Have you heard the PEPS talk ? Towards standardized public engagement practices for scientists ( PEPS )

Publicly-funded scientists have a responsibility to engage with the public on scientific information, but are lacking a standardized framework and assessment strategy to do it well. The PEPS (Public Engagement Practices for Scientists) Method is an outcomes-centered framework employing standardized pedagogical methods with quantifiable outcomes. This approach reveals that scientists often have unrealistic expectations for achieving affective learning outcomes (i.e. changing views from antito pro-vaccine) by solely cognitive learning strategies (i.e. supplying data). The PEPS Method can serve as a roadmap for standardized science communication assessments, complementing existing science communication training programs for the next generation of scientists.


Best practices research for science communication is disconnected and standardized assessment strategies do not exist
The National Academies of Science (NAS), National Science Foundation (NSF), and American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) concur that there are major gaps on what constitutes best communication practices and methods, as well as assessments that measure effectiveness of practices to reaching public engagement outcomes. 21,23,24The NAS reports that "most research on science communication conducted to date is descriptive and correlational, and relatively little of the existing research can enable confident statements about causality." 22dditionally, most research studies are disconnected from each other and are narrow in scope, so comparisons among them are difficult. 22[27] There are respected efforts to train scientists to be better science communicators, but they are not coordinated or assessed properly. 28- 31These trainings for scientists teach common models and tactics.For example, the preferred model for communicating science, the Public Engagement Model, purports science communication to be an ongoing dialogue between all sectors of society (FIG 1). 19,32It takes into account worldviews, beliefs, fears, uncertainties, and biases.The Deficit Model, although outdated, is still widely used by scientists in the United States.Incorrectly, it assumes that any skepticism towards scientific findings or processes would vanish if the public simply knew more. 24,335][36][37][38][39][40][41][42] Despite the anecdotal benefits, organizations are not performing standardized research, so it is difficult to compare, assess, and implement worldwide science communication training.To fill this research gap, The PEPS (Public Engagement Practices for Scientists) Method is a science communication framework for scientists that incorporates these tactics and can serve as a complementary backbone to organizations, like the Alda Center for Communicating Science, for assessment and improvement.

Towards a standardized framework for communicating science: The PEPS Method
The PEPS Method 43 is a quantifiable framework for science engagement, grounded on evidence-based pedagogical processes and outcomes that defines scientists as educators and the public as learners.The PEPS Method systematically approaches four outcome pillars of science communication (critical thinking, humandimension, science comprehension and engagement skills) that facilitates scientists to organize their engagement in an outcomecentered, audience-adaptable protocol (FIG  2).The PEPS Method also draws on evidenceinformed pedagogical processes to design outcome-centered science communication plans.It is also designed to gain understanding of which outcomes and practices lead to learners caring about science and changing opinions based on scientific consensus.5][46][47][48][49] Top educators set student learning outcomes first, select appropriate methods to reach outcomes, guide learners through both teacher-directed and self-regulated learning, and use assessments to measure effectiveness of methods to reach outcomes. 50,51To successfully motivate students to learn and retain learning, educators select outcomes from multiple learning levels and domains, i.e. cognitive (thinking), affective (feeling), and psychomotor (physical) (FIG 3). 44,52The PEPS Method helps scientists select appropriate outcome levels and types for a particular engagement.For example, a common desired outcome is changing an opinion from anti-to pro-vaccine.This is a high complexity level, affective domain learning outcome, and it will take affective approaches to achieve success.Scientists using cognitive approaches (i.e.sharing data) in a five-minute exchange have completely unrealistic outcome expectations and are using incorrect methods.
Because The PEPS Method is modeled after international standards of learning and teaching, we can incorporate indicators into other surveys, projects, or institutions.As such, this method provides a framework and assessment strategy that could be added to other science communication training programs, facilitating a standardized platform for comparisons.

3.1
The PEPS Method used by scientists to discuss controversial topics like vaccines.A universal tool for science communication should be able to be used in formal engagement contexts, like in a scientific conference, but also in informal contexts when addressing controversial topics with lay people.The PEPS Method has been tested extensively in informal discussion on the safety and efficacy of vaccines with both vaccine hesitant and confident peers (for definitions of hesitancy versus confidence refer to sources 17,53,54 ).A representative outcome-centered framework is shown in Table 1.
This particular example is used by scientists to plan engagement with a lay person who had questions about graphs 55 that seem to show that vaccines are not effective. 56When outcomes are organized into the four pillars of science communication (critical thinking, science comprehension, human-dimension, engagement skills), notice that three domains (cognitive, psychomotor, affective) and all levels of complexity are employed.For the lay person to achieve outcomes, the scientist serves as guide through three types and complexity levels of learning-a very challenging goal.

