Communicating Science vs Communicating Engineering

Extracts from PCST mailing list e-mail addresses redacted time stamps as per header of emails

Contents
7 October 2012, GMT21.40 9 October 2012, GMT10.13 9 October 2012, GMT11.20 9 October 2012, GMT13.42 9 October 2012, GMT15.41 10 October 2012, GMT00.07 10 October 2012, GMT04.53 10 October 2012, GMT09.34 10 October 2012, GMT11.38 10 October 2012, GMT12.16 10 October 2012, GMT13.54 11 October 2012, GMT15.06 11 October 2012, GMT15.49 11 October 2012, GMT22.16 12 October 2012, GMT07.18 12 October 2012, GMT08.40 From: Marina Joubert ..................................................................................................... 1 From: Paola Catapano...................................................................................................... 2 From: Karen Bultitude...................................................................................................... 2 From: Bruce Lewenstein ................................................................................................... 3 From: John Durant ........................................................................................................... 4 From: Susanna Priest ...................................................................................................... 4 From: Manoj Patairiya .................................................................................................... 5 From: Martin Counihan .................................................................................................. 5 From: Felice Frankel........................................................................................................ 6 From: Paola Catapano .................................................................................................... 6 From: Cristina Olariu ....................................................................................................... 6 From: Paul Brown ............................................................................................................ 7 From: Sharon Dunwoody ................................................................................................ 8 From: John Durant .......................................................................................................... 8 From: Ermin Demir .......................................................................................................... 9 From: Cristina Olariu........................................................................................................ 9

7 October 2012, GMT21.40

Dear PCST colleagues

From: Marina Joubert

I would be really interested in any thoughts/responses to the following questions - I am sure this is a topic that some of you have debated before and you may be able to refer me to some answers/thoughts or online resources: Is there a fundamental difference between science and engineering engagement / communication? Should engagement be done together or separately? Are engineers better/worse at communicating compared to scientists? Are there different reasons for undertaking science and engineering engagement? Can we apply the same methods from science engagement to engineering engagement? Does the audience notice the difference between the two, is it important?

[Type text]

Page 1

And, does it matter? Marina Joubert www.southernscience.co.za

9 October 2012, GMT10.13

From: Paola Catapano

Here're some answers by an LHC engineer who is also a talented communicator/explainer. I agree with him 100%. would you also like the same from a physicist? Paola ----------------------------------Is there a fundamental difference between science and engineering engagement / communication? Yes, like there is an intrinsic difference between scientists and engineers some of the public is more appealed by the scientific side of the story and some of the public is more fascinated by how it is actually done. Should engagement be done together or separately? Together. Its interesting to see what is being tried to achieve and then how its actually done. Two sides of the same story.

Are engineers better/worse at communicating compared to scientists? The same. Engineers can be too dry in their explanations, scientists can be too specific/complex in theirs. Good communicators are difficult to find in either fields.

Are there different reasons for undertaking science and engineering engagement? Depends who the target is. Science comm for the scientists, Engineering comm for the more technical people, a combination of the two for the general public.. Can we apply the same methods from science engagement to engineering engagement? Up to you to find out How do you measure your success? Does the audience notice the difference between the two, is it important? And, does it matter? 3xYes Mike Technical Engineer at CERN

9 October 2012, GMT11.20

Hi Marina,

From: Karen Bultitude

A very interesting question... The Royal Academy of Engineering in the UK is debating this very topic in a couple of weeks. I've included the basic details below and can put you in touch with the organisers if you're

[Type text]

