Public engagement and argumentation in science.

Area of Science:

• Science and Society Studies
• Research Communication
• Public Policy

Background:

• Public engagement is a key component of Horizon 2020.
• It aims to foster science education, dissemination, and two-way dialogues between scientists and the public.
• Such dialogues are considered crucial for achieving both epistemic and social goals in science-society interactions.

Purpose of the Study:

• To critically examine the costs, risks, and benefits of dialogical public engagement practices.
• To propose a novel strategy for analyzing these argumentative practices.
• To apply the proposed analytical model to the issue of vaccine hesitancy.

Main Methods:

• Analysis of the costs, risks, and benefits associated with dialogical public engagement.
• Development of a three-tiered model for analyzing epistemic exchange in public engagement.
• Case study application of the model to vaccine hesitancy.

Main Results:

• Dialogical public engagement presents both potential benefits and inherent costs and risks.
• The proposed three-tiered model offers a structured approach to evaluating the epistemic quality of engagement.
• The model provides new insights into understanding and addressing challenges like vaccine hesitancy.

Conclusions:

• While dialogical public engagement is a pillar of research programs, its effectiveness requires careful consideration of its complexities.
• A robust analytical framework is needed to assess and improve engagement practices.
• Understanding the dynamics of public engagement is critical for tackling societal challenges such as vaccine hesitancy.