3.2
The PEPS Method implemented in underserved K-12 afterschool science programs.Broadening participation in STEM is a goal stated by many institutions worldwide, however, explicit attention and funding are lacking. 26,57,58Towards filling this gap, evaluation of The PEPS Method is underway at The Food Project, a multi-sector and organizational K-12 afterschool program in Southwest Baltimore that teaches at-risk youths practical skills, like cooking and nutrition, to lead healthier, safer lives. 59pecifically, scientists use The PEPS Method to teach and assess youths on the microbiology and immunology needed to understand the importance of hygiene (FIG  4).Each pillar of The PEPS Method is being tested and refined in this underrepresented context: engagement tactics to keep youths' attention in an informal learning setting; science comprehension processes on explaining concepts in terms that are relatable, understandable and correct; human-centered processes to be inclusive of cultural sensitivity and contextualization; and critical thinking processes to better formulate desired student learning outcomes and the methods used to achieve them.This contextual evaluation and refinement is of urgent importance, both in the United States and globally in developing countries where there is also a near complete lack of science communication training efforts in underserved STEM settings. 25,60,61In the developing world, identifying contextual and sustainable ways to engage the public must be a priority for the research community, both on the part of foreign and in-country scientists. 62As the number of global sites increase for The PEPS Method testing, it will be a tool that can be used to improve the unequal distribution of and access to quality STEM learning experiences.

Treating communication as an equally important step of the scientific method
There are two central challenges to improving science communication, not to mention a number of high priority actions that should be taken towards supporting scientists and unifying the field (Table 2).First, although communication is a step of the scientific method, it is not typically weighted with same importance as other stepsevidenced by the lack of top-down incentives or support for scientists to spend official time on engagement, beyond participation in scholarly communications.Towards addressing this imbalance, the National Institutes of Health should make a requirement to include, for example, a line item in all grant budgets dedicated to public engagement activities and training.Another recommendation is that publicly-funded scientists and trainees should also be required to take trainings in science engagement, supported by the both the funding mechanism and the scientist's institution.
A second challenge is that the field of science communication is disorganized and cannot properly inform scientists to be better communicators.Integration of a common outcome and assessment framework like The PEPS Method into research and science communication studies is a high priority.The use of a common framework for outcome tracking will help unify the field of science communication and better support scientists to carry out their work.The PEPS Method should also be globally expanded to verify applicability to a variety of contextual situations, e.g. for scientists engaging with policymakers or other scientists.Scientists can improve the field by using an outcomescentered framework; use of The PEPS Method has shown that scientists often have unrealistic expectations: by supplying people with data (low level, cognitive domain), scientists unrealistically expect highly complex outcomes (i.e.changing views from anti-to pro-vaccine).In order to achieve these high-level outcomes, scientists must master and implement use of multiple domain learning approaches as well as evaluate if methods are appropriate for the desired outcomes, audience, and length of engagement.
We live in a time of rapid scientific progress; continuation of progress can only happen when we have public buy in, which is best achieved by supporting and incentivizing scientists to be excellent science communicators.Adopting a standard framework that can be refined to different contexts is a positive step towards filling these gaps and unifying the field.

Figures FIG 1:
The Public Engagement Model of Communicating Science: science is an integral part of society and should be co-created by scientists and the community.Key characteristics: scientific ideas, processes and results are part of an ongoing public dialogue within a social context that also addresses benefits, risks, uncertainties, and fears, technology is owned by the community. 34,35The Deficit Model incorrectly assumes that if the public knew more, they would accept science.Figure adapted from sources. 34,35IG 2 : The PEPS Method: Engagement Design.The PEPS Method is an evidence-based, outcomes-centered pedagogical framework for improving and measuring public engagement practices for scientists in both formal and informal STEM learning environments.In outcomes-centered engagement design, scientists determine appropriate outcomes for the type and length of engagement as well as in relation to the audience characteristics.Assessments are then planned to best determine if outcomes are achieved.Last, engagement activities are designed in order to promote student success in achieving outcomes as evaluated in the planned assessments.

Table 1:
The PEPS Method: Outcome-Centered Planning.Using The PEPS Method to plan engagement on vaccine efficacy uses highly complex and varied types of learning outcomes.These outcome types already have validated assessments that have been in formal STEM learning environments; we've adapted them for use in informal STEM learning environments.

Table 2 :
Recommendations for The PEPS Method, scientists, & the science communication field