Page 2

interested? Best wishes, Karen

Putting the E word into engagement Now in its sixth year, Ingenious has funded over 90 projects, giving over 1,500 engineers the opportunity to take part in thought-provoking activities. To celebrate the scheme and our awardees we would like to invite you to join us for a day of discussions, networking and drinks. We will be exploring why engineering engagement is important, whether it is different to science engagement and the ways we can make it happen. The event will feature talks from Ingenious projects and a keynote speech from UCL Professor Mark Miodownik, who gave the 2010 Royal Institution Christmas Lectures and recently presented a BBC TV series on materials science, How It Works. For a provisional programme and to book a place at the event please visit: www.engineeringengagement.eventbrite.co.uk What: A conference to discuss engineering engagement When: 10.00-17.00 Thursday 25 October 2012, followed by drinks and nibbles Where: The Royal Academy of Engineering, 3 Carlton House Terrace, London SW1Y 5DG Who: The event is open to everyone who has been involved in Ingenious; engineers interested in public engagement and those who run events and science festivals, work in the media, develop exhibitions and deliver activities for school pupils.

9 October 2012, GMT13.42

Marina et al.,

From: Bruce Lewenstein

In 2008, the U.S. National Academy of Engineering released a report on public understanding of engineering ("Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving Public Understanding of Engineering "). I don't think it directly responds to the questions you list, but is clearly relevant. The report is available free at the National Academies Press website: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12187 Some associated websites are: http://www.nae.edu/Activities/Projects/20760.aspx (a description of the project that led to the report) http://www.engineeringmessages.org/ (a toolkit for implementing the report's recommendations) http://www.nae.edu/Publications/Bridge/51063.aspx (a 2011 set of articles about implementing the recommendations)

[Type text]

Page 3

Bruce

9 October 2012, GMT15.41

Dear Marina,

From: John Durant

I don't have answers to your questions. What I have, instead, is a further question: Is there a fundamental difference between science and engineering? And if so, what is it? I ask because it seems to me that in many areas (e.g., many of the bio-medical sciences) there is increasing overlap/blurring of boundaries between these two areas; and this makes responding to your questions all the more difficult. Best, John

10 October 2012, GMT00.07

Dear Marina,

From: Susanna Priest

I agree with others (was it John who brought this up?) that we might question the distinction. Many historians and sociologists of science (as well as many engineers and scientists) have argued that there is a clear line between the two, and there is certainly a distinct history, with engineering evolving (arguably) from practical technologies whereas science was (arguably) originally a playground for highly educated and wealthy people with a lot of time and money available. Both are stereotypes, to be sure, and I am among those who think the distinction - if it ever really existed - has become washed out in the present world in which science is often driven by investments from agencies and corporations expecting immediate practical returns. I don't know that engineers are better communicators, but I have found in my own experiences that engineers have been generally quicker to understand the societal and ethical ramifications of their work, and grasp that not all of the questions engineering raises can be addressed technologically (though some don't "get" this, to be sure, resulting in the familiar phrase "technological fix"). Perhaps this is because of the tradition of practice. Many scientists still seem to feel that science is "pure" and does not exist to answer practical questions. I totally agree that in some cases it shouldn't - that is, scientific inquiry is valuable in its own right and not just because it will solve problems for us - but at the same time this "purity" is hardly the reality, and this argument can too easily be used as a shield to deflect critical inquiry. Indeed, the erosion of this distinction might itself make an interesting topic of discussion and constitute a teaching opportunity - say, in the context of a science museum event. Given this, what do we make of genetic "engineering," for example? It's clearly science, and yet it's also clearly a technology used in the real world (whether for better or for worse, which is not particularly for me to say). Whether to combine or separate engagement activities depends on the case and context, I

[Type text]

Page 4

would imagine; however, engineers and their projects more often have immediate societal purposes and "impact" (a problematic word choice, but I think people on this list will understand what I mean, as well as what I don't mean!). Yet so do many forms of science, so it's case by case I think. I think audiences won't "get" all of these nuances immediately if they haven't previously thought about them. I do think most so-called "ordinary" people think of engineering and science as distinct domains, but also that they may be less hide-bound than "non-ordinary" scientists and engineers in terms of recognizing the fuzziness of the line between them. For what it's worth Susanna Priest Visiting Scholar, University of Washington Editor, Science Communication

