Dialogic scientific gatherings with mothers and teachers from a primary school: raising awareness about the impact of gender and education research

The study addresses how to engage communities traditionally excluded from science—particularly non-academic women—in scientific research related to quality education and gender equality. It builds on dialogic theory and community science, where citizens co-create knowledge to improve their communities. Prior work shows many citizens are willing to participate when they understand the social impact of research. Dialogic scientific gatherings (DSGs) are positioned as a community science action that facilitates direct access to scientific knowledge through egalitarian dialogue. Within the ALLINTERACT H2020 project, the authors replicated DSGs with mothers and teachers at a primary school to study: (1) participants’ perceptions of the replicability of DSGs for community participation in science, and (2) how DSGs influence participants’ knowledge of scientific research, engagement with science, and attitudes toward participation.

The paper reviews dialogic learning (DL) and DSGs as mechanisms for inclusive, evidence-based dialogue, grounded in seven principles: egalitarian dialogue, cultural intelligence, transformation, instrumental dimension, creation of meaning, solidarity, and equality of differences. Prior qualitative case studies show DSGs improve scientific literacy and promote community science action across diverse populations: primary students enhanced scientific understanding and critical thinking; older adults with low education reported increased evidence-based decision-making concerning health and environmental issues; and adult women developed critical numeracy through dialogic mathematics gatherings. The review also notes the growth of community and citizen social science, yet highlights limited research on motivations to engage non-academic citizens (especially women) in non-health domains and on citizens’ awareness of science benefits. DSGs are presented as a proven approach to engage groups traditionally not involved in science.

Design: Qualitative case study using two rounds of focus groups (pretest and posttest) bracketing an intervention consisting of 11 DSG sessions. Context and participants: Conducted with 10 mothers (low–middle socioeconomic background) whose children attend a public primary school (Casablanca School, Sant Boi de Llobregat, Barcelona metro area) and two teachers. The school serves diverse immigrant communities and is part of the Schools as Learning Communities network. Recruitment and ethics: Voluntary participation; information provided orally and in writing; consent obtained; no incentives; procedures approved by the University of Barcelona Ethics Committee; GDPR compliant. Pretest focus group (Oct 2021): Explored five topics aligned with ALLINTERACT goals: (a) how citizens benefit from scientific research; (b) citizen awareness of research impact; (c) awareness-raising initiatives engaging citizens, including Open Access; (d) actions fostering recruitment of scientific talent; (e) policies promoting awareness and engagement. Moderation ensured egalitarian dialogue; session audio-recorded, transcribed, anonymized, and translated to English. Intervention (Nov 2021–Jun 2022): 11 DSG sessions (45–60 minutes each), mostly monthly on Fridays at 15:10 in a nearby social centre (COVID-19 regulations). Participants chose the theme—preventing violence and gender violence through education—based on relevance to children’s academic performance and school climate. The research team curated a list of peer-reviewed, indexed, and public-institution studies showing social impact evidence; participants selected which to read. Six open-access papers were ultimately read across 11 sessions (some reread or discussed in multiple sessions), including topics such as preventive socialisation of gender violence, effects of technology on children’s empathy/attention, isolating gender violence (IGV), Zero Violence Brave Club, and interventions in adolescence. Articles in English were translated to Spanish via neural machine translation and reviewed by researchers; paper copies distributed. DSG procedure: Participants and moderator pre-read assigned pages, selected excerpts to share; moderators (three female researchers) introduced main contributions and ensured adherence to DL principles; turn-taking prioritized less-heard voices; contributions required citing the selected excerpt and then offering reflections linking evidence to experiences. Posttest focus group (Jul 2022): Assessed changes in the same five topics, plus two cross-cutting categories: (f) replicability of DSGs (changes in awareness, engagement, attitudes) and (g) DL principles underpinning effects. Four participants joined (three mothers, one teacher). Analysis: Four researchers independently coded pre/post FG data against categories (a–e; f–g cross-cutting), triangulated analyses, resolved discrepancies by consensus, and conducted member checking by sending analyses to participants for feedback.

