Science Communication Conference 2012

IMPACT.

SCIENCE COMMUNICATION CONFERENCE 2012: REPORT

In partnership with:

Contents SUMMARY.................................................................................................................. 3 NOTE FROM THE ORGANISERS AND NETWORKING............................................... 4 INTRODUCTION TO PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT............................................................. 6 KEYNOTE ADDRESS................................................................................................... 8 POSITIVELY UNCERTAIN.......................................................................................... 10 WORKING WITH JOURNALS: ROLLING PUBLICATIONS AND MEDIA RELATIONS 12 EVALUATING IMPACT: THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY................................14 EVALUATING THE IMPACT OF ONLINE ENGAGEMENT...........................................16 HAVING AN IMPACT LOCALLY................................................................................18 EVALUATING GAMES: LEARNING THROUGH PLAY?..............................................20 SCIENCE, GOVERNANCE AND THE IMPACT OF PUBLIC DIALOGUE....................22 WALK A MILE IN THEIR SHOES: ENGAGING DIFFERENT DEMOGRAPHICS...........24 DOES SCIENCE COMMUNICATION BENEFIT FROM NATIONAL INITIATIVES LIKE OLYMPICS 2012?......................................................................................................26 INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATIONS IN SCIENCE COMMUNICATION..................28 HONEST SHARING: REPORTING FAILURE USEFULLY AND SAFELY...........................30 MAKING THE BUSINESS CASE FOR PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT....................................32 YOUTH VOICE: GETTING A FRESH PERSPECTIVE ON YOUR PROJECTS................34 MAKING A DIFFERENCE? MEASURING THE IMPACT OF INFORMAL LEARNING..36 GIVE ME YOUR BRAIN: COMMUNICATING TRICKY TOPICS..................................38 IMPACT THROUGH DIALOGUE AND DELIBERATION..............................................40 MAXIMISING THE IMPACT OF A VOLUNTEER PROGRAMME.................................42 FURTHER READING...................................................................................................44

Report Summary The range of ideas, activities and events in science communication is quite staggering.

There really is something for everyone. But how do we know that the right people are getting involved in the right things, and that they are passing on the message to others?

How do we know that we’re even having an impact at all?

This year, the Science Communication Conference, held at King’s Place in London, focussed on these questions and others, by delving into the complex world of measuring impact, and then the ways to go about analysing those results.

Over 400 delegates from a variety of public engagement organisations and science communicators met to discuss, learn and share their own experiences over the two days of talks and networking sessions.

The first day of the conference began with the keynote address from Lisa Jardine, the Centenary Professor of Renaissance Studies and Director of the Centre for Editing Lives and Letters at Queen Mary, University of London. Then, for the first time, we had one of two networking sessions to round off the morning, and to ease everyone into the afternoon of parallel sessions.

There was a great range of talks available this year, on the first day alone you had the choice of going to a discussion about evaluating games, evaluating the impact of online engagement, having an impact locally, and many more.

The second day started with a talk about what benefits science communicators could take from large scale national initiatives, such as the London 2012 Olympics. This was followed by the second of the two networking sessions, and the rest of the day was taken up by the remaining parallel sessions.

These included discussions on international collaborations, youth projects, communicating tricky topics, and making the business case for public engagement.

The day, and the conference, was wrapped up with a performance from Helen Arney, comedian, musician, and one third of the Festival of the Spoken Nerd, who performed her show, Voice of an Angle.

This report contains the summaries for each of the sessions, written by the delegates who received a bursary to attend the conference.

This report was compiled and edited by Louise Ogden, and was designed and produced

by Toby Shannon, both from the British Science Association.

All session presentations can be viewed at www.slideshare.net/SciCommConf

The Science Communication Conference is delivered by the British Science Association in partnership with:

SCIENCE COMMUNICATION

CONFERENCE 2012: IMPACT

A note from the organisers

Presentations and evaluation Presentations, evaluation report, podcasts and selected blog posts from the conference are available at: www.britishscienceassociation.org/ScienceCommunicationConference Impact If you want to know more about Impact: Measuring the impact of public engagement – National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement: http://www.publicengagement.ac.uk/what/measuring-impact Pathways to impact – Research Councils UK: http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/kei/impacts/Pages/ home.aspx REF2014 (Research Excellence Framework): http://www.ref.ac.uk/ ESRC Impact Toolkit: www.esrc.ac.uk/impact-toolkit Keep in touch e-lerts - signup and receive the latest news and opportunities for the conference, including call for proposals and bursaries.

Twitter - follow us @SciCommConf.

Conference LinkedIn group - start a discussion, tell us about your project, ask a question.

Email – drop us a line sis@britishscienceassociation.org Thanks We’d like to thank the speakers and chairs of the sessions whose imagination and expertise made the Conference so informative and enjoyable. A special mention goes to the team at King’s Place for their tireless efforts in ensuring the Conference ran as smoothly as it did. We’d also like to thank the contributors mentioned above and volunteers from the British Science Association whose help was invaluable.

Networking Report written by: Monica Lobo, British Science Association NETWORKING: interact with others to exchange information and develop professional or social contacts.

Over the years, networking has consistently been one of the most important features for the attendees of the Science Communication Conference. This year we decided to go all out for networking, and scheduled in sessions for both days, and two separate evening events.

Our starting point was entertainment. The night before the conference, delegates were invited to Science Showoff - an open mic night at the pub next door to the Conference venue. It was an opportunity to laugh, cheer and chat with other delegates over a pint of beer.

That wasn’t the only opportunity to chat with acquaintances old and new. On day one of the Conference, we held our popular speed networking session, mathematically devised to ensure everyone talks to the maximum number of people in a limited amount of time.

It’s a great way to get the conversational juices flowing, and allows even the most shy to have a chance to talk about themselves.

And if that wasn’t enough, the extended lunch and coffee breaks allowed for continued chats over a coffee and a croissant. It was also the chance to catch up with someone you’d spotted on the delegate list, sent out the week before, and pick their brains about whatever you desired. The drinks reception on day one was an extra opportunity to have a relaxed chat at the end of the day.

During day two we launched an experimental Sci Com Salon, where people gathered in small groups to discuss specific themes, such as science education, engaging business, and the impact agenda. A medical simulation took place at the same time, tackling the difficult situation of what happens when someone has a heart attack. For those who just wanted to continue an earlier conversation we also had the Chat Space, and the Soap Box was the place to be to hear about other delegates’ projects and ideas.

Delegates could also introduce their projects and expertise to others by writing on the Lonely Hearts boards or leaving information on the Literature table. We had a thriving conversation on Twitter as well.

We ended the Conference the way we began it – with a bit of light-hearted fun. Helen Arney, gave the delegates a sneak preview of her upcoming Edinburgh Fringe show, The Voice of an Angle, and got everyone giggling before they left for the day.

Tweets from this session Allan Pacey: Just been ‘Speed Networking’ at #scicom12 met some really interesting people - maybe I didn’t bring enough business cards!

SCIENCE COMMUNICATION

CONFERENCE 2012: IMPACT

Introduction to public engagement

Report written by: Laura Middleton, Open University Speaker: Karen Bultitude (UCL) Opening the Science Communication Conference this year was Karen Bultitude, a part time lecturer in Science Communication at University College London, who addressed the fundamental questions why engage with the public, and what is the reason for doing so? For those new to public engagement, this session first considered what science communication entails - a process that involves transmitters, receivers and collaborators.

Transmission, a ‘fairly simple process’, is the one way communication of knowledge, usually from scientist to publics, to inspire, inform, change, educate, build capacity and involvement, or influence the decisions of others. This is the traditional way of doing things, with lectures and TV programmes being an example of transmitting science.

However, things are changing, with the need for publicly informed and directed research, the transmission model has become out dated. The scientist becomes a receiver, using surveys and consultations to gauge public opinion, using the views, skills, and experience of the public to, again, inspire, inform, change and educate. Collaboration between research institutions and the public is becoming a cornerstone of modern science, providing an interactive way for people to engage with research.

Who exactly are the public? One common error in science communication is to assume that the public are a homogenous bunch with no pre-existing knowledge of the subject being communicated. However, there are many publics; non-scientists, scientists in different fields, different age groups; young people from schools, colleges or universities, families, and policy makers to name but a few. “It’s difficult to reach everybody with one mechanism” warned Bulititude, and usually, engagement will involve a mixture of transmission, receiving and collaboration on both sides. Unfortunately with this new form of collaborative engagement, comes a trade off with the depth and breadth of information communicated, but despite this, and the fact that good collaborative links are difficult to establish, this new form of communication is worth it. In fact, there are many reasons and motivations for public engagement, from the grandiose need to make the world a better place, to meet global challenges, and increase quality of living, to the self-interested enhancement of career and funding prospects, development of an influential profile, and increasing impact of research. In these modern times where funding is limited, and the need for inter-disciplinary research is all important, every reason to engage is worthy.

Regardless of your reasons to engage, modern technology has opened up many more avenues for people to communicate and collaborate. As well as the more traditional forms of public engagement, which generally run on the transmission theme, people can now blog, tweet, and update their scientific status on the internet, allowing many audiences an insight into the previously unseen and somewhat secretive world of science. As well as the plethora of public engagement campaigns going on online, a number of recurring and successful events have opened up that allow direct engagement with audiences. These include science festivals, Brightclub, Famelab, and CafĂŠ Scientifique. These events usually combine science with a mixture of comedy, debate and occasionally music! Other programmes such as STEMNET allow researchers to go into schools and discuss current topics with young people of all age ranges, and provide an easy and common way of getting into public engagement. Those who partake in science communication usually agree that they get as much out of it as those they engage with. Now is as good a time as any to start engaging people with your science, with many helpful tools and sources of information available online (see below).

In theme with the conference focus, Bultitude pressed the importance of measuring the impact of public engagement – the overall impact and influence of the activity undertaken. With a public demand for a more open society, and research funding bodies now realising the importance of public engagement, impact is becoming increasingly relevant, so isn’t it time we started communicating?

Tweets from this session Gary Kerr: First session over. So many enthusiastic scientists at this conference. Amazing. #SciCom12

Slides from this session are available at: http://www.slideshare.net/SciCommConf/scc-2012-introduction-to-public-engagementkaren-baltitude

SCIENCE COMMUNICATION

CONFERENCE 2012: IMPACT

Keynote address: Lisa Jardine

Report written by: Shen Yan Liow, University of the West of England Lisa Jardine in conversation with Sue Nelson Impact – making science matter Lisa Jardine kicked off the Science Communication Conference 2012 with her keynote address on making science matter. “Can you all please point to your liver,” she asked the rather bemused looking audience. There were a few murmurs and grumbles as everyone realised that pointing to their own liver was easier said than done. She explained that many of us are unable to locate our own vital organs; or describe their function and connections to one another. She admitted that even she was guilty of this before she was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2004.

