All interviewees identified universities as having a leadership role, not only as creators of knowledge, but also as a vital part of the community: as GD stated, ‘universities exist within their community’. He elaborated on this statement, explaining that universities
have to be part of the community and therefore they have some corporate social responsibility, so they have responsibilities to be good citizens within that environment, to help inform, excite, inspire the community, as well as working within their discipline boundaries and relationships both nationally and internationally.
The responsibilities outlined by GD are vast, and were shared by WA. He discussed the research development and leadership role of universities in society, stating that
I think universities are the main leaders, the main drivers in our society of engagement with science. They do most of the scientific research, they stand for evidence and rational discussion in society and they provide most of the facts, most of the evidence for the big debates in society. Whether they are social matters, environmental matters, or business matters, that they provide most of the energy there.
WA identified universities as a focal point of ‘leadership in recognising that our future prosperity relies on research and science and being proactive for their own self interest’. WA was hard on his own sector, as he remarked ‘well, we [universities] can always do better’. GD presented his view of universities and their position in society, with the statement that
‘relationships are important, so they [universities] are big employers with the community…in some towns and cities they’re the predominant part of the economy’.
Universities were identified by the interviewees as having both a leadership role and an economic role in society. WA and GD both raised concern over the initiatives that some institutions undertake typically for financial reasons and the perception this creates in the community. WA stated that
there are some areas of fringe science that universities are a bit tempted to get into for financial reasons, such as chiropractic and some of the complementary medicines. I think they should think about that, because it does send a signal to the rest of society that, well “we are engaging so it must have value”, because universities are so associated with rationality in our society.
GD put forward a different perspective on the community leadership role of universities, stating how ‘some universities sponsor local events like the Brumbies [rugby union team] here in Canberra, the University of Canberra Brumbies’, noting the negative perceptions this can bring relating to the fundamental role of universities, and what they are funded to do, is education and research – not sponsorship and advertising. Yet, these sorts of initiatives also have an economic benefit to the local, in this case sporting, community.
Universities are not alone; they are part of what is considered a larger ‘ecosystem’ by WA. Others discussed the interconnectedness of science in society. Despite AB stating that ‘my focal point was the universities’ he made note that ‘there is a strong connection between
universities and local and national government, and again I’m looking at the research activity in universities as this dimension’. GD discussed what he considers a virtuous cycle:
so it becomes a virtuous cycle and everyone wins if you get it right. Because the community wins by having that higher level of engagement: it enriches their lives, empowers them to discuss things, understand things, to know how things work; and science community get, well, support - there’s a consequence of being well liked by the public, and the ministers, the politicians seeing that level of support coming through encourages them to fight for funds. And that’s where you get the virtuous cycle, and youngsters are encouraged and interested and excited and so they study and everything keeps going. If it doesn’t work it tends to spiral down into a lower level of activity.
Others shared a similar view of the interconnectedness of science. AB focussed on linking science and industry. He remarked, ‘if you had to think about how things are connected at the moment…how do you stimulate that connection a bit more? The connection between
universities and business in particular, but also the business community in the broad’. CJ used the same terminology as GD in her statement describing the education sector as a ‘kind of virtuous cycle’. CJ went on to talk about general responsibilities as she put forward the view
that ‘all these sectors have to work much more closely together for us to get a scientifically engaged Australia’. IC did not mention specific sectors instead put forward the broad view, as he stated ‘I think each [sector] has got a role to play consistent with its particular time, and where it’s engaged in the process, and how they will take and build a scientifically literate community’.
GD tended to be rather aspirational in his views on the ‘virtuous cycle of science’, as he stated
I think all of those things come together – at the same time you’ve got the young people being inspired, motivated by, you know, school and informal learning environments, teachers being well supported and feeling empowered and inspired to teach, and I think all of that comes together to create the country we need.
The importance of leadership in science, and notably by universities, is not restricted to national leadership. Most interviewees made note of the global community of science and the need for international recognition. As AB described, ‘science as an activity is not a single national enterprise, it’s very much an international enterprise’. GD discussed the importance of international networks as
science cannot be conducted in isolation these days…it’s important that the community these days doesn’t stop at the boundaries of the country we are now – we have global communities, and those online communities…can be anywhere in the world.
