Comment favorisez-vous la confiance et l’apprentissage mutuel entre les scientifiques et le public dans le dialogue public?

To foster trust and mutual learning between scientists and the public, it's crucial first to clarify the purpose of the dialogue. This involves defining clear objectives, whether it's to inform the public about recent scientific advancements, solicit community input on a new research project, or address public concerns about scientific issues. A well-defined purpose helps guide the conversation, ensuring it remains focused and meaningful. It also sets the stage for transparency, as participants understand the context and goals of the engagement, laying a solid foundation for trust.

-Use clear and accessible language, avoiding jargon. -Actively listen to public concerns and address misconceptions. -Be transparent about the scientific process and personal motivations. -Frame scientific information in relatable stories for better engagement. -Facilitate direct interaction through Q&A sessions and community events. -Leverage social media to share research findings and engage with a broad audience. -Collaborate with community leaders and educational institutions for local relevance. -Acknowledge the two-way nature of learning in public dialogue. -Address ethical considerations openly, including controversies and diverse viewpoints.

Trust: Be honest, open about uncertainties, and listen to public concerns. Speak clearly, ditch the jargon. Mutual Learning: Make it a two-way street where everyone learns. Use interactive activities and focus on real-world impacts. Create a welcoming environment for questions and diverse viewpoints.

The first step is to take a moment to get crystal clear on why you’re engaging in public dialogue. Are you looking to spark new ideas in the audience? Guide a decision from policy-makers? Or work together on solutions with your stakeholders? And who exactly do you want to engage—everyone or a specific group? (This is very important!) Knowing your purpose is like having a map towards your goal; it shapes your topic, format, and methods, making sure your dialogue hits the mark.

Trust will be gained through transparency, avoidance of inaccessible jargon, and actually listening to concerns. Mutual learning via interactive engagements, joint projects, and correction of misconceptions will establish a common understanding and respect.

When interacting with an authentic scientist, one can discern the veritable essence of an individual's cognitive processes, conduct, and deeds.

Selecting the right format is critical for effective dialogue between scientists and the public. The format should match the engagement's goals and the audience's preferences, ranging from public lectures and forums to interactive workshops and digital platforms like webinars. Interactive formats foster mutual learning and trust, encouraging two-way communication and personal engagement. Tailoring the format to suit the audience ensures wider participation and deeper understanding, making the dialogue more inclusive and impactful.

To ensure effective public dialogue, it’s important to choose a format suited to the event's goals, scope, and budget. Formats range from workshops and focus groups to citizen juries, online platforms, and deliberative polls. Each has its strengths and limitations, but the key is to enable meaningful interaction and feedback between scientists and the public, providing clear and accessible information.

The format you choose can make (or break) your dialogue 👇 From workshops to online platforms, each has its own strengths and weaknesses. You should pick one that aligns with your goals and budget but, more importantly, generates feedback. Remember, science communication is not just about sharing information; it’s about making science clear and relatable.

El formato es importante a la hora de comunicar: elegir la vía adecuada de trasladar una información es importantísimo. Por este motivo, cada vez más revistas solicitan infografías para resumir los puntos clave de los artículos científicos. Además de disponer del artículo escrito, de los sets de datos y gráficos, tener un elemento más visual, como lo es una infografía es fundamental. Pero también hay que pensar en audiovisual: aquí el vídeo cada vez juega cada vez un papel más importante.

Divergierende wissenschaftliche Positionen sollten fair zu Wort kommen und ein Dialog sollte unterstützt werden. Der Schlüssel ist eine gute Moderation, die durch gut vorbereitete Fragen beide Positionen gleichberechtigt zu Wort kommen lässt und neutral moderiert.

For a meaningful dialogue between scientists and the public, involving diverse participants is essential. This includes scientists from relevant fields and community leaders, policymakers, and representatives from affected communities. Diversity in the panel encourages a broader spectrum of perspectives, enriching the discussion and fostering mutual understanding. Engaging with individuals who have established trust within their communities can also bridge the gap between scientists and the public, making the dialogue more relatable and credible. Additionally, involving experts in science communication can help translate complex scientific concepts into language that is accessible to non-specialists.

Oftentimes either a fellow scientist or a journalist is picked to facilitate dialogue without much thought to what the organisers and participants need to have the message land and stick. Your chosen facilitator should have a fair understanding of the topic in question, an awareness of who is in the room and why and the desired outcomes that they should direct the dialogue towards. Involve the facilitator in the planning meetings so that they have a sense of the energy, tempo and working style of the team and to build synergy. The success of an event is determined way before the event. Expose your facilitator to your speakers and panelists before the event and where possible/practical, let panelists know discussion themes in advance.

In addition to involving the right expertise, it’s crucial to engage participants and facilitators who are also strong communicators. Effective communication ensures that complex ideas are conveyed clearly and accessibly. It's equally important to include individuals who can speak to a diverse range of experiences and perspectives related to the topic. This diversity enriches the dialogue and ensures that the discussion is well-rounded and inclusive, ultimately leading to more robust outcomes.

