reflect on engagement with a range of disciplinary fields
BREAK
• planning for engagement
• consider forms of engagement (theory and practice)
BREAK
• introduce current UK agenda for PER
• explore career and professional development need
• short-term practicalities—longer-term planning 12

13. planning PER activities
Split into two groups—your task is to generate a plan for a public
engagement festival or programme of related activities. Each of
you should contribute a PER event or activity of some kind. In
planning your festival and activities, you should consider:
• Who are your typical user communities, stakeholders, publics,
etc.? (Who have you worked with in the past? Who would you
like to work with? Could you create a public? How and why?)
• What are the aims and objectives of your festival and
activities?
• When do you (and your publics) want to engage; at what
stages of the research cycle? How often will you engage with
your publics?
• What methods are you planning to use, and why? What has
worked well in the past? How would you like to experiment?
• Where do you want to engage; which places/spaces do you
and your publics value?
• What resources might you need to support your activities?
• How will you evaluate your festival and activities?
• Do you require any training/career development? What could
this involve?
inspiring
consulting
collaborating
why this public?
purpose
research
expectations
time/skills
why might public
want to work
with you?
challenges
concerns

14. Who? Is it clear who they chose
to engage with? Did they have a
clearly identified audience /
need? Did they take steps to
‘tune’ their engagement activity
to the interests of this audience?
Why? Do they have a clear purpose / rationale
for their engagement, which is clearly
explained?
With what impact? Did they build
in mechanisms to capture
feedback (and to act on it)? Did
lessons learned from the
engagement feedback into the
research process? Have they
provided convincing evidence of
the outcomes; intermediate
impacts; impacts of their activity?
When? Depending on their purpose, did they
engage with the public at the appropriate points in
the research cycle? Did they manage the ‘closure’
or the engagement so that the participants were
clear on what happens next? Did they address the
sustainability of the engagement activity?
How? Did they chose
techniques appropriate to their
purpose? Did the public have a
meaningful and purposeful
interaction with the research
process / outputs? Have they
identified how contextual
factors (e.g. user receptiveness)
influenced the engagement and
impact?
What does a ‘quality’ engagement process look like?
This slide captures the five key questions that any evaluator or experienced assessor would
use to inform their judgements of a ‘good’ engagement project or process

15. Any questions?
break for tea/coffee
15

16. session objectives
• What does PER mean to you?
• reflect on engagement with a range of disciplinary fields
BREAK
• planning for engagement
• consider forms of engagement (theory and practice)
BREAK
• introduce current UK agenda for PER
• explore career and professional development need
• short-term practicalities—longer-term planning 16

17. PER mandate1. Research organisations have a
strategic commitment to public
engagement
2. Researchers are recognised
and valued for involvement with
public engagement activities
3. Researchers are enabled to
participate in public engagement
activities through appropriate
training, support and
opportunities
4. The signatories and supporters
of this Concordat will undertake
regular reviews of their and the
wider research sector’s progress
in fostering public engagement
across the UK
17
purpose
performance
performance
process

18. funding landscape for research
• REF2014 Research impact 20%
– How many PGRs or
supervisors have spent 20%
on research impact?
• Pathways to Impact planning
– people; purposes; processes;
– participation & performance
– resources and training
– teamwork & infrastructure
– What proportion of research
funding could/should you
claim? 18
• REF Impact 2019/2020?
– +20% of overall submission?
– Minimum research quality?
– Dates for outputs and impact
will become more recent
• Greater reliance on
Pathways to Impact plans
• Could you and/or supervision
team be part of a 2020 REF
Impact case study?

19. 19

20. Is this significant for PGRs?
20
• Learning
Provide opportunities
for learning and
reflection and provide
support for continuing
professional
development and
training.
Domain D3:
Engagement and
Impact

21. researcher development framework
• ‘public engagement lens’
• Which of these skills can you already demonstrate?
• In what areas do you need to
introduce/develop/generate evidence?
• What are your priorities?
21

22. planning and practicalities
short-term
• DBS checks
• risk assessments
• ethical clearance
• resources and funding
• line manager support/approval
longer-term
• plan to deliver a REF 2020
Impact Case Study?
• CDSA and workload planning
• employability: connect with the
Researcher
Development Framework
22

23. Any final questions?
Have a great weekend
and happy engaging
23