Evolving Science Communication – Conference Report

A conference on evolving science communication.

Dr Kathy Velander, Senior Lecturer in the School of Life Sciences at Edinburgh Napier University, kindly stepped in and attended the Evolving Science Communication symposium run by the The Science Communication Unit at the University of the West of England, Bristol. More details can be found here; www.scu.uwe.ac.uk . You can read Kathy’s report about the conference here…

Evolving Science Communication: learn, adapt, collaborate

26 & 27 March, Watershed Media Centre, Bristol Harbourside

Organised by University of Western England

Andrea Bandelli  (currently the director of the European Project “Decide”  ) gave  a keynote speech on Transferability (knowledge transfer, research translation and model transfer –information passed across sectors) and Sustainability defined by contagiousness –about how projects and concepts transfer in an autonomous way.  The key message seemed to be about social responsibility, the political role of scientists and that we should recognise and learn from failure as well as successes (but who can get failures published?).  The neutrality of science communication was raised along with an example of a display at a nuclear power plant.    

Two discussion groups followed – demonstrating impact and collaboration.  I attended the one on demonstrating impact lead by two science consultants, Ben Gammon and David Shakespeare.   Ben Gammon addressed the issue of can we really measure impact?  With the key issues being the current studies aren’t long enough, poorly resourced, may measure short term changes, but not long term, the basic premise being that for most people science does not have a long term impact and we don’t know how to measure it anyway.  David Shakespeare spoke on ‘Do we know what we want?  And will we know when we get it?’  He commented on most evaluation consists of ‘happy sheets.’  The discussion let to considering evaluation by setting objectives prior to the experience, reflection after it which is followed by ‘I’m going to do x things in the future.’  The subject of box office ‘success’ of exhibits or attractions arose.  Is this the way to measure success?  Clearly for income yet, but impact, no.  The  ‘gee-whizz’ science impact was discussed and although it does bring the punters in, have they learned anything?  We were left with questions: What is the overall function of science engagement?  Why are we doing it? Can short term activities have an impact on career choice?  How measure success?

The last part of the day was spent on discussing ‘Evolution’ which was about science communication, public dialogues, informal versus formal learning.  Roland Jackson, Chief Executive, British Science Association and Derek Bell, Head of Ed., Wellcome Trust, introduced the session.  It was suggested that there were barriers to science: political, cultural, social and scientists themselves.  These need to be broken down and scientists have to derive some value from taking part in public engagement, which currently is not acknowledged.  (The RAE came up later and the fact that ‘wasting’ time talking with the public was time taken away from research.)  The discussion moved into the role of formal versus informal education and how schools are now drawing more from outside and competing with some informal providers.  However, it was pointed out that schools focus on cognitive learning, while science centres and other organisations provoke motivational learning hence there is the potential for a symbiotic relationship.

Friday morning began with two sessions, one Repositories of knowledge, the other on Adaptation.  The former was discussing the Beacon projects, and I sat in on the beginning, but then moved onto the Adaptation which was giving examples of public engagement projects with varying success.  The first case study was of a science performance organised by Wendy Sadler, Science Made Simple, where the performers carrying out the experiments without speaking to the accompaniment of music, films and lighting.  The purpose was to provide an experience that would cross all language boundaries.  Phase I was of mixed success.  Firstly the production wasn’t slick enough as the public expected a spectacular and there were issues with the role of the performing artist and the fact that nothing was explained.  Phase II involved getting music and drama students from the Welsh College of Music and Drama involved.  They used two performers so they could interact (hence have a story -a competition – my experiment is better than yours) and this show won awards at the Edin. Fringe.  The main problem was the expense and how to keep it going as staff moved on.  The second talk was by Jan Riise, Göteburg Centre for Public Learning and Understanding of Science.  He set up a cross Europe network for science communication called WONDERS.  He is currently setting up another network for communicating life science research.  The resulting discussion centred around the similarities and differences between science and art, and how to get the public involved.

Sustainable Futures

The final discussion panel involved four people:  Savita Custead, Bristol Natural History Consortium, Lesley Patterson, Royal Academy of Engineering, Catherine Aldridge, Catalyst Learning and Communication Ltd.,  and Justin Dillon, Kings College London.  The topic of ‘bad’ science arose,  the RAE and the role of science centres as research organisations as well as providers of education and entertainment.  The room was split into four groups with each assigned one of the following questions:

1)       What is public engagement? – depends on which sector you are in, enlightenment, should consider values instead

2)      What are measures of success for science communication?  Easy to carry out metric surveys, relating the why (aim) to the what (knowledge, attitude, behaviour, etc.) but much harder to determine the who and when

3)      What is the purpose of science communication?  Knowledge, people taking part, informing, enabling, facilitating and empowering

4)      What are the tools for disseminating what you know? – how get to new audiences, use existing networks and funding applications should require a space for dissemination, academic journals should encourage papers on public engagement

The general discussion that followed suggested we are still re-inventing the wheel and should identify successes and build on them. 

I found the discussions with the science providers the most valuable part of the meeting.  I was also very interested in the aspect of evaluation (of exhibits as well as learning).  Several other people were also interested in this, so hopefully it will be explored at a follow on meeting.

 If anyone would like to further information, please do contact me (K.Velander@napier.ac.uk).  Videos from the conference as the presentations and notes from the discussion will be posted on the Science Communication Unit at UWE web site:  www.scu.uwe.ac.uk.