There are many things in life that we take for granted, including our health, explained Jardine. And it is not until we are directly affected by something, like cancer, that we sit up and take notice of our own bodies. When we’re put into a life or death situation, the sense of urgency forces us to learn, and this is when impact becomes most apparent.

Science impact shouldn’t be defined as a combination of outputs and outcomes, or even the transfer of science knowledge to the widest possible audience, urged Jardine.

No matter how effectively this is done, we are still unable to guarantee our audience will remember it all the next day. “To achieve real impact, we have to make the audience feel that our knowledge matters to them”, she said. That doesn’t mean that everyone has to learn the hard, and painful, way. Communicators just have to make the science relevant to the audience, and make them feel part of the story too.

Don’t underestimate your audience “Nothing is too difficult to talk about, as long as your audience doesn’t know it is difficult”, offered Jardine, advice given to her by her father, Jacob Bronowski, known for his 13part documentary series, The Ascent of Man. A few decades ago, when her father was presenting on television, the world seemed to be a smaller place. Stories broadcast on the television were nearly always Euro-centric, and although the narrative was unfamiliar, it still wasn’t too difficult for the audience to grasp.

Connection with the audience was much easier to build back then compared to today, reflected Jardine. Now the different medias are all in competition with each other, and audiences are faced with multiple sources of information, some more reliable than others.

It is not just the technology that is changing; the audiences are changing as well, said

Jardine. Communication is no longer one-way, with the audience sitting there being spoon-fed the information. Now getting a user’s feedback is vital to the process. The loss of authority however, has been replaced with accessibility. However, accessibility has not gained trust from the public, and now your audience is much less likely to take everything you say for granted.

Jardine believes that the golden rule for avoiding mistrust is to have a mediator who knows the subject inside out. She referred to the BBC science programmes that have now become so popular, where most of the mediators are humanities trained, working to bridge the gaps between science and the masses. She questioned the quality of science going through the hands of non-science trained communicators. Meanwhile she also strongly argued that we as science communicators must stop underestimating our audience.

There is no general public, she claimed, and they are much more knowledgeable than we assume, with nearly 25% of the population now having a science background.

Get passionate We won’t achieve impact unless we are genuinely excited about the things we are communicating, reflected Jardine. She strongly believes in having collaborations across different disciplines and urged that we stop dividing ourselves into two separate cultures. She sees collaboration with people from different disciplines as an effective and economical way of generating impact-heavy activities. Although there may be disagreements during these partnerships, the benefits are priceless, allowing us to build our own knowledge and understanding in order to share this with others.

Lisa Jardine herself is living proof of the success of this cross disciplinary model. She is a cultural optimist and has confidence that people are clever enough to be able to master things eventually. Once again she repeated that for impact to have its true value, the audience must be made to feel that the information you’re presenting matters to them and will make a real difference to their lives. Science communicators must convince the public at large that every decision they make in their daily lives requires them to grasp concepts and access data drawn from the domain of science.

Tweets from this session British Science Fest: It dead quiet out here at the #scicom12 reception desk. Everyone is at the keynote address by #LisaJardine Karen Bultitude: Brilliant choice of keynote - feels like we’re having a cosy chat in the pub but audience is hanging on every word. #SciCom12 Holly Rogers: Interesting contrast between arts and science broadcasts - arts presenters show off knowledge, while sci presenters play it down. #scicom12

SCIENCE COMMUNICATION

CONFERENCE 2012: IMPACT

Positively uncertain

Report written by: Laura Walker, University of Bristol Speakers: Amanda Burls (University of Oxford), Peter Gibbs (Met Office), Robin Hoyle (Glasgow Science Centre) Chaired by: Dominic McDonald (Science Oxford) ‘Broadly stated, there is a lay perception that science is a body of facts...but most of us would say that science isn’t a body of facts, it’s a process of enquiry...’

An introduction from Dominic McDonald framed the issues around ‘uncertainty’ in the context of semantics, and the differing meanings between lay and scientific audiences.

What does ‘unlikely’ mean to the man on the street? Would it mean the same to a volcanologist? Could there be life-threatening consequences of miscommunication in such a scenario?

Robin Hoyle, from the Glasgow Science Centre, began by defining what is meant by ‘uncertainty’ and highlighting that it can have positive or negative connotations depending on its context.

The improvement of scientific literacy was drawn upon as an exemplary way in which the Glasgow Science Centre has approached the communication of uncertainty. Their underlying thesis is that a scientifically literate public are better positioned to understand the concepts of scientific uncertainty. Thus educating people in attitudes and skills – in the processes of science and the characteristics of being a scientist – allows us to better communicate the ideas of uncertainty and risk, and how scientists cope with these aspects too. Communicating uncertainty is the outcome of communicating baseline science literacy.

But what motivates people to engage with uncertainty? Three ways were outlined: 1) practical motivations, such as uncertainties surrounding healthcare, 2) civic motivation e.g. climate change, and 3) cultural motivations.

Peter Gibbs, from the Met Office, outlined the ways in which communication of uncertainty has changed at the Met Office over recent years. Whereas the experts previously decided on the story and presented it as fact, messages today are those of likelihood and chance. Past attitudes that assumed deficit on the part of the audience have been replaced with an acknowledgement that publics can, in fact, handle the complexities of real life situations, and handle them well.

Embracing this, the Met Office has been experimenting with ensemble forecasting as a way of expressing weather options to the public. This involves displaying a graphic with several possible weather outcomes: the picture details the potential routes of a storm across England, and the associated percentage chance of it happening. The public can then come to their own decisions about associated risk.

Amanda Burls from University of Oxford outlined how the training she co-ordinates for medical students must always begin with getting them to question their confidence and recognise uncertainty.

Their approach to uncertainty is to proactively encourage their students to embrace it and work effectively within its shadow. Students must distinguish the difference between uncertainty as a product of ignorance, and uncertainty of the unknown. They are then trained to overcome the former quickly, leaving only the latter option when uncertainty arises in their jobs. They should then be well-positioned to adequately explain this type of uncertainty to their patients.

Students are informed about uncertainty principles with games and real-life demonstrations, which have proven very effective in helping to frame the issues.

For example, when asked to attribute a percentage to phrases frequently used to communicate uncertainty, a very wide spread can be seen in interpretation. This demonstrates the associated problems with the language they might use with their patients.

The talks were followed by a group discussion, where a number of questions were raised, including how regulators could communicate uncertainty better, and knowing what the best way to represent risk to the public was. The key ideas that came out were that you should use natural numbers and be consistent. Graphs were not considered a very popular method, but analogy is a very good way of relating risks to people. The context of risks is also important, and can be used to provide clarity – e.g. the risk of falling down stairs compared to the risk of being hit by a car. This comparison allows for easier comprehension by publics, however, care should be taken when using such examples as connotations and previously-held biases can influence the individual’s perception of what is actually meant (e.g. if someone perceives the likelihood of being hit by a car to be high).

Tweets from this session Rose Schultz: In the #scicom12 session on uncertainty... I think…

Rosie Schultz: Analogy is a useful tool to communicate levels of risk and uncertainty #scicom12 But could it do more harm than gd if u ‘get it wrong’??

Slides from this session are available at: http://www.slideshare.net/SciCommConf/scc2012-positively-uncertain-amanda-burls http://www.slideshare.net/SciCommConf/scc-2012-positively-uncertain-robin-hoyle http://www.slideshare.net/SciCommConf/scc-2012-positively-uncertain-uncertainforecast-peter-gibbs

SCIENCE COMMUNICATION

CONFERENCE 2012: IMPACT

Working with journals: rolling publication and media relations

Report written by: Lisa Raffensperger, City University Speakers: Harald Boersma (Elsevier), Ruth Francis (Nature Publishing Group), Clare Ryan (UCL), Joe Winters (Institute of Physics) Chaired by: Sue Nelson Journals and press officers often feel at loggerheads – but their goals overlap in many respects, and there are lots of areas where greater cooperation is possible. That was the overarching message of this session on working with journals.

Panel member, Harald Boersma, Senior Manager of Corporate Relations at Elsevier, described the challenge of promoting the content of 2000+ journals with one press officer on staff. Elsevier distribute press releases via journal sites and EurekAlert, and also rely on PR agencies in some markets. They’ve also recently relaunched a monthly newsletter that promotes research that’s not been press-released, including a 2-3 line summary and a link to the journal article. Nearly a quarter of the articles promoted this way are picked up by the media.

Elsevier is unable to set embargoes on papers, he said, due to technical systems. The lack of embargo means that press releases are sent out at the time of the article’s publication, which is an oft-cited problem among press officers and journalists. Elsevier is working to address this, Boersma said, though they’re not there yet.

The second speaker was Joe Winters, senior press officer at the Institute of Physics (IoP).

The Institute is both a learned society and a publishing house for over 60 journals, along with some journals it co-publishes. In determining which of this research is promoted to the media, Winters said, IoP works with publishers, who work in turn with their editors, to “hone their sense of what’s newsworthy and encourage them to send it to us”.

Sometimes, Winters said, a press release is requested by the paper’s author or the editorial board but rarely from university press offices – which would be an easy way for universities to get more involved in journal press releases.

“We’re happy to share press release writing responsibilities with other press offices,” Winters said, adding that the only issue IoP has had in working with others is broken embargoes.

The third presentation came from Ruth Francis, head of the Nature press office. The press office’s main responsibility is to promote research from Nature and other NPG journals via releases, press conferences, and ensuring visibility on NPG websites, Francis said. They generally provide a week of warning before publication to authors and journalists about what is appearing in each edition of the journals, but their office isn’t able to email all press offices to warn of publication. “We can tell you when the paper’s been accepted,

but we don’t know the publication date,” Francis said; the best way to learn this information is to encourage the author to alert the press office when he or she hears from Nature.

The pressure to publish quickly Francis attributed not to a hungry Internet media but rather to the scientist authors – “If we can’t turn it around quickly they’ll submit elsewhere,” she said. Thus the newest ‘fast track’ publication schedule means there’s just four days between acceptance and publication.

Francis acknowledged that Nature’s press release schedule doesn’t always allow university or funder press offices to anticipate publications far enough in advance. Thus, she said, press offices should encourage academics to tell them when the authors are publishing, track the ones who cover press-worthy topics, and look into the time frames, from acceptance to publication, of journals they often publish in.

The final presentation came from Clare Ryan, Media Relations Manager at UCL. Ryan gave the university press office side of the experience, in which she said some troublesome spots were when uncorrected proofs appear in an online archive, such as arxiv.org; when uncorrected proofs appear on a journal website without warning; and when the journal can’t predict when a paper will be published because of an automatic system.

In these situations, she said, her first recourse is to contact the journal – sometimes they can hold back online publication. If not, she said a paper could still be worthy of a press release, depending if the story had been picked up anywhere. In this case, the release could be pegged to the print edition.

