Research has shown that for a technical-scientific innovation to be successful it must involve a social dimension, be attentive and autonomous regarding the use and consequences of the new knowledge generated. There is a wide variation in the definition of what constitutes Community Engagement (CE) and what are the motivations behind the research projects which incorporate it. The emphasis on dialogue, information sharing, collaboration and shared decision-making makes Community Engagement close to the area of Public Understanding of Science (PUS), which advocate effective forms of involvement and participation of society in science. Therefore, the questions that guide this study are: Do these fields share any research orientation? Do they come from similar theoretical and institutional backgrounds (authors, institutions, subjects of interest)? As an exploratory study, a review of the scientific literature was conducted in Biological Abstract, EMBASE and Web of Science. Following the search strategies developed, the record recovery was 1.110 for CE, 311 for PUS and 60 for ES. References were then organized and analyzed into text mining software. There was a predominance of production by the United States, England, Canada and Australia. Research was conducted by different institutions, evidencing little dialogue between them. The field of Health and Education has a stronger presence in the three traditions, with due particularities. EC has a predominance of clinical research and PUS in public health. ES focuses mainly on nanotechnology and there are indications of a convergence towards education and other similar areas. Further analysis should point to synergies which strengthen the convergence of these fields.

">
 [PCST]
PCST Network

Public Communication of Science and Technology

 

Possible dialogues between public understanding of science and community engagement in health research

Carla Sales   Oswaldo Cruz Foundation

Maria Guimarães   Oswaldo Cruz Foundation

Denise Pimenta   Oswaldo Cruz Foundation

Research has shown that for a technical-scientific innovation to be successful it must involve a social dimension, be attentive and autonomous regarding the use and consequences of the new knowledge generated. There is a wide variation in the definition of what constitutes Community Engagement (CE) and what are the motivations behind the research projects which incorporate it. The emphasis on dialogue, information sharing, collaboration and shared decision-making makes Community Engagement close to the area of Public Understanding of Science (PUS), which advocate effective forms of involvement and participation of society in science. Therefore, the questions that guide this study are: Do these fields share any research orientation? Do they come from similar theoretical and institutional backgrounds (authors, institutions, subjects of interest)? As an exploratory study, a review of the scientific literature was conducted in Biological Abstract, EMBASE and Web of Science. Following the search strategies developed, the record recovery was 1.110 for CE, 311 for PUS and 60 for ES. References were then organized and analyzed into text mining software. There was a predominance of production by the United States, England, Canada and Australia. Research was conducted by different institutions, evidencing little dialogue between them. The field of Health and Education has a stronger presence in the three traditions, with due particularities. EC has a predominance of clinical research and PUS in public health. ES focuses mainly on nanotechnology and there are indications of a convergence towards education and other similar areas. Further analysis should point to synergies which strengthen the convergence of these fields.

[PDF 282.53 kB]Download the full paper (PDF 282.53 kB)

BACK TO TOP