SciOut18

Introduction<br>In October 2018, nearly 150 members of the science outreach professional community gathered in New York City to discuss current issues surrounding the practice and profession of science outreach. With scientific representation spanning multiple academic contexts, professional societies, independent practice, members of science writing and journalism communities, funding bodies, and government organizations, the outputs from our unconference-style gathering -- SciOut18: Models, Metrics, and Measures -- takes into consideration many perspectives regarding the science outreach field from individual practitioners across the US. The discussions from SciOut18 have prominently guided the content and context of this report, which primarily focuses on the practical aspects related to the continued professionalization and centralization of science outreach. While we specifically avoided defining “science outreach” at the meeting itself, the authors of this paper thought it is important to lay out how we are considering the phrase as it fits into the scientific enterprise, in order to discuss how this field can be sustained and scaled for the future. As such, we are defining science outreach as a framework that brings together scientific and non-scientific communities around a set of shared science outreach goals, which are met through the application of effective science communication, public engagement, and/or informal education best practices, and achieves outcomes characterized by mutual learning for all involved. This definition is offered in the context of stakeholders, both inward and outward, as well as laying out the minimum requirements to meet the science outreach framework criteria. In this list we emphasize a clear identification of all stakeholder groups, sharing explicit goals for each group, and ideally co-designing a scientific engagement strategy that best represents these stated goals. Furthermore, the expected outcome for all science outreach strategies is shared learning among all stakeholders. While no science outreach framework will look exactly the same, it is these fundamental points that distinguish science outreach from one-sided efforts to promote non-scientist appreciation of science. This paper also touches on the current expectations and realities related to science outreach metrics. The overwhelming consensus among SciOut18 attendees was that it is extremely difficult to both practice science outreach and develop clear research strategies to determine the impact of these efforts, particularly since a unanimous outcome of engagement surrounds the cultivation of positive human behaviors around science. As such, this paper argues that, in many cases, evaluating scientific culture from the inward perspective (i.e. that of scientists and scientific institutions) could offer a clearer window into how science outreach shapes policies related to access to scientific programming, as well as the recruitment and retention of diverse trainees and faculty. We also argue that participation of faculty and trainees in the science outreach framework should be officially recognized and rewarded through inclusion in hiring and promotion processes. The success of the SciOut18 unconference cemented the notion that science outreach is indeed a growing professional field, and that those currently occupying these spaces are hungry to develop and nurture a community of practice for sharing knowledge and strengthening professional networks. As we continue to grow as practitioners, and science outreach continues to gain momentum as a profession, the SciOut initiative offers an inclusive space to engage in lively discussion, share resources, and promote ideas and policies that bolster our efforts to support and scale. To this end, we have concluded our paper with a list of specific recommendations for scientific organizations, individual scientists, practitioners of science outreach, and funders. The contents of this paper offer an early perspective, and we fully embrace the requirement to iterate on this material as we continue to learn from each other through future SciOut meetings and other professional gatherings. The authors of this text invite any and all commentary on the content offered here, including suggestions for next stages of SciOut community building. Please share your thoughts through our website (http://rockedu.rockefeller.edu/new_outreach/professionalization), by emailing the corresponding author directly at [e-mail], or on social media with the tag #sciout18. <br><br>Methods<br>The unconference was organized based on qualitative analysis of attendees pre-work writing. Similarly, the outputs of the conference were synthesized and summarized in two white papers for dissemination in the hopes of gathering feedback and continuing to adjust and hone these ideas towards the professionalization of our field.<br><br>Results<br>Recommendations to Support Science Outreach Professionalization Here we lay out targeted recommendations to aid in the continued professionalization of the science outreach field, specifically for scientific institutions, practitioners of science outreach, and funding organizations. Scientific Institutions and Organizations Scientific Institutions and Organizations include official entities that primarily employ or provide membership to scientists and science professionals, and have a central mission involving the generation, interpretation, and/or the dissemination of knowledge as it pertains to science. Universities, research institutes, and professional scientific societies are some examples of “Scientific Institutions and Organizations.” 1. Establish a centralized science outreach department with a dedicated staff and resources, including an institutionally supported budget (hard money). 2. Incentivize participation in science outreach efforts by recognizing and rewarding those doing the work. 3. Support mandatory cultural competency trainings for members of the scientific community. Individuals Volunteering for Science Outreach Efforts This set of recommendations is intended for scientists and scientific professionals who regularly engage, typically as a volunteer, as inward stakeholders within the science outreach framework. There are a variety of reasons why scientists and scientific professionals participate in science outreach, yet these core requirements should be met by all whenever possible. 1. Connect with your target audience (outward stakeholders) to understand what they wish to gain from the science outreach framework. 2. Seek out existing local science outreach initiatives. In connecting with and learning from established science outreach programs, it reduces the possibility of reinventing the wheel when it comes to engagement. Science Outreach Practitioners The following recommendations apply to those who regularly practice science outreach in some capacity -- from those who regularly participate in the science outreach framework as a volunteer, such as graduate students leading a science outreach club, to those who are compensated for their science outreach work, either part or full-time. 1. For practitioners representing established organizations, connect with other departments within your institution to identify areas of synergy. 2. When recruiting scientists as volunteers, be clear and transparent about expectations and goals, and communicate the best practices for your audience and context. 3. Survey the science outreach landscape in your local community to help identify and connect with others for the purposes of ideas and resource sharing. Funders of Science Outreach Endeavors There are many organizations that directly support science outreach efforts, from governmental bodies to family foundations. However, for those who seek funding, it can often be incredibly challenging to prepare the “right” proposal. As an attempt to provide tangible feedback from science outreach stakeholders to funding organizations, we recommend the following: 1. Provide accessible examples of outcome scenarios to help potential awardees have more focused, relevant, and practical metrics around their science outreach efforts. 2. Promote metrics of impact that focus on inward stakeholder groups. <br><br>Discussion<br>Looking Ahead The SciOut meetings embody an effort to decentralize community building efforts within the national science outreach professional space in order to acknowledge that every member of the SciOut community brings with them unique perspectives through learned experiences, and to ensure that each member of this community has a mechanism to share their knowledge, and/or learn from others. As we continue creating dialogue at future SciOut meetings and other professional gatherings, we must always ask how we can best build from the knowledge that we create and share. We feel that our next steps should include efforts to cement communities of practice around science outreach, and to always promote manageable and realistic actions that are respectful and inclusive of diverse identities and take into consideration shared goals. Furthermore, we believe that science -- and thus science outreach -- does not exist in a vacuum. It is critical, now more than ever, to build relationships with individuals and organizations outside of science, and to have clearly defined intentions around the most pressing scientific issues in society, primarily climate change. In strengthening the standing of science outreach within the scientific enterprise, we have the opportunity to create unity around shared goals and promote widespread appreciation for the process of science. <br><br>