The importance of science in acquiring and maintaining social, economic and political power cannot be understated (Weiss, 2005). Moreover, as scientific and technological advancements – particularly in recent decades – have made societies wealthier, healthier and better informed, there has been a corresponding demand from scientists to preserve, justify and promote the immense contribution of scientific to society, whilst also acknowledging the threats science poses. Meeting this demand requires sustained, open, and preferably two-way engagement between the scientific community and the public and a commitment to shared goals. Such public engagement with science takes many forms: formal public lectures and science festivals, communication in old and new media, school visits, science camps, mentoring programs and citizen science projects. The sub-set of science engagement practices that concerns us in this paper are ‘science outreach’ programs in which scientists interact directly with students at schools or scientific research sites, and often emphasising contemporary science research topics and/or applications.  

It is estimated that half of practicing scientists participate in some form of science outreach at least a few times a year (Jensen et al., 2008; Woitowich et al., 2022), with a growing number of scientists acknowledging the value and necessity of science outreach activities (see e.g. Besely and Nisbet, 2013).  This commitment to science-public engagement has been particularly strong since the early 2000s when science engagement became a major policy and political priority in Europe, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Given the growing impetus for science engagement and outreach, considerable efforts have been made to understand the motivations and barriers to scientists’ participation in these kinds of activities and programs. Attending to the macro-level of engagement, Weingart et al. (2021) provide a review of science engagement as it appears in the academic and policy literature. They recognise five main motivations driving engagement in recent decades: (i) Democratisation – empowering active, science-informed citizenship; (ii) Education – improving science knowledge; (iii) Legitimation – promoting public trust in science; (iv) Innovation – seeing the public as a resource for new knowledge; and (v) Inspiration – raising interest in science and science careers. This analysis complements the large body of literature dedicated to detailing the motivations of individual scientists, which has revealed trends in scientists’ intrinsic motivations (e.g. outreach is enjoyable and personally rewarding for participating scientists) and extrinsic motivations (e.g. outreach promises to improve participation in science careers; or grant funding or job promotion require it), as wells  and barriers to scientists participating in outreach, such as not having enough time or training (see e.g. Polikoff & Webb, 2007; Besley et al, 2018; Royal Society, 2006; Burchell, 2015). 

Combining the macro-level policy perspective with psychological interpretations of scientists’ motivation is helpful in providing a generalised view of what makes scientists participate in science outreach and continue to do so. Yet, how these motivations mesh with scientists’ values and principles, as well as their career and program-specific experiences of outreach, is less well understood. This paper, therefore, examines and presents the links between the motivations and values scientists draw upon in the development and implementation of science outreach, the structural and organisational aspects of outreach programs, and the individuals and groups of people who participate in science outreach.  

The paper seeks to answer the following research questions:  

• What values or principles motivate scientists’ participation in science outreach development and implementation?  
• How is the structure and organisation of science outreach described and interpreted by scientists?    
• What roles and identities (theirs and others’) do scientists assume and co-opt in the development and implementation of science outreach? 

The question of how science education is developed and implemented surveys scientists’ perception and understanding of the structure and organisation of their outreach program. The question of ‘who’ is involved in science outreach captures the different people who contribute directly to the function of the program, but also those who are seen as supportive or necessary to meeting the program objectives. This also includes who the scientists see as their proximal (school students) and distal (parents, community, society) audience. The ‘who’ also captures the biography of the scientists – their experiences and entry-points into science and science outreach, and hence how they identify with science and science outreach.  The question of why scientists are developing and implementing science outreach captures their values and motivations. These may be interpreted at the macro-level (broad, society-level motivations (Weingart et al. 2021)) or micro-level (what keeps them motivated in the everyday implementation of the project). Motivations may also show up in their evaluations of the success/failure/improvements/effectiveness of their program, or part thereof.  We conducted 45-60-minute interviews with fourteen scientists based in Australia who have participated in, designed, developed or coordinated science outreach programs for high school students. The participants represent a range of outreach program types, academic and professional roles, levels of experience, and gender. The scientists and the outreach programs cover the disciplines of biology, physics, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, or a combination. Interview questions focussed on scientists’ current and career-long experiences with science outreach with an emphasis on how interest, expertise, skills and roles in science outreach evolved and developed over time. These were coupled with questions about the aims of outreach and the values identified by scientists, and their peers’ perceptions. The questions also interrogated how the programs were structured and run, what aspects of the project were successful and unsuccessful, why that was the case and how that affected meeting the aims of the program. Questions also considered scientists’ understanding of their audiences, and what makes someone likely to pursue science. Questions were drawn from and adapted from existing literature (Bergerson et al., 2014; Besely et al., 2018; Ecklund et al., 2014; Fogg-Rogers & Moss, 2019; Rao, 2016). Interviews were transcribed and coded according to the motivational categories identified by Weingart et al. (2021): Democratisation, Education, Legitimation, Innovation, and Inspiration. Thematic analysis revealed additional coding categories reflecting scientists’ values and motivations: partnerships with and in schools, curriculum reform, and public accountability.

