the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Between expertise and engagement: A qualitative study of Namibian geoscientists' views, attitudes, motivations, and objectives regarding public engagement with science
Abstract. Geoscientists are increasingly expected to engage with society on issues such as mining, groundwater management, energy transitions, and environmental sustainability, yet public engagement in the geosciences remains limited. This is largely due to reliance on one-way communication models and the tendency for geoscientists to communicate primarily within their own discipline. Drawing on qualitative interviews with Namibian geoscientists from government, industry, and academia, this study examines how geoscientists understand public engagement, how they perceive public audiences, and what motivates or constrains their participation. The findings reveal a strong reliance on deficit-model assumptions, including the belief that public resistance to geoscientific issues stems mainly from a lack of knowledge and that education plays a central role in fostering public trust and support. While participants expressed positive attitudes toward public engagement and confidence in their communication abilities, engagement was largely framed as informing and educating rather than listening, collaboration, or shared knowledge production. Structural barriers, including limited institutional support, lack of training, time constraints, and minimal incentives, further restrict meaningful engagement. At the same time, the study identifies emerging recognition of the importance of trust-building, mutual learning, and community involvement, particularly in contexts affected by resource extraction. The study argues that strengthening the role of geoscience in Namibian society requires moving beyond deficit-based communication toward dialogic, context-sensitive, and participatory engagement approaches.
- Preprint
(674 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 23 Mar 2026)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-18', Kombada Mhopjeni, 27 Feb 2026
reply
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Josephine Uushona, 04 Mar 2026
reply
Dear Kombada
Thank you very much for your valuable comments and constructive suggestions. We will further explore scholarship on geoscience, science communication, and public engagement from Southern Africa, as well as selected contexts in Asia and Latin America, to strengthen the manuscript’s comparative grounding.
We appreciate your point regarding the scope of our contribution and acknowledge that the original wording may have been too broad. We agree that situating the study more precisely within the broader African context is more appropriate and accurate.
Thank you also for highlighting the redundancy in the NCRST reference and for encouraging future research involving a more diverse cohort of geoscientists. We recognise the importance of expanding this work in subsequent studies to enhance comparative and cross-institutional perspectives.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-18-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Josephine Uushona, 04 Mar 2026
reply
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-18', Omar Rafael Reglado Fernandez, 03 Mar 2026
reply
Thank you for inviting me to review this paper, a very welcome survey of geoscientists' perceptions of public outreach in Namibia; it represents a novel exercise. However, I think the presentation of the results needs some refinement to be more accessible to researchers unfamiliar with the Namibian academic system.
There is one aspect of the paper that I feel is very much needed: what this dialogic public engagement would look like in the Namibian context. As someone unfamiliar with the cultural and social context, it is hard to envision what this goal would look like, and thus it is hard to understand how the gap between geoscientists and the public can be bridged.
- The social, historical, political, and cultural context of Namibia relevant to geoscientists should be outlined in the introduction. My comment comes from my own experience, also from a country in the Global South. Extractivist practices are surrounded by episodes of violence that underscore the relationships between the public and academia. There is a mention of the Stampriet community, but the case is not really explained. Some of the geoscientists' answers also seem to reveal a political vein that is unexplored in the paper. For instance, the quote from [GS02] suggests public communication needs to present "both sides of the story". To me, this reads like extraction past endeavours is also the root cause of eroded trust, so how would this dialogic engagement look in this case? With the honest disclosure of a conflict of interest? In Latin America, for instance, academics tend to come from large cities and go to rural areas, where they are seen as proselytizers, since once extraction is done, it is the community that faces the adverse consequences.
- What are some recommendations, even if out of reach as ideals, that could serve as milestones to aim for? If the problem involves linguistic barriers, how would this dialogue take place? What sort of events?
- Depending on the career stage and their workload, it makes sense that geoscientists do not see this engagement with the public as a core responsibility. What would be a strategy to push for this shift? Which other actors in Namibia could help bridge this gap?
- Are there studies on the Namibian public perception of science in general? How big is the scientists/public gap?
- What would the end goal of the communication be? Trust in geoscientists so that they can perform their tasks on private land? Push for policy-makers to encourage scientific outreach? Development of citizen science projects?
Also, as R1 mentioned, I think the introduction would benefit greatly from surveying what has been done in contexts outside the US or Europe.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Josephine Uushona, 04 Mar 2026
reply
Dear Omar
Thank you for your thoughtful comments and for engaging so carefully with our manuscript. We appreciate your recognition of the study as a novel contribution and acknowledge the importance of providing clearer contextual framing for readers who may be unfamiliar with the Namibian setting.
We agree that articulating what dialogic public engagement would look like within Namibia’s specific social, historical, and extractive context is essential. At the same time, we recognise that developing this in depth would require further dedicated research and resources, particularly given the limited existing literature in the local context.
We will further explore how public engagement can be meaningfully articulated within Namibia’s unique social, historical, and extractive context. At the same time, we acknowledge that developing this will require additional focused research and resources, especially given the limited body of existing literature in the local setting.
We also value your suggestion to provide more concrete recommendations, clearer milestones, and reflection on structural strategies to encourage a shift in engagement culture within the profession. Your questions regarding public perception data, the extent of the scientist–public gap, and the broader goals of communication are particularly important, especially in light of the current absence of empirical studies addressing these issues locally. These areas offer meaningful direction for continued and future research.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-18-AC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 179 | 55 | 25 | 259 | 15 | 35 |
- HTML: 179
- PDF: 55
- XML: 25
- Total: 259
- BibTeX: 15
- EndNote: 35
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
The authors have done commendable work on presenting the results of the first empirical study of the attitudes of Namibian geoscientists on engaging the public. The paper is clear and well structured, addressing most of the issues it set out to investigate.
In addition to the editor's comments on the need for "deeper engagement with international literature and established best practices", the authors are strongly encouraged to consider incorporating literature African and Southern African on geoscience, science communication and related fields. Also, the inclusion of key non-Western references e.g. from Asia and Latin America is recommended to the international literature. This would substantially strengthen their case on the communication gap and the cultural context.
Other suggestions for the authors to consider:
The authors are encouraged to conduct future research, as suggested in the "Study Limitations", on a more diverse cohort of geoscientists.