Building trust and rapport is fundamental in fostering effective dialogue between scientists and the public. Start by ensuring transparency in communicating the dialogue's purpose, process, and outcomes. Scientists should be open about the limitations and uncertainties of their work, as honesty fosters trust. Active listening is crucial; showing genuine interest in public concerns and questions demonstrates respect and validates their participation. Personal stories and experiences shared by scientists can humanize them, making the scientific community more relatable. Consistent, clear, and empathetic communication is key to building lasting trust and rapport with the public.

Effective science communication is tightly intertwined with building a human rapport. When communicating to the general public, fostering an open and comfortable environment allows people to listen and engage actively. With the help of conversation starters, it induces questioning, which is frequently much more efficient in creating long-lasting impacts, such as enhancing health literacy and promoting informed behavioural changes that empower people to take charge of their health.

Want to quickly build trust with your audience as a science communicator? Here’s my go-to trick: Connect with them emotionally. Let's break the stereotype of the cold scientist! Try sharing your personal journey into science and motivations for your research. What experiences led you to where you are now? By opening up, you show your audience your shared values and common goals.

Importantísimo: habla el lenguaje de tu público. Si utilizas jerga, expresiones incomprensibles o usas teorías complejas, estarás creando división y la gente no te entenderá. Nos desconectamos de lo que no comprendemos. Planifica cualquier punto difícil de explicar con antelación para minimizar esta brecha.

La transparence dans les réussites et les échecs reste fondamentale pour créer de la confiance. Malheureusement, la valorisation des échec estloin d'être acquise en France ce qui nuit considérablement à la portée des messages scientifiques.

Encouraging mutual learning is vital in dialogues between scientists and the public. This approach recognizes that both parties have valuable knowledge to share. Scientists contribute expertise in their fields, while the public offers insights based on their experiences and societal contexts. To facilitate this exchange, create opportunities for interactive discussions, Q&A sessions, and hands-on activities that allow participants to engage directly with scientific concepts. Encourage scientists to listen as much as they speak, valuing the public's input and perspectives. This deepens the public's understanding of scientific topics and enables scientists to gain new insights into societal concerns and values.

Public dialogue isn’t just about informing, as I explained in a previous contribution, it's about learning together. Create a safe space where everyone can ask questions, share their views, and potentially come up with ideas to address the societal issue you aim to solve. You can use methods like games or role-playing to really get the creativity and critical thinking going. And don’t forget to follow up! Showing how the dialogue shaped your work can make a difference in the impact of your audience.

Mutual learning makes science communication a two-way street. By encouraging open questions, challenges, and interactive activities, both scientists and the public learn from each other. This approach fosters curiosity, critical thinking, and strengthens trust through shared understanding.

Keep your public engaged so that evaluation is not a one off tick the box exercise. You can ask the audience to share their expectations of the event at the beginning and keep tracking what you are meeting as the event goes on and inform them e.g At the start of this workshop, someone said they hope to understand how........, Dr XY, could you in your submission explain how... Ask questions, incorporate audience feedback in planning subsequent events and inform them what has changed and what has remained the same. Maintain the integrity of the goal but feel free to change the flow of play and players where necessary :)

Analogies can help clarify complex scientific concepts by connecting them to everyday experiences. In a public dialogue on data privacy in artificial intelligence, I used the analogy of a “recipe” to explain how machine learning algorithms process data. Just as a recipe lists ingredients and instructions, an algorithm takes input (data) and follows a set of rules to produce an output (prediction). This analogy helped the audience grasp the basic mechanics of machine learning without needing deep technical knowledge. Using real-world analogies makes abstract concepts tangible, fostering better understanding and trust in the scientific explanation.

Nach über 30 Jahren Forschung und zahlreichen Veranstaltungen habe ich ein zwiespältiges Verhältnis zu öffentlichen Dialogveranstaltungen. Es reicht nicht aus, am Ende von Projekten eine Abschlussveranstaltung mit belegten Brötchen zu machen. Jede Veranstaltung muss im Vorfeld und Nachgang durch Content-Marketing begleitet werden. Beiträge in sozialen Netzwerken, kleine Podcastfolgen mit Protagonisten des Projekts und virtuelle Treffen im Nachgang sind essenziell. So gelingt es, nachhaltige und zukunftsfähige Lösungen aus dem Elfenbeinturm der Wissenschaft zu befreien.

The paradigms of science different people use will really influence what happens when they meet in a public dialogue. Being aware of the major paradigms and where they reconcile is really beneficial. In my experience, paradigms should be laid down openly so that mutual learning can go ahead unhindered by not knowing where others are coming from. It can help participants to set realistic trust levels as well. Starting from what is common makes it easy to establish rapport. After that, you can move on to discussing differences if you have to. Ultimately, uniting upon a common base is the ideal. Nevertheless, it's not a perfect world and so if you can't attain that common base, at least you'll know how to interact effectively.