However, if the research is strong and an immediate release means it might get overlooked, Ryan said she would often pitch the story to one journalist. Once that story was published, Ryan said, a release could be sent saying, for instance, “BBC picked this up”.

Finally, Ryan added her own suggestions of how science press offices could improve their process. “We’re fighting to write press releases but maybe we should just pitch things at individual journalists and only press release things that are stock front page,” she proposed. Also, “maybe we shouldn’t press release anything not embargoed or if the journal isn’t open access.” Finally, she said, it would help if journals were transparent about embargo policy – if each journal website specified whether or not they operated under an embargo then many hours of university press office hours could be saved trying to find that information out.

Slides from this session are available at: http://www.slideshare.net/SciCommConf/scc-2012-working-with-journals-rolling-publication-andmedia-relations http://www.slideshare.net/SciCommConf/scc-2012-working-with-journals-rolling-publication-andmedia-relations-joe-winters http://www.slideshare.net/SciCommConf/scc-2012-working-with-journals-rolling-publication-andmedia-relations-clare-ryan

SCIENCE COMMUNICATION

CONFERENCE 2012: IMPACT

Evaluating impact: the good, the bad and the ugly

Report written by: Ben Still, Queen Mary, University of London Speakers: Jennifer DeWitt (King’s College London), Justin Dillon, (King’s College London), Helen Featherstone (University of the West of England), Andy Lloyd (Centre for Life), Tom Ziessen (Wellcome Trust) Chaired by: Paul Manners (NCCPE) Measuring the impact of informal science learning events is tricky – how can you even begin to answer the question of whether you’ve actually had any impact with the events or interventions you’ve delivered? This discussion session at the Science Communication Conference aimed to articulate issues and debates around the landscape of impact evaluation of informal science learning and engagement experiences.

The session was run using the World Café format, where groups of eight people sat around each table discussing one particular question given by the speakers. Given a 10-minute deadline at each table, each delegate visited just three of the tables on offer.

In total there were 8 questions raised by the speakers. Each speaker had approximately three minutes in which to ‘provoke’ delegates’ thinking about the issues involved in evaluating impact.

The eight questions raised were as follows: • If informal science learning is not primarily about information provision - how do we assess skills, inspiration and confidence building? (Andy Lloyd, Centre for Life) • A one off activity is not going to turn people into engineers, scientists or mathematicians. So what can we expect to achieve through one off, short term activities? (Lesley Paterson, Royal Academy of Engineering, delivered by Helen Featherstone) • How can we get beyond the low hanging fruit of impact evaluation? (Tom Ziesen, Wellcome Trust) • How is practice shaped by the need to show impact? (Jen DeWitt, King’s College London) • Impact evaluation for whom: the funder, the practitioner, the public, the researcher/scientist? (Helen Featherstone, University of Exeter) • Taking a positivist approach to evaluating impacts cannot capture the diversity of personal meanings made by visitors/participants (Justin Dillon, King’s College London) • Whose definition of impact? The funder, the practitioner, the evaluator, participants? (Helen Featherstone) • Any activity with teens and adults is mainly brand maintenance because attitudes and decisions relating to science are made before secondary school age. (Helen Featherstone)

A number of key points came out of these discussions. Several participants felt that one-off activities have the potential to change a person’s opinions about science and engineering, but there needs to be a supportive environment of later experiences that build on the initial one in order for this to happen. Whether or not this happens is often idiosyncratic, making it nect to impossible to track the impact of one-off experiences. Narrative accounts or case studies are a popular method of evaluating impact, and they do produce something tangible for funders and project managers to focus on. However, many agreed that the qualitative nature of such narratives often leads to their being dismissed by some.

The question of who impact evaluation was for threw up some interesting answers. Many believed that evaluation should benefit practitioners and inform future projects, but questions were raised about how often this actually happens in practice. Others felt that often the evaluation of impact could be most useful to funders, to help them decide what projects should be funded in the future.

The belief here was that this could result in events being run that are likely to have a greater benefit to the public, but that impact evaluations were not necessarily directly useful to the public at large.

It was noted that in science communication, the majority of activity was driven by funders, researchers or communicators, rather than by public demand. When the public has helped to shape a project it is often within the boundaries set by the communicator, researcher and/or funder. One result of this ‘top down’ approach is that often the public and their perspective can be lost or forgotten.

SCIENCE COMMUNICATION

CONFERENCE 2012: IMPACT

Evaluating the impact of online engagement

Report written by: Rebecca Hill, BioNews Speakers: Karen Bultitude (University College London), Tony Hirst (Open University), Shane McCracken (Gallomanor), Jonathan Sanderson (StoryCog) Chaired by: Colin Johnson “I’m Shane McCracken, and I’ve got you here under false pretences,” confessed the first speaker of the session, who organises the event ‘I’m a scientist, get me out of here’.

He explained that, as an online event, they generate an enormous amount of data, but “haven’t got a clue what to do with it”.

It was clear that an excess of data, but not knowing how to use it to demonstrate impact, or indeed what information was even useful, was a common problem for many of the participants.

Next up was Jonathan Sanderson, who recently started the Royal Institution’s new video site. When he asked who in the group used Google analytics, most people raised their hands, but the consensus was that no one felt they were using it effectively. While saying it was fantastic, Sanderson did note its limitations, such as its inability to tell him how many videos people watched on the RiChannel, or at what time of the day they viewed them.

As it is based around marketing objectives, he continued, it limits the types of questions we can ask, which brought him onto the goals function – a tool that only two people in the room had used. Sanderson said that with a little imagination you can make this applicable to your site – so rather than asking how many passing visitors you convert into product purchasers you might ask how many signed up to a newsletter.

He also introduced the ‘Let’s Get Real: How to evaluate success online’ report, produced from Culture24’s action research project. Sanderson described the report, published by those working on museums and physical spaces’ websites, as a frank and clear look at how most of us are using Google analytics, and doing it really badly.

Karen Bultitude steered the discussion toward qualitative analysis – something it turned out the majority of the group didn’t have much experience of. Wordles were first on the agenda - where the size of the word represents how many times it’s been used. But this method is littered with problems: individual words lack context; longer words can look more important; and it’s quite superficial. It also requires a lot of data preparation: you have to exclude common ‘filler’ words like ‘to’ or ‘what’; group ‘stemming’ words (‘scientist’ and ‘scientists’); and identify related terms.

Even after that you have only presented the data, not interpreted it. By organising common words into themes and investigating context you give the words a deeper meaning that can illustrate impact.

Tony Hirst, of the Open University, spoke about his work analysing social media, with a particular focus on Twitter. On looking for interesting elements to analyse, he hit on the idea of mapping people’s use of hashtags. He showed diagrams of Twitter users mentioning particular hashtags, connected by lines to show who follows them.

Then Hirst moved on to analysing community dynamics – how do people come into a conversation and how does the word spread? This is the concept of reach: if you take all the people tweeting a hashtag, how many people will see their message?

Alexandra Saxon was the final speaker in the session. “I can’t give you a magic formula,” she said, in relation to what research funders want to see. But she did stress how important it was to know what impact you’re trying to demonstrate, and that funders look for something tangible that shows how this has benefitted a particular audience.

She ended by saying that even the heads of evaluation across the research councils found this a tough subject, but said it was necessary to draw together quantitative data with qualitative information.

The session ended with group discussions and the key points that were raised ranged from the specific (ethical issues of protecting personal identities) to the very broad (how can you decide on metrics until you know what the questions are?). They also touched on the difficulties of consistent comparison in longitudinal studies, where even tiny differences in questions could affect your data, and the necessity of considering what questions your stakeholder groups will want answered.

Colin Johnson, chair of the event, summed up by agreeing that it’s important to structure projects around measurable goals, and to make sure your evaluation strategy is related to those objectives, however, he echoed one of the delegate’s comments that sometimes “we just have to accept the looseness of it all”.

SCIENCE COMMUNICATION

CONFERENCE 2012: IMPACT

Having an impact locally: what must change and what is sacred?

Report written by: Holly Rodgers, University of Sheffield

Speakers: Steve Cross (University College London), Ann Grand (University of the West of England), Sarah Jenkins (Jenesys Associates), Claire Rocks (Cheltenham Festivals) Chaired by: Dom McDonald (Science Oxford) The recent trend of merging cultural shows with science, or vice versa, have taken the country by storm. But how can you ensure you’re having an impact locally, and how do you go about starting such a project? This session focussed on three such events, Bright Club, Famelab and Café Scientifique, and how they achieved the success they have on a local scale.

The session kicked off with an introduction to Bright Club, by one of its founders, Steve Cross. Bright Club is a series of events that allow researchers to perform stand-up comedy about their work, which targets a non-scientific, comedy club-attending audience rather than reaching out to other scientists.

With regards to using Bright Club to reach the adult community, he commented, “We’ve always said, people have loads of contact with the university up to the age of 18, then there’s this huge gap, and then once they turn 50, they start watching Horizon.” Bright Club uses a franchise model, and Steve trains the performers and organisers before the first show in a new city to keep the ethos intact, after finding organisers initially struggled to arrange events without some guidance.

Next, Claire Rocks spoke about Famelab, a public speaking contest for non-professional science communicators. Like Bright Club, it comes with a characteristic set of rules, and is held worldwide, but it is also both a registered brand and a competition, and so requires a certain level of homogeneity. It sticks to a 3 minute, no Powerpoint format, and began in 2005 at the Cheltenham Science Festival. They have also worked with NASA after arranging an astrobiology Famelab in the USA. Last year saw some changes to the structure – there were independently arranged regional heats, which were much less “carbon copied”. The events were organised by a variety of science centres from around the country, with a grand final in London. They also offered their own coaching, which gave varied results – Claire said some centres offered better training than others, and gave mixed messages to participants, so there may be a move towards better standardisation next year.

Ann Grand is voluntary co-ordinator of Café Scientifique, an informal event which encourages scientific discussion led by a speaker. Ninety per cent of Café Scientifique organisers are volunteers. Café Scientifique is widely known in the scientific community, and Anne said she originally believed the concept was well understood. However, over

time, it seems the idea of Café Scientifique has been distorted to become more like a lecture, with a slideshow and rows of chairs. In her words, “calling it a “Café” doesn’t make it a Café Scientifique”. In Anne’s opinion, there should be a quarter of the audience with their backs to the speaker at any one time, to maintain a level of inward-facing discussion around tables.

The first audience question was “How do you tailor advertising for the events to reach local communities?” Apparently Bright Club copies the advertising strategies of local comedy clubs to attract the right audience, while Claire said Famelab largely relies on local networks and the efforts of the centres arranging the events. Anne said Café Scientifique mostly uses posters and mailing lists of previous attendees, relying on a certain level of word of mouth publicity and reputation.