10 October 2012, GMT04.53

From: Manoj Patairiya

Hi Marina, You perhaps sensed the tension between the lines! It really needs more clarity. The issue emerged in the 2nd Indian Science Communication Congress (ISCC-2002) held at Ranchi, the capital city of an Indian eastern state Jharkhand in 2002. The discussion began with an interesting joke shared by the chief guest, who himself was a scientist turned minister of science and technology: (I am reproducing the same with no intention to offend anyone!): [Near a village an engineer was doing some survey with his instruments which were troubling him. Some villagers approached him and said, "sir, your instruments look interesting, you must be engaged in something important"! The engineer proudly said, "yes, I am surveying here for building a road to your village". The villagers were surprised and said, "oh sir, it must be very complicated, irksome, and time consuming also"! The engineer responded, "but there is no alternative and I have to set everything right"! The villagers then confidently said, "sir, we have one. If we want to make road in villages, we leave a donkey to go around and we follow him and make road wherever the donkey goes through." The frustrated engineer then asked, "if you do not find a donkey"? "Then we have to call an engineer". The villagers replied.] In old days, the regular roads were built along the paths where animals used to walk, as these were considered much stronger, safer and accessible for man as well. With thanks and regards, Manoj Kumar Patairiya

10 October 2012, GMT09.34

From: Martin Counihan

Of course there is a fundamental difference between science and engineering (or, more broadly, between science and technology). Science is about understanding things. Martin Counihan Technology is about changing things.

[Type text]

Page 5

10 October 2012, GMT11.38

From: Felice Frankel

believe me

a quick gut response from someone who works with scientists and engineers: THEY all believe in a deep and significant difference! felice ________________________ ________________________ Research Scientist MIT/Center for Materials Science and Engineering

10 October 2012, GMT12.16

(in response to Susanna Priest)
Hi again

From: Paola Catapano

the difference at CERN is a VERY CLEAR LINE! at times it might even become a clear GAP. Pure scientists like particle physicists do really feel the difference! Paola

10 October 2012, GMT13.54

Hello Marina,

From: Cristina Olariu

First, I am sorry for my English mistakes. But this is my point of view.

1. Is there a fundamental difference between science and engineering engagement / communication? To be concrete, let think at the newest smart phone and it presentation. A marketing man presents the best qualities of the product, the shiny screen, the apps that can be installed on it, the usefulness of that piece, needs that this device possessing will developed. And, of course, everyone must to have one of that products. An engineer always presents the product, final results: it has x inch length, 6000mAh batery, stability of the system, maybe the operation system But, a science man present whats behind all that: the piezoelectricity effect for touch screen, the ferroelectric memory, the led technology of the screen and diverse else. Yes, I think there are differences between science and engineering engagement/communication. Because they try to present different side of the same thing.

2. Should engagement be done together or separately? Because the target publics are not the same, the science and the engineering communication tools must be different.

[Type text]

Page 6

3. Are engineers better/worse at communicating compared to scientists? I think the engineers and the scientist are the same communicators type, better or worst. They address different public. Some type of the public expect an engineer language simple, direct, exact. And some type of the public expects a scientific language with more details, with phenomena involved . As communicator, anyone can be good or worst in their field of expertise. Comparators are futile. 4. Are there different reasons for undertaking science and engineering engagement? I dont know what you mean to say from different reasons. Maybe I am not such a good in English language understanding. 5. Can we apply the same methods from science engagement to engineering engagement? I think there are some commune communication advices: to be clear, to be concise, to attract the public etc. Some general methods to maintain public attention during communication time. Oral or paper communications. But I think engineering have their own communication standards: to presents the products, to lets the public to touch it or to visualize it, to present its mechanic/electric/thermal characteristics and I dont know what else. Their final goal is to present the improvement of the product or the device. Instead, the sciences have their own standards: to present the phenomena, the methods, the samples, the results. They dont care so much for application. The fundamental phenomena are the primary work. 6. Does the audience notice the difference between the two, is it important? And, does it matter? It depends of the audience. As a scientist, an engineer presentation is luck in details for me. I dont care about his product, I care how he do it, what physical principle use it, what materials have been used and why them, specifically? As an engineer, a scientific presentation can be bored. He want a material with specific characteristics, he dont care about the synthesis process, time of annealing or another preparation details. Materials fit or no for his use. The differences can be notice, it depend of the audience. For someone on the socio-human field, the differences can be negligible or indifferent. Differences are important or not .... it depends from the expectation of the public. I think your survey must to focus also on the target public. The way someone communicate is measured by the feedback he gets. Regards and succes, Cristina Stefania Olariu PhD Researcher, Department of Physics, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iasi, Romania

