Send message to Author

Paper short abstract

This ethnographic study explores how science engagement projects navigate the tension between inclusive intentions and exclusionary outcomes through participant observation and expert interviews with two German cases: a science pop-up store and a transdisciplinary urban mobility project.

Paper long abstract

Despite promises of inclusive and accessible engagement, science communication—as "social conversation around science" (Bucchi & Trench, 2021)—often reproduces exclusionary dynamics through well-intentioned practices that overlook diverse contexts and community needs by assuming a universal relevance and value of science. I call this phenomenon 'academic saviourism'(Welz, In Review). My ethnography investigates how such dynamics manifest in practice across two contrasting German inclusive science communication projects through participant observation and expert interviews.

Case A follows a science pop-up store engaging with various locals through different event formats. Case B examines a transdisciplinary equal mobility project bringing together dis/ability advocates, sustainability, cycling and automotive lobbies, and neighbourhood associations.

My preliminary findings reveal a dilemma: Although co-creation processes successfully transform 'opposing' participants from mere 'opinion holders' to complex individuals and enable compromise, genuine inclusion fails at a structural level. Moreover, practitioners demonstrate a high degree of reflexivity when it comes to aspects of academic saviourism in their work. They are aware that their participants lack diversity in terms of life realities and opinions, which carries the risk of creating a "bubble", but feel unable to change these circumstances due to the structural conditions of science engagement work.

This presentation explores the gap between good intentions and actual practice in science communication. By examining why even well-intentioned projects struggle to move beyond homogeneous participants, it raises fundamental questions about the feasibility of including truly diverse—or even contentious—voices in public engagement with science.