WA and AB were more pragmatic in their concerns about the nation’s international standing with respect to science. AB shared GD’s view, as he stated that ‘I think it’s important that Australian researchers are among the best in the world and deeply engaged in activities in the world, because without that Australia gets left behind very quickly on a whole lot of fronts’. WA also shared this opinion, stating the need for Australia to
retain our membership of the leading countries of the world, the G20s, OECD, those places where we have to be recognised for the quality of our science and the quality of the use of science in public policy if we are to be regarded as a sophisticated advanced country.
GD offered a different perspective on the internationalisation of science in terms of co-
investment by different countries in big infrastructure for science. He remarked on the value of ‘government to government relationships internationally, and that’s very, very important these days because science is global and a lot of science can only be done by co-investment from different countries’.
The interviewees’ views on what a scientifically engaged Australia should look like in terms of networks and communities broadly identified universities as practitioners of science and as leaders in an interconnected and global community.
Summary of emergent themes for research question 1
Stemming from the discussion of research question 1 for this chapter of ‘what would a SEA look like?’, theme 1 identified the importance of science; whether it was idealistic or pragmatic motivations, all interviewees agreed that science is inherently important. The benefits of a SEA they identified included: increased scientific literacy in the public, the recruitment of more students into universities to study science, societal benefits from informed decision making and the adoption of emergent technology – particularly by the public, business and education sectors. A prominent theme that emerged from all interviews is the belief that the public requires education to improve their understanding of science, an opinion reminiscent of the PUS era. The primary, secondary and tertiary education sectors were all identified as being
responsible, at least in part, for the publics’ education, noting the primary role of universities as propagators of research. Theme 2 focussed on enhanced outcomes from improved scientific literacy, and that through this the public would make better decisions and exhibit better
information seeking behaviour, and that all sectors would benefit from using scientific evidence as part of their decision making, resulting in an enhanced relationship and output between the science and business communities. The importance of science in policy and political decision making was the focus of theme 3, with the shared view that a SEA would be one that develops policy based on scientific evidence, acknowledging that the government does need to balance this against external influences and opposing needs. Interviewees discussed this complex and interdependent relationship noting that the government plays a pivotal role, particularly in the investment and regulation of science. In a SEA the government would strategically invest in science, with a focus on areas of economic return benefiting the economy. As part of this they would create an environment that enables industry to capitalise on the outputs of science, encouraging more commericalisation and innovation. Theme 4 discussed the complex relationship between the networks and communities of the different sectors, described as a ‘virtuous cycle of interconnectedness’. However, universities in particular were identified as having the primary role in a SEA, not only as practitioners of science by also as national and international leaders.
Research Question 2: ‘How do you Create a Scientifically Engaged Australia?
This section presents the emergent themes from the interviewees’ responses that addressed the question ‘how do you create a SEA?’ As with research question 1, interviewees’ responses did not agree and not all interviewees contributed to every theme. The first identified theme includes the mechanisms by which a SEA can be achieved at the individual or grassroots level with a focus on the audience or receiver: the discussion from the interviewees highlighted the importance of the communication of science, and the common mechanisms by which to do this including the significant impact of the internet on how we now communicate. This discussion identified teaching and learning and the ability to understand the evidence base as being integral to achieving the aims of a SEA. In addition, the influence and strength of the community featured in this discussion along with commentary on metrics commonly used to measure the impact of communication mechanisms.
The second theme discusses the mechanisms identified as contributing to the creation of a SEA at the institutional level, presenting commentary by the interviewees on the responsible sectors, and infrastructure support. This discussion highlighted the role of universities and governments as the primary drivers of the creation of an SEA. Investment in science, primarily by
governments, was raised in this discussion and to a lesser degree the role of business in achieving the aims of a SEA. The responsibilities of the sectors were discussed, not all interviewees agreeing on who is ultimately responsible for achieving a SEA. However, some individuals and sectors were commonly identified as being primarily responsible.