How can institutions better support public engagement with science, and why are we still struggling with this question? Despite decades of discussion, institutions still struggle to move beyond statements of intent into structures that fully support collaboration with communities, said Susan D. Renoe at a National Academies webinar on August 28, 2025, Building Institutional Capacity for Public Engagement with Science. During the panel discussion, scholars and practitioners reflected on emerging frameworks, persistent challenges, and new opportunities for embedding community engagement in research.

    The panel, moderated by Elyse Aurbach from Michigan State University, featured:

  • Susan D. Renoe, from the University of Missouri,
  • Erica Kimmerling, from the Association of Science and Technology Centers,
  • Byron P. White, from SOVA Solutions,
  • Liz Crocker, from the American Geophysical Union, and
  • Todd Newman, from the University of Wisconsin–Madison.

    Together, they explored the roles of individuals, institutions, and broader networks in advancing engagement practices.

    Assumptions about public attitudes often mislead institutions, noted Newman. While it is common to frame the public as “anti-science,” polling reveals a more nuanced reality: six in ten Americans say the public should have a voice in how discoveries are applied in society, and seven in ten believe scientists should participate in activities to learn directly from people.

    “People still trust science,” Newman emphasized, reminding the audience that deeper curiosity and a willingness for dialogue persist.

    Kimmerling echoed this point, noting that public interest is often underestimated. Institutions may see engagement as one-way communication, but surveys reveal that communities expect genuine dialogue about the benefits and trade-offs of integrating scientific discoveries into society.

    “We know people want science to be more engaged,” she said, urging researchers to listen more closely to what the public is asking.

    For White, institutional infrastructure is the bridge that can turn these expectations into practice. He pointed out that engagement brings tangible rewards — interdisciplinary collaboration, enhanced reputation, and solutions to pressing social problems. He argued further that communities should not just inform research, they should help define it.

    Crocker emphasized the importance of evidence in sustaining these efforts. Institutions and funders respond to data, and documenting impact allows researchers to advocate for change.

    “If you can prove the impact with data and statistics, that can be used as advocacy,” Crocker explained. She also stressed the role of meta-networks in giving people the chance to practice engagement directly, learning on the ground rather than in a workshop.

    Renoe stressed that focusing on evaluation is one of the hardest but most necessary steps in public engagement. Counting attendees at science camps or fairs is straightforward, she noted, but it does little to reveal whether those experiences have lasting effects.

    “Many times, we measure activity, not impact,” Renoe said. Case studies and high-level strategies, she suggested, can help institutions see what is really happening.

    Throughout the discussion, the speakers returned to the interconnections between individuals, institutions, and meta-networks. Individual behavior is shaped by institutional culture, which is in turn shaped by larger funding and disciplinary systems — and these structures can present barriers to genuine, long-term community engagement. This layered perspective presents opportunities for progress.

    Panelists agreed that now is the time for bold action. Institutions must commit to problem-solving with communities, investing in rural engagement, and encouraging students to collaborate with extension partners.

    As Newman put it, the goal is simple, but profound. “Make human-to-human connections. Build trust with the community,” he urged.

    The panelists concluded that the best way to build capacity is to start experimenting with models, documenting impact, and learning alongside communities. Public engagement with science is not an optional add-on but a core responsibility of research institutions.

By Sai Navya Vadlamudi, Center for Communicating Science graduate assistant