Judging the Competition

Judging Panel

An expert balanced judging panel will ensure that all aspects of science communication are assessed. Experts in the fields of live presentation, television, science journalism or science are recruited with the underlying traits of being passionate about science and its communication to the public, and supportive of young talent. Each panel combines different areas of expertise, maximising not only the ability of the judges to weigh up different strengths and weaknesses, but also to give useful feedback even to candidates who don’t get beyond the first round.

The quality of the judging panels is crucial not only to the quality of the winner, but also to how rewarding the experience is for all the contestants. Being critiqued by top science communicators, scientists and TV personalities and getting constructive feedback has been picked out by many FameLab entrants as the most highly appreciated and valued aspect of the competition.

Three is enough for a judging panel, but if you have four judges you have the option of splitting into two panels for early rounds if the numbers of contestants are high, and you can run two parallel heats if required.

Ideal Judging Panel

The ideal judging panel has a range of both expertise and personality types. A prominent and respected scientist or engineer reinforces both the rigour of the panel’s judgment and the message that the content must be reliable. Somebody with experience of live presentation to an audience can give invaluable tips on simple techniques like taking a deep breath before going on stage, making eye contact with the audience, and not hiding behind enormous props. A television producer and/or presenter adds the prospect of being discovered for a television career (but try not to raise unrealistic expectations for contestants) as well as the perspective of what makes a good story and an engaging style. A journalist can also comment on the structure of the presentation.

Judges’ Chair

The role of Chair of the judges is crucial to ensure the smooth running of the competition. The ideal Chair has, as well as some of the qualities above, the ability to lead a difficult decision-making process and keep the rest of the panel to time. They also have the confidence to speak on behalf of the panel to contestants and audience. If you can gather the chairs of each panel for a meeting well ahead of the first heat, you can create some consensus over what the judges are looking for and help maintain a common standard across the heats.

Participating in FameLab International has come with so many opportunities, such as connecting with global and local publics on my research and the importance of African indigenous knowledge as solutions for our societal ills.

Payment

Judging is a demanding role that will probably require a long day, hard decisions, and possibly some travel and an overnight stay. FameLab pays the judges an honorarium, as well as paying their travel and accommodation expenses. Many of them have commented later that they found it exciting and rewarding to be in the presence of so much talent, and all of them expressed their willingness to play the same role again and are now among our most loyal and helpful supporters.

Judging Criteria

The judging criteria are strict across all of the FameLab competitions. We believe that Content, Clarity and Charisma are central for the identification of effective science communicators to an adult lay audience.

Content

The content of the presentations MUST be scientifically accurate. If the topic chosen has controversy or uncertainty around it, then the presentation must acknowledge the opposing views. The scientific topic presented should be well chosen to suit the audience.

Clarity

Clarity is critical for effective science communication. The structure of the talk is important, as well as making sure the audience and judges can follow the talk and are left with an understanding of the scientific concept chosen.

Charisma

The audience and judges should be left inspired and enthused about science. The presenter must have that hard-to-describe but unmistakable quality of charisma. The winner will clearly be the one who makes the science easy to listen to, entertaining, exciting, who is not only able to communicate the science but who can share their passion for it.

Feedback

Allow sufficient time for constructive judges’ feedback. Remember this is one of the most valuable parts of the experience, especially for candidates who don’t make it through to the next round. A couple of minutes to enable more than one judge to say something to each person is adequate, and the Chair of the judges should control the length of comments and keep the timing in check.

For stages of the competition conducted online, feedback can be given in written form.

Comments could include:

■ the contestant’s subject strengths and choice of topics

■ what audiences they would be good at presenting to (e.g. school children or adults)

■ suggestions for improvement e.g. smile more, eye contact, prop use.

Always get judges to give positive encouragement and mention the good points of the talk e.g. “great start, you had me hooked from here” or “I liked how you interacted with the audience”. Honest comments are always appreciated by the contestants rather than false good comments.

Scoring

A judging scoresheet with the contestant names and numbers already written on them (completed when the contestant is registering) should be given to each judge ahead of the competition. See Appendix 3: Judging Brief and Scoresheet Template. Judges write comments for content and mark each person out of five for the three C’s (content, clarity and charisma). A decision is usually not based on the scoring – the judges discuss, argue and finally reach a consensus on the session winners. Scoring and writing comments helps the judges to remember the individual contestants and their presentations.

Heats

Initial heats can be conducted either via digital video submissions, live online heats e.g Zoom, or live in person events. If conducting events online please refer to Appendix

4: Guideline for Online FameLab Events

If conducting a live in-person event, please refer to the following guidelines.

Venues

The requirements of the venue are large, but compromises can be made depending on the size of competition.

Each venue will need:

■ Two rooms are often required (this is in case the judging panel might need to be split up for larger turnouts), but one room can be sufficient for smaller heats.

■ Registration area – a large area. This is the first port of call for the contestants, here they will register, fill out the required forms (seating will be required) and gather to wait for the audition sessions. The all important networking will mostly occur here as well, so make this space comfortable and allow for interactions. At certain times of the event, especially at the start, this area will be very busy and therefore needs to hold large amounts of people. If a café is available nearby that is an added bonus, or if budget allows tea and coffee can be served here to make it all a more pleasant atmosphere.

■ Judges’ room – this is the area that is designated for the judges, here they will be briefed before the event, get some quiet time away from everything, take their breaks and have may even have refreshments. If this room is not too far away from the Audition room the judges may adjourn here to make their decisions.

■ Catering room – this can be combined with the judges’ room, but this is where food or refreshments can be served for the volunteers and staff helping to run the event. If this room is combined with the judges’ room make sure it is big enough for them all to fit into at break time, and allow the judges’ time away from everyone to deliberate and take a break. The volunteers enjoy talking to the judges while in this shared space, do ask the judges first though.