Another audience member asked about the need to relinquish control of the events. Ann said Café Scientifique depends on trust, as they do not own any of the rights to the event, while Famelab requires a subscription which helps to keep the core values aligned. Bright Club has a totally “hands off” approach, but makes use of positive reinforcement and feedback to keep organisers on board.

Someone asked about the difficulties of recruiting performers. Bright Club has an advantage because it is associated with UCL, and most researchers are required to do some outreach. They also have a good history of speakers, including a Wellcome trustee and two UCL deans. Café Scientifique shies away from persuading unwilling speakers – Anne believes “an uncomfortable speaker is a bad speaker”, and generally sticks to those who are willing and enthusiastic from the start.

An audience member quoted Oliver Sacks speaking about Café Scientifique, when he described it as “bringing science back into culture”, but pointed out it could also be interpreted the other way around.

The main conclusion was that all three organisations depend on some specific criteria that make their events recognisable, but it is difficult, and often undesirable, to maintain full control of the events once they begin to spread. Most of these events are run by a very small number of people, and a certain level of trust and training is required to ensure franchised events maintain the core message of each organisation. However, collaboration and flexibility can also lead to improved, tailored events, such as the Ugandan Café Scientifique events, which largely disseminate and discuss health information. The key to keeping events true to form is to encourage dialogue and feedback between participants and organisers.

SCIENCE COMMUNICATION

CONFERENCE 2012: IMPACT

Evaluating games: learning through play?

Report written by: Lauren Reid, Centre for Life Speakers: Hannah Clipson (Science Museum), Martha Henson (Wellcome Trust), Helen Kennedy (University of the West of England) Chaired by: Sue Nelson Games are just for playing and messing around, right? Well, perhaps not. Can we communicate valuable scientific lessons through games? And if so, how would we begin to evaluate the impact of such learning?

Hannah Clipson opened up the discussion, drawing on the methodologies that she and her colleagues at the Science Museum use to evaluate the impact of the museum’s online games, using the “Futurecade”, a set of arcade-style science games, as a case study example.

Clipson began by addressing the reasonable question of why a museum would even bother developing an online game in the first place, and answered her own question with some persuasive points. She highlighted that such a medium allows people to connect with the museum outside its walls, facilitating engagement with a wider audience than those who have the means to physically visit the museum. An online game is also a way of articulating and engaging users with scientific content which can often be perceived as difficult or boring, and can provide the user with an enjoyable learning experience.

Clipson went on to explain the importance of evaluating games during the development stage. She admitted that it may seem like a waste of time to evaluate at this point in production – most of the ideas and concepts behind the game have already been decided, so why bother evaluating it now? Her answer was improvement. The game must meet the original objectives as well as the needs of the audience, and any barriers to usability, motivation and comprehension must be identified and removed at this stage.

Using “Futurecade” as an example, Clipson described the evaluation and feedback procedure: A rigorous process involving concept testing with a focus group of teenagers, wireframe testing involving interviews, and prototype testing involving observations and interviews. It was an interesting insight into the work and research that goes into something like the development of an educational game.

Martha Henson from the Wellcome Trust summed up the need for the evaluation of games nicely: “You need to know that what you do works”. She concluded that game evaluation is invaluable as it informs future game design, aids external dissemination and

discussion, and very often the results are, “surprising, rewarding and fascinating”.

Helen Kennedy provided a few very neat examples of online games and the impact they can have on those that play them.

The whole audience were intrigued at her suggestion that the computer game, “The Sims” is actually the perfect game for promoting capitalism, with its focus on money and material objects resulting in a better life for the virtual characters. The focus of her talk was captured when she said “games not only deliver messages, but also simulate experiences”.

Kennedy concluded her talk by answering her own question: “Can games make a better world?” Following the information provided in her talk, her answer was convincing: Games take real world problems and use play to solve them.

One audience member asked a question which was probably a burning one for the educators in the room: “How do you get the balance between entertainment and education?”

Clipson, again pointed to her “Futurecade” case study, explained that in this particular project the feedback from the focus groups was used to alter certain features of the game to assure the scientific content and messages were reaching the users. For instance, all the content was embedded into aspects of the game (as it became clear during evaluation that users did not read instructions). A delay between instructions and the “play” button appearing was also introduced to encourage the reading of important points.

Henson used this question to highlight the importance of inter-disciplinary collaboration on projects like this – game designers know what they are doing, and by working together with scientists, researchers and educators, an optimal balance can be reached.

Kennedy simply answered the question with “iterate, iterate, iterate”. Her suggestion was that you have to look at existing games, and what users are learning from them. There is nothing wrong with using an existing game that users enjoy playing already, and making changes to it in order to make it more educational.

The focus now should be on how to effectively evaluate the real impact such games are having on those playing them, and how we can further utilise gaming in public engagement with science.

Tweets from this session SAPS: excellent session on measuring the impact of games at #scicom12. Hugely thought provoking and lots to take away in terms of practical tasks Slides from this session are available at: http://www.slideshare.net/SciCommConf/scc-2012-evaluating-games-learning-through-play-summativeevaluation-martha-henderson http://www.slideshare.net/SciCommConf/scc-2012-evaluating-games-learning-through-play-13826602 http://www.slideshare.net/SciCommConf/scc-2012-evaluating-games-learning-through-play-formativeevaluation-hannah-clipson

SCIENCE COMMUNICATION

CONFERENCE 2012: IMPACT

Science, governance and the impact of public dialogue

Report written by: Briony Bowe, Natural Environment Research Council Speakers: Darren Bhattachary (TNS-BMRB), Jason Chilvers (University of East Anglia), Andrew Hunter (TNS-BMRB), Roland Jackson (British Science Association) Chaired by: Laura Bowater (Norwich Medical School) Science is increasingly important in issues which affect us all, from health to climate change, and technology to transportation. While governance of science is evolving to cope with this, public expectations are often mismatched. Policymaking bodies are keen to improve public dialogue, but little attention has previously been paid to the impact of such activities. TNS-BMRB and Sciencewise have been working together on a project to measure the impact of public dialogue, and to determine the most effective methods for the future.

In his introduction, Darren Bhattachary of the TNS-BMRB social research agency set the scene by addressing what we mean by public dialogue and policy makers. He highlighted the distinction from traditional public engagement, in that public dialogue is public engagement which specifically seeks to inform decisions or policy, but is not explicitly concerned with raising the profile of science.

He began by acknowledging the difficult relationship between public trust, governance and science, citing examples such as Climategate. A theme recurring throughout the conference was the need to shift from public understanding to public engagement, a two way process, but Dr Bhattachary stresses that the impact on target audiences remains unclear. Throughout the course of the project, it began to take a more holistic approach, and started to show a shift from public engagement as an end in itself, to governing in the public interest.

Jason Chilvers (University of East Anglia) then took to the stage to discuss the project in more detail. The Sciencewise public dialogues metanalysis showed five cross-cutting public concerns: Firstly, the purpose of science and technology; what are the motivations of scientists, whose interests are they serving; Secondly, the trustworthiness of institutions, reflecting a relative lack of trust in the Government to act in the public interest; Next were the feelings of powerlessness and exclusion often felt by the public in relation to scientific matters; The speed and direction of science and innovation was also a concern, as the public felt it exceeded the scope for regulatory and ethical control; Finally, the equity, ethics and culture of science, where the public questioned whether the culture of science stopped scientists reflecting on the risks.

One of the conclusions was that science communication is only one way in which to address these concerns. Government can look at the routes by which the public are able to have impact. Trust, transparency and accountability are also very important to the public, with a decentralised system working best. A relatively new method to emerge from the project was that of open sourcing, cosourcing and co-design, for instance, the redesign of the IPCC. The implications of this are that some public concerns, such as inclusion, are at least partly responded to, however this is less evident for others like the speed of science and technology.

Andrew Hunter, also of TNS-BMRB, then began to discuss what mediates institutional responses and responsiveness to public concerns. Firstly was the issue that science governance is largely expert led and efforts to reflect public values remain largely marginal as public concerns don’t resonate, with the public only really being consulted on broader issues. The economy and economic climate also features heavily, with an increasing focus from policy makers on outcomes. It was also established that science organisations feel accountability firstly to their legal and administrative commitments, then their peers, next customers and only then to the public.

The project also demonstrated that public dialogue exercises tend to have a greater impact in organisations where there is senior support and dialogue is integrated into policy and engagement is led by policy, rather than communications. Finally it found that being open and transparent doesn’t necessarily mean that organisation account for public views in decision making. Openness and transparency are therefore necessary but not sufficient conditions for good governance.

Darren Bhattachary then returned to discuss the implications we can take from the project. Firstly, we should focus on governance in the public interest as opposed to public engagement in its own right. Science policy debate should be centred on the social outcomes, rather than the risks and benefits of a technology in order to help frame issues in a way relevant to the public. A case in point is GM foods, where a discussion about what the public want from food and farming would help decide whether they think GM is actually necessary.

The most effect way to engage is to lead from policy directorates rather than communications, and we should rebrand Science in Society committees to align them to internal interests. Finally we need to be more strategic, making better use of collaboration and existing structures for engagement.

Roland Jackson then reflected on the presentation, noting that defining the public interest is a deep question which extends into the moral sphere, and that we need to recognise the different contexts in which the public interest is relevant.

Slides from this session are available at: http://www.slideshare.net/SciCommConf/scc-2012-science-governance-and-the-impactof-public-dialogue

SCIENCE COMMUNICATION

CONFERENCE 2012: IMPACT

Walk a mile in their shoes: engaging different demographics

Report written by: Laura Wyness, British Nutrition Foundation Speakers: Sarah Castell (Ipsos MORI), Jayesh Shah (Ipsos MORI) Chaired by: Colin Johnson Public Attitudes to Science 2011 is the fourth in a series of studies looking at the British public’s attitudes to science, scientists and science policy. Previous studies were conducted in 2000, 2005 and 2008.

The study included a face-to-face survey of 2,103 UK adults and a cluster analysis to segment public attitudes. The cluster analysis resulted in segmentation of the population into six distinct groups of respondents who have similar attitudes and responses to science.

The six clusters reflect people who tend to have similar, but not identical attitudes across a range of areas. Starting with the most engaged with science, the clusters are, the ‘confident engagers’, ‘distrustful engagers’, ‘late adopters’, ‘the concerned’, ‘disengaged sceptics’ and ‘the indifferent’.

It would be safe to say that the vast majority of conference delegates would fall into the ‘confident engagers’ cluster. However, in the general population only 14% would fall into this cluster. These people already feel sufficiently engaged and informed and have strong positive attitudes towards science and scientists, but they also have concerns about how the media sensationalises science.

During this workshop we were split into five groups, representing the remaining clusters.

Our task was to first decide on a science-related issue to communicate to our cluster and then discuss the best way to engage with them, what methods of communication we would use, and how we would measure success.