11 October 2012, GMT15.06

[Type text]

From: Paul Brown

Page 7

May I suggest there is a similar difference between the fine and applied arts. Fine artists work to their own (internal) brief whereas applied artists (designers) work to a defined (often external) brief. As an artist who has has many residencies with scientists and engineers over the past 40 years my experience is that scientists accept me as an equal but different participant with a stake in a project and seeking compatible outcomes/deliverables engineers by contrast see me as an inferior (employee, sub-contractor) who needs to be told what to do and deliver outcomes that they (the engineers) define. Needless to say I'm much happier with the former relationship!! Regards Paul

11 October 2012, GMT15.49

Marina -

From: Sharon Dunwoody

From my perspective at a large university here in the Midwest, I see virtually no difference in the ways in which scientists and engineers engage with the public and in the ways that the public reacts to these populations. I co-teach public engagement courses with both scientists and engineers, and we make no allowances for disciplinary differences. sharon Dunwoody

11 October 2012, GMT22.16

Colleagues,

From: John Durant

A sociological observation/hypothesis: Years ago, I did some research on public perceptions of science and scientists in Britain, based an random sample survey. Among other things, I and a colleague published an article suggesting that when many British people thought about science and scientists, they tended to do so first through the "lens" of medical science. [Anyone who wants to chase the original work should look for: "The Public Understanding of Science in Britain: The Role of Medicine in the Popular Representation of Science", with G. Evans & G P Thomas, in: Public Understanding of Science, 1, 1992,pp. 161-182.] My observation/hypothesis is that from the "inside" (i.e., among working scientists and engineers) science and engineering generally look and feel very different; whereas from the "outside" (i.e., among the general public)they look and feel very similar. I would expect this to be so in part because members of the public tend to view science as a whole through the lens of its practical applications and implications, many of which involve engineering. Thus "medical science", the quintessentially applied science, is of disproportionate influence in shaping public perceptions of science as as whole. On this basis, I would predict that professionals working at a place like CERN would tend to see vast differences between the scientists and the engineers working there; but it doesn't follow that members of the public would likely view the place and the

[Type text]

Page 8

people at CERN in anything like the same way. Best, John

12 October 2012, GMT07.18

Hello Marina,

From: Ermin Demir

I also think that science and engineering engagement / communication separates basically on target publics. I can add Cristina's point of view the context of communication. As an example especially in developing countries engineers has the advantage of making our life easier with concrete materials. But scientist of same countries suffering from publics indifference to scientific work (and also lack of infrastructure and funding). Yes, I know the abstract vs. concrete issue is a problem for all countries. But people of developing countries has much more difficulty in understanding the link between function of technical material and huge understanding behind this material. So, if there is a difference in terms of publics, it must be more important in developing countries. Best regards. Erman DEMR PhD candidate University of Ankara, Department of Public Relations.

12 October 2012, GMT08.40

Dear Erman,

From: Cristina Olariu

Reading your response I understand the differences. Yes, I think you have right about countrys differences in the way of treating science. Just this week Nobel Prize for Physics was giving to two physicists that develop experimental devices to measure the quantum particles. They are physicists, yes, but they also do an engineering job. They study the fundamental phenomenas, but also they resolve the technical problems for doing that. Yes, it is a wrong remaining idea that the fundamental physics are for puritans, it is a prejudice. Applied physics and the symbiosis with the engineering win already. Maybe it will be no communication differences between them when they work together. Your response changes my point of view, thank you! Cristina

[Type text]

Page 9