Volunteers

The day can be long and arduous, so it is vital to have good staff around you that are helpful and know the rules of the competition. Volunteers are sometimes people that don’t have enough courage to enter FameLab this year but may enter in following years, so a good experience for them will ensure they come back the next year to either help or enter.

The roles that the volunteers play are varied during the day. They will control the registration process for the contestants, assist the contestants to their sessions (a great help if the venue is large and not easily navigated), time the presentations, and help set up the venue. They can also record judges’ comments to use later on the website, giving tips on what type of thing the judges are looking for. Volunteers will need to be briefed on the rules and regulations of the competition and will be the ones who bring to your attention those contestants that are not eligible (e.g. out of the age group), and those that may have dangerous props. An appreciated reward for the volunteers is to interact with the expert judges and this can happen over lunch. If your event is a full day you may want to rota volunteers for breaks.

Compère

It helps the contestants relax if the stage manager or designated compère briefs the contestants and introduces each contestant to the stage area. This role defuses tensions and covers the time when the judges are making notes. The compère is also useful in keeping the session rolling and if the judges get too caught up with comments the compère can interject.

Registration

The day begins with registration. This is to collect name and contact details, a useful opportunity to gather information that may help you work with the entrants in future (e.g. area of specialty) and also an opportunity to gather evaluation information. Pre-registration can also be a n option. Each person is allocated to a group of around ten, and told which round they will be in. If refreshments and seating are available, entrants are usually quick to network with each other at this stage. Initial audition rounds can be opened to the public. Contestants have reported that watching other groups was a useful learning experience, and that facing a panel of judges was more intimidating without any other audience. Not dealing with members of the public does let the event run more smoothly, however, and means there can be some quality control of presentations before the public sees them. Your partner venue may have a preference.

Timings

FameLab gives each contestant exactly three minutes, and the group should be briefed on what time signals they will receive. It is common to use a hand signal 30 seconds before the end, and a hooter / bell noise at three minutes. One hour is just long enough to run a session with 10 contestants. This will include contestants’ presentations (three minutes each person), feedback (up to two minutes total for each contestant), the judges’ decision at the end of the session, and changeover times.

The judges will need to withdraw from the room to a quiet and private space (which can be just outside the room) to decide who goes forward from each group. How many contestants go forward from each group depends both on quality and on how many contestants have turned up to the heats. It is a good idea to allow a number of reserves to go through to compensate for stronger and weaker sessions, i.e. one session winner and two reserves. This system will allow reserves to be compared against each other after all the sessions have been seen. As many places as are available in the final can then be allocated to the best of the reserves. The downside is that a reserve from the first session will have to wait several hours to know the outcome.

In order to help with the timing of the day, it is ideal for a member of staff to be in the judges’ deliberation. Judges tend to deliberate for longer than timings allow, so having a staff member in the room will considerably speed up the process and keep the judges on track. Additionally, if the judges have questions about the procedure, these can be answered directly. This staff member must remain neutral throughout this time.

Props

How much you encourage, discourage or disallow props is a matter of judgment. Although inexperienced presenters can hamper themselves with too many props, others can use them to great effect and make for a more visually interesting show. Be careful to specify the safety regulations in accordance to your venue e.g. no flames or flammable substances. Some of the most impressive entrants have been the ones who could walk on with nothing and get across a difficult technical subject with nothing but their voice and some simple gestures. But one UK heat was won by an entrant whose props included a bowl of iced water, an ECG machine and one of his own Ph.D. students.

Remember that no PowerPoint presentations may be used, and writing or drawing on paper is to be discouraged.

Filming

Filming each presentation adds an edge of professionalism and excitement for the contestants, even if you have no plans to televise the competition. It also provides useful archive and promotional material. However, it does add extra pressure in terms of lighting and sound recording e.g. contestants and judges might have to be connected to microphones. If you do plan to film the rounds, liaise early with the film crew about their technical and venue needs.

Regional Finals / National Semi-Final

The ideal number of finalists for a Regional Final / National Semi-Final is eight to 12. More than 12 makes the day’s final too long, and less than eight could mean a feeling of anti-climax. The time of the day’s final round needs to be decided with the host venue months in advance so it can be publicised and attract an audience. An audience adds to the sense of occasion, and is of course a key part of FameLab in bringing science communicators together with the public.

In the Regional Final / National Semi-Final the entrants have to give a different three minute presentation. Encourage all contestants to prepare two presentations in all the advertising of the competition. It has been found a number of times that many strong contestants are surprised to get past the first session and disappoint the judges with an ill-prepared presentation for the Regional Final / National Semi-Final.

After the presentation, the judges ask questions of each entrant. They may want to probe the content, testing whether a candidate really has a good understanding and can respond clearly to follow-on questions, or whether they are putting a topic in its true context: is it new research? Controversial? Of importance to the public? Other questions might relate to the participant themselves: how do they see science communication fitting into their career? Would they feel confident talking about different subjects? What science presenters do they admire?

Including time for questions and changeovers, each candidate will take up to eight minutes, so it may be nearly two hours before the judge’s return with their decision. The judges could easily take twenty minutes or more to reach a decision, so it’s important to plan for that time.

When the judges have returned, the chair of judges will announce once winners and two runners up. Encourage the judges to include specific words of encouragement for other contestants. Obtaining photographs (or film footage) of the winners will help with publicity later.

There are a number of adaptations which can be used if there are multiple Regional Final / National Semi-Final and excessive numbers of contestants to make sure that the best contestants from throughout the whole country are selected. A system with ‘wildcards’ can be used where a certain number of wildcards are announced along with the regional winners. These wildcards can be considered with other region’s wildcards and the strongest selected from across the country to form the finalist line up.