Attributes Framework for Public Engagement for university staff and students

In order to better equip the HE sector to embrace public engagement, the NCCPE wishes to work with a range of stakeholders to develop a simple framework that articulates the core skills, aptitudes and competencies involved in engaging the public.

This framework will be used for a variety of purposes:  To provide a shared framework to help funders, policy makers, managers, practitioners and training providers to coordinate their efforts to support public engagement  To map the existing provision and identify gaps  To inform the development of the NCCPE’s planned ‘practitioner’s toolkit’: a suite of resources to support professional development of staff, and enhance the quality of PE activity in universities and research institutes. The proposed ‘competency framework’ will provide a backbone for this toolkit.  To allow public engagement to be integrated into other HR / staff development frameworks  To support staff to reflect on and develop their own skills.

The remainder of this report details the results of the consultation and proposes a simple framework which has been developed with input from the beacons for public engagement, RCUK and Wellcome and a range of other stakeholders and experts.

This attributes framework for public engagement is intended to act as a guide for staff and students in UK Universities with regards to the personal attributes and skills required for different public engagement (PE) activities. Its purpose is to inform the provision of training and development for public engagement, and we hope that staff in universities, research institutes and professional networks (such as learned societies and professional membership bodies) will use it flexibly to integrate support for public engagement into their existing staff development and training frameworks. The framework is also informing the development of the NCCPE’s practical resources to support staff and students develop their public engagement practice. We will be launching a comprehensive online toolkit in December 2010, which will provide case studies, guides and practical advice on how to develop and deliver effective engagement and which will be crossreferenced with this framework. The framework is not meant to be comprehensive or to articulate every nuance of public engagement practice: our goal is to provide some high level prompts to guide and inform thinking and to encourage discussion and collaboration. Every institution is likely to approach this area differently, and we hope this simple framework is a useful tool that supports a diversity of approaches to embedding support for public engagement.

The framework has been informed by the work of the Science for All Training sub-group, who were tasked to perform a consultation on competency in PE by the Department of Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) in autumn 2009. The Science for All research report1 explored the provision of training opportunities, PE activity and the implementation of competency frameworks in four sectors: academia, engineering, government and health. Learning from this research, along with an in-depth look at effective competency frameworks developed by the Sanger Institute (the Professional Development Framework for Scientists Involved in Public Engagement Work2 ) and the Civil Service (the Professional Skills for Government Competency Framework3 ), directed initial drafting of this attributes framework. 

The framework was then subject to consultation, first with representatives of the six Beacons for Public Engagement and then with a number of stakeholders from within the PE community. The framework also took into account the work already done by the Edinburgh Beltane Beacon and the Manchester Beacon, each of whom had developed competency frameworks of their own. 

The framework attempts to draw a balance between the differing views of those stakeholders consulted, along with the recommendations from the original Science for All report.

One of the key findings from previous work for the Science for All group, which was echoed by our stakeholders, was that members of the academic community may be reticent to adhere to a framework which might assess them as incompetent4 . A key recommendation stated that “there should be a limit on expectations of how far most people can be reasonably expected to develop.” It was felt therefore that the language used in the framework was very important and that we should avoid any indication of mandatory skills sets or too much emphasis on levels. It was felt that the framework should instead acknowledge the demands on time experienced by many academics and should also embrace the diversity of PE activity types, without implying a hierarchy. 

One recommendation from the Science for All research report was that: “The ability to undertake self-reflection should be used as a key indicator of PE skills and the level of PE activity which can be reasonably expected of practitioners.” This was supported by our stakeholders who agreed that reflection is extremely important. For this reason reflection became a key element in the framework. It was felt that self-reflection and evaluation should be integral to any PE activity. 

The framework was initially broken down into three broadly defined areas: Communication, Reflection and People. Feedback from stakeholders regarding the breakdown of these three broad areas was favourable. Though they felt that certain attributes could be threaded through the entire framework, it was acknowledged that the breakdown was useful for the purpose of clarity. There was however some confusion over the term ‘People’, and concern that it indicated merely working with and identifying audiences, rather than the consideration of audience motivations and the development of partnerships. It has been replaced with the word Empathy. 

Though it was contrary to recommendations made by the Science for All report, the established PE competency frameworks we reviewed offered levels progressing from basic skills through to skills which were more challenging. The initial draft of this framework therefore split the framework into levels 1-3. There were some stakeholders who strongly recommended that this indicator of progression was key to ensuring professionalism and quality in the delivery of PE activity. They also pointed out that academics are familiar with demonstrating competency and that advancement through levels was crucial to professional development and reward. However, the majority of stakeholders remained concerned about the use of levels and suggested instead that we focus the framework by emphasising types and purposes of PE activity (i.e. presentation versus consultation). 

We have settled on a compromise. We have removed named levels from the framework, but have provided for each of the key areas an indication of ‘core’ and ‘advanced’ skills and attributes to acknowledge the progression needed to deliver the more complex and sustained types of PE activity. 

We have also offered a categorisation of different purposes for public engagement – informing, exchanging and collaborating – to help staff think through the different demands of different types of engagement activity. 

Feedback from stakeholders indicated that the framework did not take into account the project management skills required by members of an academic team developing a PE activity. It was felt however that, though highly important to PE, project management skills are comprehensively treated in other development frameworks and it would therefore be redundant and repetitive to include them in this framework. A key suggestion arising from the consultation with stakeholders was the need to bring the attributes ‘to life’ and to use case studies to help researchers envisage different PE activities and how to prepare for them. The NCCPE’s online toolkit that is currently in development will provide exactly that practical guidance and context, and the framework and toolkit will be carefully integrated and cross-referenced when they are launched in December

• We are working with Vitae to ensure effective integration between this framework and their emerging ‘Researcher Development Framework’. As part of this, we are developing a ‘public engagement lens’ for the RDF. 
• We are also working with the JISC Business and Community Engagement team, on a CPD framework for staff working in the area of Business & Community Engagement, aiming for close integration.  
• We continue to work closely with RCUK, Wellcome and a range of other training providers to develop a more ‘joined-up’ approach to training and development for researchers. 
• We welcome feedback on this paper and on the approach we have outlined. Please contact as at nccpe.enquiries@uwe.ac.u