In principle, robust evaluation has a vital role to play in guiding the steady improvement of public engagement with science initiatives. However, in practice, public engagement evaluation often lacks quality, producing unreliable results that should not be believed or used to orient practice. Problems such as poor questionnaire design, low quality data analysis and over-claiming impacts apply to the way evaluation is practiced by even the most well-funded public engagement institutions and initiatives. This presentation outlines common approaches to public engagement evaluation, typical limitations at every level in the design and implementation of such evaluations and practical solutions that can overcome these limitations.
Eric Jensen, University of Warwick