‘Distrustful engagers’ make up around 13% of the general population, and tend to be highly engaged and feel well informed about science. They think science benefits society, but are less trusting of those who work in science and of the Government’s ability to regulate them.

The ‘late adopters’ represent around 18% of the general population. This cluster tend to be women aged 16-34, who did not enjoy science at school but now take a strong interest in science, and are interested in being more involved in decision-making. They also tend to have strong environmental and ethical concerns and are therefore more easily engaged when science is related back to their daily lives and interests. This cluster

is also more likely to use the internet and social media, which can provide a useful way of engaging with them. Engagement of this cluster could also be done through their children, for example, encouraging mothers to get more involved in their child’s school science activities.

The largest cluster, representing around a quarter of the population are ‘the concerned’. This cluster tends to include women aged 16-24, the less affluent and those from black and minority ethnic groups. A third of this cluster say ‘the more I know about science, the more worried I am’ compared to 24% of the general public who share this view. ‘The concerned’ are unsure of the benefits of science and they also have a stronger emphasis on religion and faith. As this cluster are interested in what the values of scientists are, a useful way to engage with them may be for scientists to talk more about their intentions and values in the work they do.

Probably the hardest cluster to engage with are the ‘disengaged sceptics’. This cluster tends to think science is too complex for them to understand and is generally less interested in science. As they tend not to understand science, their views are more conservative, for example 79% of this cluster say that ‘the Government should delay new medicines until scientists are completely certain that there are no side-effects’.

Suggested ways to engage with this cluster were through reality or tactile TV shows such as ‘Embarrassing Bodies’, which uses a shock-factor to engage their audience.

The ‘indifferent’ cluster is the least engaged and are not particularly interested in science.

They tend to have an older age profile, with around 47% being retired. They obtain most of their science information through traditional media channels such as television.

They are put off by jargon and technical terms and have a general apathy to science.

Demonstrating to this cluster that anyone can do science and that science is not isolated, for example, using science programmes which are not overtly science, such as ‘The Gadget Show’, should encourage engagement.

The data overall indicates that none of the clusters are anti-science, and in fact public interest in science has increased since the first study in 2000. However, effective public engagement is not easy. Providing more information does not always make people feel more informed. People are often willing to change their views on science based on what they see and hear. Therefore, using a targeted communications strategy would be useful to engage people in different clusters.

Tweets from this session Mat Hickman: #scicom12 Interesting comment: scientists often don’t see why they should fit in to ‘your’ engagement format Slides from this session are available at: http://www.slideshare.net/SciCommConf/scc-2012-walk-a-mile-in-their-shoes-engagingdifferent-demographics

SCIENCE COMMUNICATION

CONFERENCE 2012: IMPACT

Does science communication benefit from national initiatives like Olympics 2012?

Report written by: Sue Hordijenko, British Science Association Speakers: Abigail Appleton (BBC Learning), Bob Bloomfield (Natural History Museum), Fran Hegyi (London 2012), Amy Sanders (Wellcome Trust) Chaired by: Sue Nelson Sue Nelson opened the conversation by asking Fran Hegyi why the word science did not appear once in the 37 page Olympics event programme. Hegyi responded that science permeates all events, that London 2012 was about celebrating talent across the board and audience evaluation they had undertaken concluded that audiences did not want information categorised in that way. Abigail Appleton talked about the BBC events related to the Torch Relay which would take place on Blue Peter on Saturday mornings. Amy Sanders talked about the Wellcome Trust-funded project ‘In the Zone’.

The Wellcome Trust identified a gap in linking science explicitly with London 2012 and so devised an interactive touring exhibition and free experiment kits for all UK schools.

Bob Bloomfield said he would not call himself the coordinator of International Year of Biodiversity and Darwin 200 but rather facilitates others to do so. Every partner in these projects know their own audiences so much better than anyone in the centre does. Art exhibitions did more to get Darwin into the media than any comment from ‘the usual suspects’ would have. Feedback following the BBC’s Darwin series says that people felt ‘Darwined out’ – it is difficult to find a balance. Bob said that the BBC were initially nervous about taking part in Darwin 200 because of a fear of wading into the creationism/evolution debate. Having all of the other parties round the table gave the BBC increased confidence.

Nelson asked whether the reluctance to involve science to a larger degree in London 2012 was that some of the most interesting aspects of science in the Olympics would be around the topic of doping. Hegyi said that London 2012 was not frightened of tackling the subject of doping but no one had yet come to them with the idea of staging a debate on doping in sport.

A delegate said that he had made the conscious decision to not run events as part of 2012 because the brand was not welcoming. Appleton responded that even organisations as large as Wellcome Trust can get lost in something as immense as the Olympics where you essentially lose your own brand identity to the larger brand.

Closing remarks: • Large scale events that evoke people to make a difference particularly with regard to responsible use of the planet is what matters – it’s not just about the science •

Create events that feel ‘local’

• Don’t wait to get involved and don’t get hung up on seeing the word science • Do consider the platforms that large events that you wouldn’t normally do have to offer but don’t be diverted from the main aims of your organisation

Tweets from this session Anne Osterrieder: Is science a part of Britain’s culture? Is culture a part of science? Really good questions. I think there shld be more overlap #scicom12. suzi Gage: Discussing the crossover of scicom and sport! Perfect example is #IASITZ #scicom12 Grace Baynes: What if ALL orgs at #scicom12 had got together to do one initiative for the Olympics? Bet we could have been ‘big enough’ together.

SCIENCE COMMUNICATION

CONFERENCE 2012: IMPACT

International collaborations in science communication: what, why and how?

Report written by: Clara Howcroft Ferreira, Oxford University

Speakers: David Dickson (SciDev), Antonio Gomes da Costa (ECSITE), Norbert Steinhaus (Bonn Science Shop) Chaired by: Fern Elsdon-Baker (British Council) What’s the value in getting involved in an international collaboration project? They can be tricky to run, not just because of the distances involved, but also because of the cultural differences and the different approaches to science communication. This session on international collaborations in science communication consisted of a panel discussion where three speakers shared their experiences in different projects that attempted to break down these international barriers.

David Dickson, who is the editor and founding director of SciDev.net, a website that promotes science journalism from developing countries, kicked off the session. SciDev.net is a website founded over 10 years ago, that aims to provide accurate and accessible information to and from the developing world. The website helps to improve science communication in the developing world, by providing a space where the information is gathered and then disseminated. As the website was developed in the UK, ‘one of the challenges is to engage in a unified editorial approach, compatible with cultural differences in attitudes to science. Anglo-Saxon forms don’t always work in Latin America or Africa’, said Dickson.

In order to improve science communication in the developing world, two main approaches are currently being used: publishing useful resources on the website, such as how to report a pandemic, how to tell policymakers about scientific uncertainty, or how to report on evolutionary science; and workshops, courses, as well as an international science journalism conference, aimed at building skills and contacts in the field. As for measuring impact David Dickson considers that ‘we struggle quite a lot with measuring the value of what we are doing at the end of the day’.

Antonio Gomes da Costa then presented the project, PLACES, which has been running since June 2010 and involves 69 science communication institutions coupled with their local authorities. It encompasses 10 European regions covering over 26 countries and is coordinated by the European Network of Science Centres and Museums(ECSITE), and also led by other European networks. The Universitat Pompeu Fabra in Barcelona, Spain is the impact assessor of the project, also involved in developing tools for assessment of science communication projects and policies. The key features of this project are:

1.

Developing city partnerships locally, comprising science communication institutions, policy-makers, research institutes and universities, NGO’s and citizens.

2.

Developing local action plans, with clear objectives and timings 3.

Long-term perspective 4.

Local and European perspective, which is meaningful for the citizens, and has an impact at the European level 5.

Clear output in the form of recommendations 6.

Impact assessment, with the development of a toolkit In practical terms, these features translate into ‘developing science policies driven by the citizens, with science communication institutions as mediators’, and allow addressing issues such as climate change locally. The key strategies of this project consist on focusing on the science communication policies, with recurring dialogue with the adult citizens, and in moving science communication from ‘nice to necessary’. Antonio Gomes da Costa explains that this project is ‘changing the way policy makers and citizens look at science communication institutions by turning them into forums for active citizenship’.

Finally, Norbert Steinhaus presented the international Science Shop network, Living Knowledge, which ‘focuses on building partnerships for public access to research, where Science Shops are mediators and the scientific issues tackled are community based’. The concept of Science Shops was first developed in the late 70’s in the Netherlands, and is spreading fast throughout the world. Science Shops provide research support in response to queries voiced by the public by offering free or low cost access to relevant scientific or technical knowledge. Examples of research work undertaken through this model include studies into the sound pollution of turbines in the Netherlands and how to deal with Muslim communities being prescribed medicines that have to be taken following food intake during Ramadan. ‘The issues tackled are not always necessarily big research questions but practical problem solving’, said Steinhaus.

This type of approach can benefit society, by providing access to research, increasing science visibility and citizen empowerment by participation. It also benefits education by providing students with problem based learning embedded in the curriculum, and an awareness of science and society issues.

The Living Knowledge network and other networks and projects, such as Public Engagement with Research and Research Engagement with Society(PERARES), constitute a means of providing international expertise and open exchange, increasing the accessibility and visibility of community led research, as well as the dissemination of the results.

Slides from this session are available at: http://www.slideshare.net/SciCommConf/scc-2012-international-collaborations-in-sciencecommunications-what-why-and-how-placescities-of-scientific-culture-antonio-gomes-da-costa http://www.slideshare.net/SciCommConf/scc-2012-international-collaborations-in-sicencecommunication-what-why-and-how-the-case-of-scidevnet-david-dickson http://www.slideshare.net/SciCommConf/scc-2012-international-collaborations-in-sciencecommunication-what-when-and-how-the-living-knowledge-network-norbert-steinhaus

SCIENCE COMMUNICATION

CONFERENCE 2012: IMPACT

Honest sharing: reporting failure usefully and safely

Report written by: Lisa Raffensperger, City University Speakers: Karen Bultitude (University College London), Dan Glaser (Wellcome Trust), Toby Shannon (British Science Association) Chaired by: Steve Cross (University College London) Why don’t we discuss our failures? They can teach us much more than our successes, and sharing failure is one of the ways we can avoid making the same mistakes in the future. It would also be in the interests of funders and public engagement officers to know what doesn’t work, so that time and money are not wasted in future projects. However protection of reputation, fear of failure, and the economic interests involved, mean that reporting failure is still rare.

Karen Bultitude, lecturer in Science Communication at UCL and freelance consultant, started the session off by giving the perspectives of both the practitioner and the evaluator. “Every project I’ve been a part of has failed in some way,” she said, and often failures crop up in evaluation. If evaluations are commissioned by the group leading the exercise, it often gets glossed over before it’s given to funders, Bultitude observed.

