In this interview, Catherine Hurcombe speaks to Professor Stewart Barr from the Department of Geography, and member of the University’s Public Engagement Strategic Advisory Group, about how community-centred research has impacted his work in the field of environmental science.
CH: Would you like to introduce yourself?
SB: I’m Stewart Barr, I’m a Professor of Geography, and I specialise in behavioural change in environmental sustainability.
CH: A lot of your research doesnât just focus on facts, but receptions. What made you keen to include that public, behavioural element?
SB: That goes back to the late 1990s. In those days, I wasn’t as interested in climate change, partly because it wasn’t as high profile as it is now. My PhD was looking at attitudes towards recycling household waste, which at the time there was a big issue with. But why was it that some people engaged considerably in recycling and others did very little?
To me, it’s always been that kind of question. I’m interested in how people react to the science of environmental problems, and how that may translate into behaviours. So what you might call the âsubjectivitiesâ, rather than the objective science.
CH: A lot of the time when we talk about engaging the public in research, we talk about outreach. And actually it can be this very symbiotic relationship; there’s so much we can learn from community involvement. Would you say your relationship to public engagement is a fairly even split between disseminating research, versus bringing the public into it? Or is it more one than the other?
SB: I would say it’s more the second. Nearly all the research I do involves publics, and there will be degrees of involvement depending on the project.
I have an almost philosophical concern about dissemination being too unidirectional â I don’t want to be talking down to people! Sometimes I’m asked to get involved in events like Pint of Science, but I try and only involve myself in those activities when they’re quite punctuated, and Pint of Science, it’s fun!
CH: Does the contentiousness of this topic ever create difficulties engaging with the public, when it produces so many divisive opinions?
SB: This is a really good question. It’s not only about the issues that people are familiar with, like climate change, but also localised responses to environmental management.
We were commissioned by a public authority in 2013, because there had been such a controversy about what was causing flooding in a town. That was a very challenging workshop because you find there are quite dominant voices in the room, and you need ways of allowing everybody to be heard. These conversations can be difficult, and it does require an approach which is sensitive, and provides safe spaces.
CH: You mention having that mix of voices, and you’ve clearly cultivated a lot of strong community relationships. Would this be something you’d be keen to build on in future research? Are there groups that you haven’t necessarily had the chance to work with that you’d like to?
SB: Weâre trying to do this with this Governing Sustainable Futures project, because we didn’t feel it would be ethically appropriate for us as academics to go into communities without any context. So we’re working with Devon Communities Together, and Community Action Groups Devon. I’m interested in working with existing community-based infrastructure rather than reinventing the wheel.
The second answer to the question is interesting, because this takes us to an ethical dilemma with this kind of research. It goes to a lot of the things we’ve discussed in the Public Engagement Strategic Advisory Group, which is recognising that public engagement after a project shouldnât stop, but it’s a question of resources. I’m cautious getting too close to community groups if I can’t maintain the level of commitment I think I should be able to. I think it’s unethical to say to communities, âlet’s get really excited about this issue because I’ve got this moneyâ, but then in 12 monthsâ time, I’ve no longer got the money, so Iâm off.
CH: So what would your advice be to people looking to bring public engagement into their research?
SB: The first thing would be to say: are you clear on why you want to engage publics with your research? And the second consideration would be thinking through the ethics. What are the benefits going of publics being involved, and how can you reduce exploitation? We have to be clear about the commitment people are being asked to give, and boundaries of what we can offer, so we don’t set unrealistic expectations.
CH: That question of boundaries is really important. I think you’ve covered that element of transparency really well, and making sure those relationships stand on equal footing.
SB: As you said, the key word is transparency. It’s about having possibly hard conversations at the start. We can represent what publics are saying, but it has to be their voice we’re giving, rather than us taking on that call.
The overarching message I would have is the importance of gaining trust through not positioning yourself as an expert. There is expertise that academic researchers have, but publics will bring other expertise, and I would always like to see those equally, rather than putting academic knowledge on a pedestal.
It’s my job as a social scientist to understand what people think, hopefully why they think it and then to represent that alongside the science.
Photo by Diana U on Unsplash.