Pretest FG: - Limited or no prior contact with scientific research among most mothers; benefits of science were mainly associated with health contexts; teachers reported prior benefits in gender equality and education via DSGs. - Participants received abundant information via media/social networks on health, gender, and education but struggled to verify what was evidence-based versus misinformation; expressed need for guidance on identifying scientific evidence. - Few awareness-raising initiatives known beyond health; some had participated in health-related fundraising or clinical studies as patients. - Limited opportunities known for children to engage with science; one example of a school project on women scientists influenced a child’s career interest. - Consensus on the need for policies to promote public awareness and engagement in science, especially for underserved groups. Posttest FG (after 11 DSG sessions on six open-access papers): - Increased awareness of how citizens benefit from research: participants reported deeper understanding of their social reality and of evidence-based actions to prevent violence and gender violence in schools; sense-making (DL principle 5) and instrumental learning (DL principle 4) were salient. - Greater awareness of research impact: reading and dialoguing about evidence (e.g., effects of technology on empathy/attention; IGV) shifted perceptions from fatalistic views of bullying to hope based on preventive measures; participants linked concepts (like IGV) to real experiences and recognized policy impact (e.g., Catalan Legislation 17/2020 incorporating IGV). - Differentiation between opinions and scientific evidence improved; participants valued case-based, evidence-driven content and understood study methodologies better over time. - Enhanced motivation, empowerment, and civic engagement: participants felt more active as educators/citizens; learning was associated with increased freedom and willingness to engage in social improvement. - DSGs themselves functioned as an effective awareness-raising, Open Access-based initiative: diverse backgrounds were valued; egalitarian dialogue reduced fear of reading scientific articles; familiarity with scientific vocabulary grew; participants became more reflective in daily life and expressed desire to continue/expand DSGs. - Replicability and scaling: participants presented the experience at a national forum (Schools as Learning Communities), generating interest in replication; mothers and teachers planned to open DSGs to the neighbourhood and to students; by Feb 2023, DSGs at the school involved 30+ diverse participants (including some fathers and staff) and had begun with children during school hours. - Potential to foster new scientific talent: DSGs seen as spaces that can stimulate interest in science among adults and youth. - Policy perspective: participants suggested public policies could leverage evidence-based, socially impactful actions like DSGs; a participant (Elena) presented at the European Parliament, spotlighting empowerment and solidarity (DL principle 6) and the broader community impact of DSGs.

RQ1 (Replicability): Ensuring the seven principles of dialogic learning and selecting participant-relevant topics enabled successful replication of DSGs with 12 women (10 mothers, 2 teachers) over 11 sessions in a community with varied educational backgrounds. Consistent with prior studies, DSGs generated interest in science among groups traditionally excluded. This case contributes novel evidence by focusing on DSGs addressing prevention of violence and gender violence through education with non-academic women, many with only primary/secondary education. Insights from the DSGs transferred into family dialogues and school practices, leading participants to champion a dialogic model of conflict prevention and resolution. RQ2 (Influence on knowledge, engagement, attitudes): Participants reported increased scientific vocabulary and understanding of research processes, improved capacity to distinguish evidence from opinion, and heightened critical/analytical thinking. Attitudes shifted as fear/reluctance toward scientific texts decreased, replaced by motivation to engage and to verify claims via evidence sources. Engagement extended beyond the DSG sessions, with participants initiating or expanding DSGs in their community and schools, aligning with literature on citizen motivations and awareness of science benefits. Overall, findings indicate DSGs foster both individual and community-level transformations aligned with the SDGs on quality education and gender equality.

The study demonstrates the replicability of DSGs focused on preventing violence and gender violence through education with mothers and teachers largely new to scientific engagement. DSG participation enhanced understanding of how scientific research works, increased involvement in science, and reinforced the importance of evidence-based actions for addressing social problems in schools and communities. Two key conditions for successful replication as a community science action are identified: (1) topics must arise from participants’ interests; and (2) DSGs must adhere to dialogic principles to ensure egalitarian dialogue and collective meaning-making. When scientific activities directly connect to participants’ lives and community benefit, citizens are motivated to understand and participate in science. Future work should replicate DSGs across diverse groups and settings to further substantiate their potential for widening citizen engagement in science.

This qualitative case involves a small, context-specific sample of women participants, limiting generalizability. Human behavioral variables are numerous and inseparable, precluding isolation of causal effects for each participant. Validation in social research relies on replication across diverse settings: similar interventions have shown similar outcomes elsewhere. Further research should replicate DSGs with varied populations and contexts to strengthen evidence on their capacity to engage underrepresented groups in science.