However, if the report is commissioned by the funder, the group may not fully open up to you. Evaluators themselves can even be discouraged from honestly reporting failure because they want to maintain a good relationship with their clients.

For feedback to really be useful, Bultitude said, it needs to “get to the depth of what’s gone wrong.” She offered a few suggestions of how this might be accomplished. First, practitioners should be more critical of each other as a matter of course – a relationship she called “critical friends”. Second, there should be community-wide acknowledgment of the importance of transparent reporting of failure. Finally, she said, when evaluations are commissioned they need to be shared publicly and honestly.

Dan Glaser, Head of Special Projects at Wellcome Trust, contributed the funder’s perspective. Peer review of public engagement proposals is considered by many to be flawed, he said. One possible solution would be to publish peer reviews, something that Wellcome did for its project “The Great Sperm Race”. However, he asked whether people would give honest peer reviews if this were the case.

“We as funders aren’t stupid,” Glaser said. Organisations send people out to events and talk internally – so “we know when you’re lying.” However, he said, credibility is what funders are after. “I don’t care about the difference between what people set out to do and what they actually do – I care about what they deliver,” Glaser said.

One tool that already exists to share failures is Collective Memory. Toby Shannon, Science in Society Officer at the British Science Association, described it as a “home for reporting about projects in an informal manner” which he said was mostly intended for those who don’t do formal evaluations of their outreach.

However, word clouds displaying the terms people used to discuss their failures, were incredibly similar to the word clouds for successes, suggesting that people are not really opening up, even on an anonymous system.

The session chair, Steve Cross, Head of Public Engagement at UCL, then asked the delegates what can funders, practitioners and evaluators change to improve the sharing of failures?

For funders, the suggestions included explicit surveys about “what went wrong,” as well as sessions to discuss failures, and possibly even a “failure day”. Practitioners could start looking for failure in projects and share their failures in a semi-public forum, with trusted community members. They could also put more effort into asking for feedback from participants. Evaluators were encouraged to evaluate early and throughout to include space for reporting unexpected outcomes, and to publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals.

Finally, participants volunteered some thoughts on reporting failure. One suggested that the role of imagination is significant, in that some people can evaluate honestly and find no failure. How can we build in the ability to see missed opportunities, he asked. Another participant suggested that perhaps we need to rethink what we define as failure. Since failure often comes alongside unexpected outcomes, he suggested that asking for the latter may help people think about the former.

Reporting failure more openly requires a change in the culture of public engagement, and so it will take time. However the suggestions from this session provide a useful starting point – and it just may be that now is the time for the change to begin.

Tweets from this session Haggis: Failures can happen not just in an activity but in its evaluation. Need to be brave enough to own up when it happens! #scicom12 Steve Cross: Evaluators! How can you get us to listen when you tell us that things aren’t working? #SciCom12 PublicPolicyNetwork: #scicom12 @sburall says it’s crucial that we make explicit the real costs of public engagement, hiding them damages the participatory agenda Cobi Smith: There’ve been many unexpected things said that’ve made me laugh in this #scicom12 reporting failure session. Entertaining & insightful Cobi Smith: #scicom12 session on reporting failures is fun. Think people are finding sharing things that went terribly wrong in their #scicomm cathartic

SCIENCE COMMUNICATION

CONFERENCE 2012: IMPACT

Making the business case for public engagement

Report written by: Rebecca Hill, BioNews Speakers: Edward Andersson (Involve), Simon Burall (Involve) Chaired by: Roland Jackson (British Science Association) Why would you want to engage with the public? Simon Burall began the session by asking this very basic question. There are many academic arguments, such as the need to demonstrate accountability to the wider community, as well as the need to connect your work to the real world.

Nowadays though, money is a massive issue, he said, and public engagement can appear costly. So how do you convince others that your idea is both the right course of action and cost-effective?

Edward Andersson demonstrated one way of doing this - he introduced Involve’s toolkit ‘Making the case for public engagement’.

You need to articulate a compelling rationale for engagement that convinces your colleagues, and tackle why you’re doing something, rather than what it is you’re doing, he explained.

It’s not necessarily just about measuring the value in monetary terms, although as with all business proposals, that is important; the key is how you tell a convincing story about what it is you do. You need to be able to turn something potentially vague into something compelling.

The intention of the toolkit is to help you think differently about your projects, Andersson explained, and it does this in six steps.

The first is to think about the intended audience and what their motivations are. People have different rationales, and are interested in different things – you need to put it into words the funder will understand and appreciate.

The next step is to focus on the detail of the business case. Andersson noted that a lot of projects don’t spend enough time clarifying what the outcomes will be. For this, you need to add context by identifying suitable comparisons. These may be what would happen if there was no engagement, what has happened in areas with or without similar projects, how this differs from the status quo, and what the alternative methods of engagement are.

Next, he said, the key is to decide what you plan to measure, and what can and can’t be given a monetary value. He acknowledged that you won’t always be able to find scientifically robust data, but as long as you’re clear about any assumptions you make you shouldn’t get into trouble further down the line.

Fourth, is to complete the checklist, to gather all your information together and to understand where any assumptions may have been made. After this you can analyse the results, try out your methods, and look at the probability of the scheme working as you planned.

The final stage is to present the business case. Here you must focus on tailoring your story to the audience, and adapting to feedback, all the while telling stories and using anecdotes and quotes to your advantage.

Andersson noted that it’s important to highlight any occasions where non-engagement on similar issues caused problems in other areas.

The group then discussed the issues they felt would hinder a project’s business case. These included the idea that it’s better to find out you might not have all the evidence you need to make the case for your project before you reach a funding panel, but that you would then have to spend more time gathering that information. Another group hit upon the idea of using external partners, and linking to an existing project that is similar to yours to use their evaluation to your advantage.

Burall was keen to get everyone to agree to stop hiding their costs. He said we should be open and upfront about all of them – first because this makes the cases more compelling and trustworthy, and second because it will allow you to be honest about whether it is worth doing in the first place.

“We should stop engaging so often,” he said. “We should spend a bit more money on fewer, more strategic engagement projects.”

Finally, Andersson noted that even though the focus had been on making a compelling case, evaluation was of incredible importance – innovation is a great thing, but sometimes new ideas don’t work. You also need to justify and communicate failures.

The slides from this talk, a webinar and the toolkit are all available on Involve’s website: www.involve.org.uk Tweets from this session Jenna Stevens-Smith: First specialist session of the day ‘Making the business case for public engagement’ with @sburall from #involve #scicom12 Simon Bural: #scicom12 qu about business case is about how to tell a convincing story rather than spending ages on complex cost-benefit analysis Slides from this session are available at: http://www.slideshare.net/SciCommConf/scc-2012-making-the-business-case-for-publicengagement

SCIENCE COMMUNICATION

CONFERENCE 2012: IMPACT

Youth voice: getting a fresh perspective on your projects

Report written by: Benjamin Still, Queen Mary, University of London Speakers: Ellie Chambers (British Science Association), Natasha Comber (OPM), Nicola Hannam (Science Council), Colette Murphy (Queen’s University Belfast), Jess Wynn (CREST Youth Panel) Chaired by: Katherine Mathieson (British Science Association) Involving young people in the planning and implementation of science communication projects can be extremely useful when the project is aimed for their age group. Katherine Mathieson from the British Science Association, who introduced the subject of youth voice, chaired the session on involving young people from the get-go. She opened with the thought that this involvement can provide you with a very different and fresh perspective on the project.

The first speaker was Ellie Chambers from the British Science Association’s CREST scheme, a variety of awards given to school students who complete science projects. Two-way communication is maintained with those that have taken part in the scheme through the CREST Alumni Network, who total around 300 members (and growing). The alumni receive a newsletter every 6 months to keep them in touch with the project and to encourage them to continue promoting the scheme.

Chambers is also involved with the CREST youth panel, a group of 20-25 young people, who meet twice-yearly for focus groups, where they discuss the relevance and level of engagement for different projects with the organisers. This not only provides a useful feedback process for the organisers, it also provides the youth panel members with the opportunity to improve their communication skills, problem solving and other transferable skills.

Next on the roster was Holly Margerison from The Science Council who talked about the development of the Future Morph STEM careers website. The branding for the site was determined via an online poll, where a number of names and logo designs were put to the vote. Around 50% of the votes were made by young people, and the results were used to come up with the name and branding for Future Morph. Once up and running, there were a number of focus groups used to determine the applicability, ease of use and once again the branding of the site. Margerison explained that there were both pros and cons in using focus groups. Although they ensure a solid interest from stakeholders looking to buy into the project and help to maintain the relevance of the brand you are developing, focus groups also require a lot of time and resources to develop and run, and they have to be run early enough in order to have an impact on the project in question.

One of the most striking results that Margerison discovered from the focus groups she ran was that young people now look for careers advice from parents, family and the Internet, rather than the traditional options, such as teachers or career advisors.

The next project involved 12 young people who presented their views on climate change at the Planet Under Pressure Conference. Twelve youth voices between the ages of 14 and 19 addressed the delegates of the conference during the opening ceremony. One of the young people who took part, Jess Wynn, described it as an amazing opportunity to give young people a voice at an adult dominated research conference. After Jess spoke, Natasha Comber of OPM presented her evaluation findings. The delegates were very impressed with the level of discussion the youth group brought with them and found the different perspective refreshing and very interesting.

We then heard from Collette Murphy of Queens University Belfast, who talked about the assessment of students and the impact it has on them, under the title “Marks tell you how you’ve done; comments tell you why”. She is trying to answer questions such as, “Is assessment putting kids off science?” and “What works for children with respect to science assessment?”

She helped to establish Children Researchers Advisory Groups, or CRAGs, groups of eight students who gave feedback on workshops and reports. Interestingly the students offered feedback that no one really expected, such as pointing out that the wording of the reports was not properly targeted to their age group. Murphy was really impressed with the feedback, and even used one of the student’s comments as the title for her report.