There was considerable variety in the values that underpinned scientists’ perception of and participation in outreach; reflecting both the differentiation in the roles/levels that scientists held. Whilst motivated to promote science to students to secure and increase career pathways in science, the values that underscored this concern about the career ‘pipeline’ were nuanced. They reflected a broadening of the long-standing agenda to increase the diversity of the scientific profession by engaging with traditionally underrepresented groups, including members of Indigenous communities. It was in this sense that outreach for the sake of democratisation appeared. Interestingly, the scientists acknowledged the complex and characteristic demands placed on scientists today: the kinds of skills and dispositions they need. This was important in shaping both realistic representations of science (science requires considerable perseverance and excellence; applications of science are important) and idealistic representations (science requires curiosity and a sense of wonder and asking the ‘big questions’). Hence, the motivation to inspire young people was multi-faceted and based on an insider’s view of science, which also helped with legitimising and humanising science. The role of science outreach in education was also important to the scientists but extended well beyond developing conceptional understanding or presenting new knowledge. Scientists recognised and were motivated by the capacity for outreach to reform curriculum, but also to enhance science education in schools by supporting and learning from/with teachers. Finally, the structure of how scientist perceived outreach developed and delivery was significantly influenced by their personal experiences of science and pathways towards science outreach, but most importantly whether they identified as science outreach practitioner specialists or as scientists heavily involved in outreach development and project management. These findings suggest that the motivation of scientists and their perceptions of outreach are more complex and interdependent than existing macro-level and psychological accounts would suggest.

Bergerson, A. A., Hotchkins, B. K., & Furse, C. (2014). Outreach and Identity Development: New Perspectives on College Student Persistence. Journal of College Student Retention, 16(2), 165–185. Besley, J. C., Dudo, A., Yuan, S., & Lawrence, F. (2018). Understanding Scientists’ Willingness to Engage. Science Communication, 40(5), 559–590. Besley, J. C., & Nisbet, M. (2013). How scientists view the public, the media and the political process. Public understanding of science, 22(6), 644–659. Burchell, K. (2015). Factors affecting public engagement by researchers: Literature review. Ecklund, E. H., James, S. A., & Lincoln, A. E. (2012). How Academic Biologists and Physicists View Science Outreach. PLoS ONE, 7(5), 1–5. Fogg-Rogers, L., & Moss, T. (2019). Validating a scale to measure engineers’ perceived self-efficacy for engineering education outreach. PLoS One, 14(10), e0223728. Jensen, P., Rouquier, J. B., Kreimer, P., & Croissant, Y. (2008). Scientists who engage with science perform better academically. Science and Public Policy, 35(7), 527–541.  Poliakoff, E., & Webb, T. L. (2007). What factors predict scientists' intentions to participate in public engagement of science activities? Science communication, 29(2), 242–263. Rao, A. (2016, August 3–10). Support for participating in outreach and the benefits of doing so [Paper Presentation]. 38th International Conference on High Energy Physics, Chicago, USA. Royal Society. (2006). Survey of factors affecting science communication by scientists and engineers. Final report. London. Author Weingart, P., Joubert, M., & Connoway, K. (2021). Public engagement with science – Origins, motives and impact in academic literature and science policy. PloS One, 16(7), e0254201. Weiss, C. (2005). Science, technology and international relations. Technology in Society, 27(3), 295-313. Woitowich, N. C., Hunt, G. C., Muhammad, L. N., & Garbarino, J. (2022). Assessing motivations and barriers to science outreach within academic science research settings: A mixed-methods survey. Frontiers in Communication, 7, 907762.