Tweets from this session Lauren Reid: Loved the youth voice session - we really do underestimate children. And they enjoy tests - who knew?!#scicom12 Anne Osterrieder: #lab13 not driven by curriculum but by curiosity and questions of kids “Why is the world the way it is”? Fantastic project #scicom12 Slides from this session are available at: http://www.slideshare.net/SciCommConf/scc-2012-youth-voice-getting-a-freshperspetive-on-your-projects http://www.slideshare.net/SciCommConf/scc-2012-youth-voice-getting-a-freshperspective-on-your-projects-marks-tell-you-how-youve-done-comments-tell-you-whycolette-murphy http://www.slideshare.net/SciCommConf/scc-2012-youth-voice-getting-a-freshperspective-on-your-projects-planet-under-pressure-jess-wynn http://www.slideshare.net/SciCommConf/scc-2012-youth-voice-getting-a-freshpersepctive-on-your-projects-holly-margerison

SCIENCE COMMUNICATION

CONFERENCE 2012: IMPACT

Making a difference? Measuring the impact of informal learning

Report written by: Amanda Hardy MRSC Speakers: Emily Dawson (King’s College London), Penny Fidler (Association of Science and Discovery Centres), John Holman (Wellcome Trust), Ben Johnson (Graphic Science), James Mackenzie-Blackman (New Adventures) Chaired by: Paul Manners (National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement) Professor Sir John Holman quoted an American publication in which it was stated that “the average American spends only 5% of their life in school” and concluded they must learn about science from other sources too. This is also true in the UK; we don’t stop learning about science when we leave school either. Therefore informal methods of learning are the main sources of science information and inspiration for most people for about 95% of their lives. That is not to say that science learning centres and other organisations need to provide knowledge in an overly regimented and didactic form.

Informal learning can inspire people to find out more, its main role is to provide awareness and encourage interest, making science important and relevant to people in their everyday life.

The Wellcome Trust, which funds research, wanted to find out what people understand about science – both from school based learning and beyond. The aim was to find out the answers to many questions about informal learning such as: What is it? What is different from formal education? What is its impact; how do you know you are making a difference? Two studies were discussed: the first based on UK field data and the second based on the above in combination with a literature review. The studies also covered impact to help identify what funders wanted, both these publications are in preparation and are expected to be published this autumn.

Evaluation of science learning projects turned out to be harder than expected, 85% of providers carry out evaluation of their projects. However evaluation is very varied as different people want to answer different questions, depending on their reason for using evaluation. Whether to provide evidence of money well spent or to find out what could be improved or what the learning outcome has been. The use of evaluation was also found to be proportional to the size of the organisation or the scope of the project. This makes sense as different projects cost different amounts so the type of evaluation used needs to be relevant to the project being evaluated.

Five hundred and fifty three articles were collected and categorised as part of an academic literature review. However these articles don’t necessarily reflect practise because most evaluations are not published in academic journals, which means many

useful review reports are not publically accessible. The speakers urged people evaluating science outreach or informal learning projects to publish their results as widely as possible especially by the use of academic journals. Publications in the study discussed came from 31 countries with 50% of publications from the USA, although the UK came second in the number of publications (since 1980). Most of the organisations producing research articles were science museums, educational establishments or broadcast media. The papers covered the experiences of schools and visitors.

We therefore know a lot about the experiences of people taking part in a small range of activities. Other areas of less formal science outreach or learning experiences are almost absent from the literature.

Various questions were raised at this session: do informal learning providers use this research? People are aware that research exists but do not look at it because they don’t know what is covered. It is therefore vital that researchers engage informal learning providers and educationalists to maximise the benefits of their research and spread information and lessons learned as widely as possible. The scope of informal science learning was also addressed as this could cover gardening, scout or guide group activities, activities categorised as ‘tourism’ in addition to more conventional science centre activities. It is therefore more difficult to cover or find this evaluated in the literature.

It was noted that we attach importance to what we can measure, which is not necessarily what is important. James Mackenzie-Blackman remarked that we should ‘let young people judge what is important’ not teachers or practitioners. We should be asking ‘What did this make you feel?’ rather than ‘What did you learn?’. Penny Fidler found that science education in all its forms has two roles; to create career scientists and give people scientific skills; and secondly to include science in our culture in the widest possible way. Ben Johnson explained that we need to engage people in science outside of the classroom to reach new audiences especially those who would not normally knowingly engage with science in their everyday lives. It is important that people should feel comfortable with science in the same way that they do for other pursuits such as art, sport and music; these are all part of our culture and all enrich our everyday lives.

Slides from this session are available at: http://www.slideshare.net/SciCommConf/scc-2012-making-a-difference-measuring-theimpact-of-informal-learning http://www.slideshare.net/SciCommConf/scc-2012-making-a-difference-measuring-theimpact-of-informal-learning-penny-fidler

SCIENCE COMMUNICATION

CONFERENCE 2012: IMPACT

Give me your brain: communicating tricky topics

Report written by: Laura Middleton, Open University Speakers: Jo Brodie (Diabetes UK), Kelly Edwards (Motor Neurone Disease Association), Amir Gander (University College London), Jenny Gimpel, Jess Smith (Alzheimer’s Society) Chaired by: Sue Hordijenko (British Science Association) One reason that there is a reluctance to engage with the public about science, is the fear that tricky topics may get misconstrued, their meaning being lost in the communication process. This fear is unfounded according to the tricky topics panel, which consisted of Jess Smith, from Alzheimer’s Society, Kelly Edwards from the Motor Neurone Disease Association, Jo Brodie from Diabetes UK, Jenny Gimpel, a freelance science communicator, and Amir Gander from University College London. They believe that the public are more open to discussing tricky topics than the professionals think they are, with, in some cases, the professionals being the reluctant ones to debate these topics.

Jess Smith engages with the public on a regular basis about the risk of Alzheimer’s disease.

A subject that a lot of people know something about, but which few people know a lot about it, a common factor for many controversial subjects in science. Smith explained the importance of tailoring the message to the audience that is being addressed. For instance, when addressing the general public, the focus is on prevention, backing up this argument with hard evidence such as exercise, diet and risk factors including cholesterol levels. She tries to avoid talking about the genetic side of the argument, this is not hopeful, and doesn’t really help people searching for information. When talking to people with dementia, it is important not to assign blame, focussing on the positives and the constructive things they can do now. With the press, communication must be clear so that information can’t be misinterpreted, the message must be general, avoiding specifics, or hyped information such as the effect of super-foods in dementia. It is useful to have quotes at hand, such as, “What’s good for the head is good for the heart”, which are easy to remember and provide constructive simple advice.

Kelly Edwards, from the Motor Neurone Disease Association, discussed the tricky topic of managing patients’ expectations, with particular reference to an example in which a flawed trial showed lithium to be effective in the treatment of motor neurone disease. In this case, it was important to communicate the facts, educating patients in assessing the research, whilst being sensitive to the fact that patients are desperate for a ‘miracle cure’.

In dealing with patients, Edwards makes sure to never condone unproven treatments, but will inform using the facts available. An example of a site that tries to sort out all this information, and assess the effectiveness of unproven drugs is Amyotrophic Lateral

Sclerosis Untangled, which investigates many avenues of treatment research, from coconut oil to stem cell therapy. In an age of open access, does this freely available information help or hinder the management of expectations; Edwards urged that “it is important to strike a balance between hope and hype”.

Jo Brodie from Diabetes UK addressed the tricky topic of islet cell transplantation for those who suffer with diabetes. As this procedure is only suitable for a small number of patients, communicating this to the public can be difficult. The primary audience is people with diabetes, which ask an array of questions from the common request to have the procedure, to the illegal bribe of offering to pay for an organ! Brodie has learned many things from communicating with the public, and realises that communicating these topics can be hard, but always being mindful of the emotional state of the enquirer, checking their understanding of what you are saying, and that acknowledging other people’s knowledge will lead to effective communication.

Jenny Gimpel shared her experiences on engaging the public on the topic of body donation for medical purposes. The seminars were very audience focussed, encouraging discussion between the public and surgeons, anatomists, and pathologists. Gimpel was surprised to find that there was very little information out there regarding body donation, and initially faced reluctance to discuss this topic, not from the public, but surprisingly from the research institutions and GP’s, for fear of sensationalising this tricky topic.

Amir Gander had a similar experience when trying to engage people on the topic of tissue donation, finding the professionals to be more disinclined than the public to discuss the subject. Both concluded that more needs to be done on this topic, so that the issues become more transparent in this field. This can be applied to communicating any issue in science, as with true transparency, comes better understanding of those tricky topics.

Tweets from this session Suzi Gage: Communicating tricky subjects: people like anonymous comments boards more than sticking their hands up. #scicom12

Slides from this session are available at: http://www.slideshare.net/SciCommConf/scc-2012-give-me-your-brain-communicatingtricky-topics

SCIENCE COMMUNICATION

CONFERENCE 2012: IMPACT

Impact through dialogue and deliberation

Report written by: Toby Shannon, British Science Association Speakers: Oliver Escobar, Lara Isbel, Heather Rea (University of Edinburgh) Dialogue (“with a capital D”) is a hot topic in public engagement – using large-scale, carefully-structured initiatives which gauge public opinion to guide researchers about a possibly controversial research area. However, the importance of dialogue (“with a small d”) should not be forgotten – the simple acts of active listening and conversing combined with the more subtle arts of facilitation to enable all the participants to come away with mutual understanding of the topic at hand. This session explored the latter – describing the work done by the Edinburgh Beltane team facilitating dialogue skills within their community of researchers and science communicators.

About the team: Heather Rea and Lara Isbel spoke about their experiences in running a successful series of training workshops about dialogue and public engagement. Their emphasis in the workshops was to move away from the one-way model of public engagement to a more dialogic approach to enhance public engagement projects. Oliver Escobar is an Edinburgh Beltane Public Engagement Fellow from the University of Edinburgh. His approach is to use his background in citizen participation, communication and policy and apply it to the public engagement context. He is the author of Public Dialogue and Deliberation: A communication perspective for public engagement practitioners (see below for links to suggested reading).

Why do dialogue?

The team emphasised that dialogue was not just a tool for making decisions – dialogue can progress into deliberation but this is not the only reason for using a dialogic approach.

The key dynamics for this approach as outlined by the panel include creating a safe space, storytelling, listening, collaborative enquiry and balancing advocacy and enquiry.

Dialogue is about inquiry and collaboration in communication; this contrasts with the usual public engagement approach of advocating science.

Audience questions: Following the presentations about dialogue and its application to public engagement, the panel encouraged the participants to reflect on what they had learnt and ask any questions that arose through small group discussions.

• How do you strike a balance between informing and dialogue?

• Should there be a meaningful purpose or something at stake during the dialogue? E.g. Which research should be funded?

• How do you know when dialogues are appropriate for audiences?

• How do you manage the varying levels of expertise? Balance of power?

• How do you break down stereotypes?

Creating impact through dialogue: Finally, to link up with the broader Conference theme of Impact the team outlined some of the possible impacts of adding dialogic techniques to the collective portfolio of public engagement tools: • Builds mutual benefits for all the participants involved • Creates interpretive communities • Develops capacity to engage with issues • Lays groundwork for deliberative policy making The final thoughts of the panel were that, in dialogue, conflict is valuable but confrontation is not and that, as a community, science communicators should build the collective capacity in facilitation and dialogue.

Tweets from this session Simon Burral: understanding what dialogue is and what role it can play is difficult says @ edbeltane #scicom12 Edward Andersson: @edbeltane: Why do scientists do dialogue? New points of view, awareness, deal w ethical issues. Influence policy minor driver. #scicom12

Slides from this session are available at : http://www.slideshare.net/SciCommConf/scc-2012-impact-through-dialogue-anddeliberation-oliver-escobar

SCIENCE COMMUNICATION

CONFERENCE 2012: IMPACT

Maximising the impact of a volunteer programme

Report written by: David Rogers, Newcastle College STEM Outreach Speakers: Neil Cartwright (At-Bristol), Emma Clare (Science Oxford), Michaela Livingstone (ASDC), Dom McDonald (Science Oxford), Addam Merali-Hosiene (British Science Association), Cathy Sturrock (Science Oxford) How can you successfully manage volunteers? Where do you find them and what do volunteers want from their experience anyway? This conference session, led by Addam Merali-Hosiene, provided a forum for discussing volunteer recruitment, management, and programme evaluation. The session attracted participants with a broad range of expertise in volunteering and volunteer management. This was illustrated early on, when everyone was asked to stand in a line with ‘most confident in volunteer management’ toward one end and ‘least confident’ toward the other. Volunteer newbies stood expectantly at one end while a small scuffle broke out at the ‘most confident’ end – Are SciComm-goers modest or do we just admit there’s always more to learn?

Splitting off into six groups, the key themes for discussion were: ‘Starting up’ lead by Michaela Livingstone from the Association of Science and Discovery Centres, ‘Supporting volunteers’ with Addam Merali-Hosiene from the British Science Association, ‘Marketing your programme’ lead by Emma Clare from Science Oxford, ‘Evaluation’ with Dominic McDonald of Science Oxford, ‘Encouraging volunteers from business’ lead by Cathy Sturrock also from Science Oxford, and ‘Volunteers perspective’ lead by Neil Cartwright from At-Bristol with Carla Washbourne from Newcastle University.

Supporting volunteers and managing their expectations is perhaps one of the most important considerations in successfully running a volunteer programme. What training or other opportunities for development are your volunteers looking for? Training need not be formal CPD sessions but could take the form of mentoring or work-shadowing opportunities offered between volunteers. Recognition and reward may be important to volunteers but they may equally be involved for more altruistic reasons and want to ‘give something back.’ Good communication with volunteers and sharing ownership of the programme seem to be vital to maximising opportunities for volunteer development and for development of the programme as a whole.

Marketing and finding volunteers can take a myriad of approaches, from online groups, websites, email lists and social networks to more traditional networking events and advertising. Linking into other schemes and community groups can generate great interest and finding coordinators at local universities and professional associations will give you access to large numbers of willing enthusiastic volunteers. Often, it seems, the people who will enjoy volunteering with you are the same ones already involved in voluntary work

with other programmes.

Increasing emphasis is being placed on evaluation and can serve several purposes in the context of voluntary programmes.

Early assessment of volunteer expectations can help shape training activities and flag up volunteers who may, for whatever reason, not be a good fit for the programme. This will save the volunteer programme time and effort by channelling resources into the right activities for the right people. Funders and sponsors may expect to see evidence of both short term outcomes and long term impacts before committing financial support to your proposal. Sponsors and other stakeholders will share a similar interest in seeing the effectiveness of volunteer programmes.

Feedback can also be effective for marketing, for case studies or just quick quotes, and in shaping the future direction of your voluntary scheme.

After the sessions, groups reported back on points raised. A repeating theme throughout the groups was effective communication. Whether it be encouraging volunteers to communicate their expectations through evaluation; communicating to potential volunteers through partner organisations and businesses; or communicating the impact of volunteers work to stakeholders and funders; maximising impact of volunteer programmes is very much about maximising channels for communication and dialogue between all the people involved.

In the closing remarks Pam Buchan from the British Science Association suggested a group for Science Communicators working in the voluntary sector. The groups name is still in discussion but can be found at http://ivo.org/volt

Tweets from this session Katherine Mathieson: Being advised in Volunteers session to use Job Descriptions for - but if we do, shouldn’t we pay wages? #SciCom12

SCIENCE COMMUNICATION

CONFERENCE 2012: IMPACT

Further reading

If you wish to learn more about any of the topics raised within this report, the following references have been raised by the speakers and others as being potentially useful.

Day 1 Introduction to public engagement: National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement site: http://www.publicengagement.ac.uk/how So you want to be a science communicator page: http://www.britishscienceassociation.org/web/ScienceinSociety/Courses_and_Training/ index.htm The why and how of science communication: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/sts/staff/bultitude/KB_TB/Karen_Bultitude_-_Science_ Communication_Why_and_How.pdf Top ten mistakes made by researchers when presenting to young people: http://learn-differently.com/files/2011/08/top-ten-mistakes-article-2011.pdf The engaging researcher (2010): http://www.vitae.ac.uk/CMS/files/upload/The_engaging_researcher_2010.pdf Positively uncertain: Drugs Facts Box: http://tdi.dartmouth.edu/centers/medicine-and-the-media/drug-facts/ Testing treatments: http://www.testingtreatments.org/ What are your chances: making sense of numbers: http://www.whatareyourchances. com/ Italian seismologist trial: http://www.zmescience.com/science/geology/italianseismologists-trial-18022012/ Working with journals: rolling publication and media relations: Stempra guide to being a press officer : http://stempra.org.uk/guidelines.htm Embargo watch blog post: http://embargowatch.wordpress.com/2012/01/24/reporterstake-note-elsevier-promotes-non-embargoed-studies-in-new-email-service/

Evaluation impact: the good, the bad and the ugly Framework for evaluating impacts of informal science education projects: http://caise. insci.org/uploads/docs/Eval_Framework.pdf Petarik, A.J. (2010) From knowing to not knowing: moving beyond “outcomes”. Curator, 53(1), 105-115 Bell P., Lewenstein B., Shouse A.W., Feder M.A. (eds) (2009) Learning science in informal environments: people, places and persuits. Washington DC: National Academies press: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12190 Brown S. (2007) A critique of generic learning outcomes, Journal of Learning Design, 2 (2), 22-30: https://www.jld.edu.au/issue/view/8 Evaluating the impact of online engagement: Session presentation: http://imascientist.org.uk/2012/05/evaluating-the-impact-of-onlineengagement Having impact locally: what must change and what is sacred?

Bright Club: http://www.brightclub.org/ Café Scientifique: http://www.cafescientifique.org/ Famelab: http://famelab.org/ Evaluating games: learning through play?

Learning Science through gaming - MITNews, April 2011: http://web.mit.edu/ newsoffice/2011/vanished-smithsonian-0415.html Games evaluation - High Tea evaluation report, August 2011: http://museumgames. pbworks.com/w/page/44614098/Games%20evaluations What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy, JP GEE - Computers in Entertainment (CIE), 2003 (foundational text in education and games): http://dl.acm.org/ citation.cfm?id=950566.950595&coll=DL&dl=GUIDE Game Studies - the international journal of computer game research: http://gamestudies. org/1103 Science, governance and the impact of public dialogue TNS-BMRB (2011) Science, governance engagement: http://www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk/ cms/assets/Uploads/Project-files/Science-Governance-and-Public-Engagement-Nov11. pdf Chilvers J., Macnaghten P. (2011) The future of science governance. A review of public concerns, governance and institutional response: http://www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk/ cms/assets/Uploads/Project-files/Future-of-Science-Governance-Lit-Review-Apr11-new. pdf

SCIENCE COMMUNICATION

CONFERENCE 2012: IMPACT

Further reading (continued)

Walk a mile in their shoes: engaging different demographics: Public attitudes to science 2011: http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/ researcharchive/2764/Public-Attitudes-to-Science-2011.aspx Day 2 Does science communication benefit from national initiatives like Olympics 2012?

Get in the zone: http://www.getinthezone.org.uk/ London 2012 - cultural Olympiad: http://www.london2012.com/about-us/culturalolympiad/ Science and Sport in 2012: http://www.bis.gov.uk/policies/science/science-and-society/ science-and-sport-2012 International collaborations in science communication: what, why and how?

PLACES (Platform of Local Authorities and Communications Engaged in Science) project: http://www.openplaces.eu/ Living Knowledge - the international Science Shops network: http://www.livingknowledge. org/livingknowledge/ PERARES: http://www.livingknowledge.org/livingknowledge/perares SciDevNet - Science and Development Network: http://www.scidev.net/en/ Making the business case for Public Engagement: Making the case for public engagement : http://www.involve.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2011/07/Making-the-Case-for-Public-Engagement.pdf 5 ways to make the case for public engagement (toolkit): http://www.involve.org.uk/5ways-to-make-the-case-for-public-engagement/ The true costs of public engagement: http://www.involve.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2011/03/True-Costs-Full-Report2.pdf Honest sharing: reporting failures usefully and safely: Collective Memory - what works in public engagement with science: http:// collectivememory.britishscienceassociation.org/ We need to talk about failure, People & Science: http://bit.ly/Lyf7eT

Youth voice: getting a fresh perspective on your work: CREST Youth panel - aims and executive summaries from the past 3 meetings: http://www. britishscienceassociation.org/web/ccaf/CREST/_CRESTYouthPanel.htm Planet Under Pressure Youth Voice project: http://www.britishscienceassociation.org/ web/News/BritishScienceAssociationNews/Planet+under+pressure+youth+voice.htm Marks tell you how you’ve done...comments tell you why: attitudes of children and parents to key stage 2 science testing and assessment: http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/ stellent/groups/corporatesite/@msh_peda/documents/web_document/wtx062722.pdf Making a difference? Measuring the impact of informal learning: Science learning: better outside school than in? http://wellcometrust.wordpress. com/2011/11/30/science-learning-better-outside-school-than-in/ The 95 percent solution: http://www.americanscientist.org/my_amsci/restricted. aspx?act=pdf&id=40415612093681 Impact through dialogue and deliberation: Dialogue in Public Engagement: A Handbook: http://www.edinburghbeltane.net/ content/dialoguehandbook Public Dialogue and Deliberation: A communication perspective for public engagement practitioners: http://www.edinburghbeltane.net/content/dialoguetheory Storify of the session: http://storify.com/edbeltane/impact-through-dialogue-and-deliberation Give me your brain: communicating tricky topics: The art and science of biobanking: http://www.springerlink.com/content/27946300416473 64/?MUD=MP Biobanking: the foundation of personalized medicine: http://www.redbiobancos.es/ pages/docs/hewitt_r_current_opinions_in_oncology_2011.pdf Maximising the impact of a volunteer programme: Volunteering England: http://www.volunteering.org.uk/ ASDC specialist group: http://sciencecentres.org.uk/about/groups/ Volunteering impact assessment toolkit: http://www.dsc.org.uk/Publications/ Humanresources/@110127

British Science Association Wellcome Wolfson Building 165 Queen’s Gate London SW7 5HD www.britishscienceassociation.org Registered Charity No: 212479 and SC039236

In partnership with: