A team of Science Communication Unit researchers was selected by the Royal Institution (Ri) to explore ways to continue modernising the Christmas Lectures, an iconic series that has run since 1825. Margarida Sardo, Hannah Little and Laura Fogg Rogers conducted research to explore strengths and opportunities for improving the series, created for children and televised annually for the past 50 years fronted by presenters including David Attenborough and Carl Sagan.
A centrepiece of the
national conversation about the place of science in our lives, the lectures
were started by scientist Michael Faraday in 1825 and are now designed to be
engaging and mind-expanding viewing for people of all ages but particularly
children. A series of three on a single topic, the lectures are filmed in
London in mid-December every year then broadcast on three consecutive days
during the Christmas period. In 2018, biological anthropologist, author and TV
presenter Alice Roberts and genetics expert Aoife McLysaght brought the
evolutionary story to life in a series called ‘Who Am I?’
with children attending the 2017 and 2018 events, a social media analysis of
the 2018 broadcasts and survey of science enthusiasts, researchers found the
lectures were cherished by audiences of all ages but format changes could help
broaden their appeal among young people, as well as older audiences. They
recommended exploring ways that the channel and time of the broadcasts
(currently BBC4 at 8pm) could be made more suitable for a younger audience,
including cutting the lectures down into short clips for social media to
reflect changing viewing habits.
The research team noted
that some adult viewers believed the lectures were so focused on a younger
audience that they lacked appeal for older viewers. To continue to attract a
significant adult audience, they recommended creating a companion lecture aimed
at older science fans.
Researchers also found
audience members enjoyed the live shows, particularly the engaging, interactive
and high-quality demonstrations. TV viewers valued the televised shows and many
remarked that watching with relatives had become a family tradition. But some
science enthusiasts suggested the Ri needed to re-evaluate its target audience
and questioned whether the needs of a live lecture and a TV programme were
being confused. Viewers were roundly supportive of female scientists presenting
the show, with particular praise reserved for the performance of Alice Roberts
and Aoife McLysaght in 2018.
The Christmas Lectures branding includes the prestigious Christmas
Lectures broadcast on BBC, as well as live shows, a Schools Conference, the Ri
Advent Calendar and “I’m a Scientist… get me out of here” – most of which were
covered by the evaluation.
On 21st June UWE Bristol welcomed over 100 science-communication practitioners from the South West, the culmination of over five months of planning, organising and orchestrating, with a small team of five women at the helm. All throughout, attention was given to making the event inclusive. These are some of our learnings…
We made time at the beginning to think through what might
exclude people from our conference, and make adjustments to include them. We
pooled our knowledge from events we’d attended, and looked at what others had
been saying on blogs,
online guides (here
We chose the Business School for its facilities and
location; it is fully equipped with gender neutral toilets, seating areas with
high backs for privacy/quiet and, thanks to a recent student campaign, free
sanitary products in toilets. Outdoors, there is ample disabled parking and
inside there are wheelchair-accessible lifts. It’s the little things that
really make a difference when aiming to be inclusive; for most people, it is
relatively easy to get to by public transport.
Think about the room
Round tables, lots of
natural light, and a relatively easy-to-use AV system, as standard in most of
the rooms, made for a pleasant and relaxed setting for both the speakers and
delegates. In more interactive sessions, ‘think-pair-share’ was
used to allow everyone to participate in discussions. In future events we’d additionally
invite questions during discussions from groups that may not have had the floor
(e.g. young female, or BME).
We designated one room as a quiet zone, in case people
needed time out from social interaction. It ended up being used as a rehearsal
space, but such a room has been successful at other events.
Are there other perspectives we’re not including? Keep reflecting on this. It was identified early on that our suggested panel didn’t have a community representative, so we made contact with someone known locally for their grassroots activism. We did a similar exercise for the presenters once our call for proposals was announced – it’s okay to invite in people from marginalised groups; they’re often interested in getting involved and are a valuable source of information .
We had someone to coordinate the whole event, someone to
manage the registrations and social media, someone to recruit and manage
volunteers and managers to invite panellists and compere the day. Divide up
tasks and seek volunteer help (e.g. from students) to lighten the load and
allow you to support more people on the day. Several volunteers wore
identifiable shirts so people knew they could approach them if they were lost
or had any questions.
One barrier to participation is financial constraint, so we
offered bursary places.. Offering to pay for transport or to cover the cost of
childcare was another option.
We made sure our ticket price was kept low, at £25 for
concessions and £50 full-price, with early-bird options also. Many commented on
how fair our costing was and that it enabled them to attend.
Check your language
You’d be surprised how easily jargon or images can put off
your target audience. If the public’s only picture of the event is of white men
in a room, then that is what they’ll expect and might feel “I don’t belong here”.
Similarly, if the event includes or is for “experts” then the rest of us feel
like “non-experts”, which can be interpreted as “lacking in sufficient
knowledge”. We were careful to avoid these traps… and it is such a common
problem that one of our sessions at the conference was all about the use of
such language in public engagement.
To indicate that we would not tolerate harassment at the
conference, we included a Code of Conduct in our programme. Several people
commented that they really appreciated this extra effort!
Let people identify
We’ve been to several
events before where people get to design their own name badges, so we followed
suit. It breaks the ice, is low cost and is fun! But on a deeper level,
people’s identity is important to them. Let them define it!
Stay refreshed and
come up for air
Breaks facilitate networking and problem-solving, and allow
people time to digest what they have heard – so have lots of them! We had three
refreshment breaks, if you include lunch, with additional coffee and teas at
registration and an optional alcoholic and soft drinks reception at the end.
Food was vegan as standard, with gluten free options available – this was a
health and environmental choice. We worked with our caterers to offer oat milk,
as it is more sustainable and popular than their usual soy/almond alternative,
and to reduce single-use plastics. We knew our audience would appreciate this
and we asked them in the registration survey what they required..
During lunch, the site’s Grounds Manager led a nature walk so
people could stretch their legs and unwind from what can often be an
overwhelming morning of knowledge harvesting. We tied in what we were
discussing inside with the outdoor stroll by highlighting what UWE is doing to
improve biodiversity in the city and engage students to become ecosystem
stewards. Many people commented that the walk was their highlight!
Remember this is an
Capture photos, videos, blogs, demographic data and people’s
thoughts and feelings about how the conference went to make things better next
time. But do remember to ask people’s permission first!
The adage ‘you can’t please everyone’ is worth remembering
when designing events and conferences because, let’s face it, we all have
different needs and preferences. However, we can strive to make events as inclusive
as possible within our given constraints, so there is no excuse for not trying!
Here are just a few questions you could ask yourself in the
planning of your next event. Add to and refine the list after each event you
Does your team reflect the diversity you want to
see at the conference?
Does the panel represent the diversity you want
Have you reached out to under-served communities
and asked them why they may not attend? (e.g. could hiring a translator or
interpreter take away language barriers?)
Is your language in plain English, without
jargon or exclusionary terms? Not sure? Ask your intended audience.
Have you offered bursary places?
Is your cost affordable to as many people as
Have you asked about access and dietary
requirements and permissions (e.g. for photos, recordings, etc.) upon
Is the venue easily accessible by public
Does it have the technology you require? (e.g.
hearing loop, wifi)
Is there space to move around, walk around the
building safely and places to rest?
Is the venue breastfeeding friendly?
Are there disabled and non-binary toilets
available? Do the toilets have freely available sanitary products?
Have you advertised to multiple groups through
mediums that suit them (e.g. flyers in local community centres; speaking at a
local event; sharing event through mailing lists and newsletters)?
Are you sure the event does not clash with a
religious festival, national holiday or other important event?
If the event is held in the evening will people
need support with childcare?
Do you have a code of conduct?
Will there be food and beverages that can cater
to most needs? (Suggest ‘bring a dish’ or ‘bring your own’ if needed).
Is there a mixture of styles of sessions and
content to attract a wide audience?
If you have worked your way through this extensive but not
exhaustive list, the how should fall into place. Keep things fun and light and
be open to feedback.
During my undergraduate degree in biochemistry I spent a year studying abroad in Grenoble in the French Alps. I studied in the university for some of the time, and also did a 5 month placement in a research lab. Although interesting, it was enough to show me that a career in research was perhaps not for me, so I spent much of time gazing dreamily at the mountains wondering what else I could do.
I liked working in the laboratory, but I realised I really
wanted to be on the outside, telling people about all of the exciting things
that were going on inside. So when I came back for my final year I persuaded my
supervisors to let me do a science communication project for my final project,
rather than a bench research project, and I was hooked!
The UWE Bristol MSc Science Communication programme gave me an opportunity to work part time at Science Oxford – a small but influential charity that works to encourage the pursuit of science and enterprise. I was delivering workshops and shows to schools and the public, and also ran the regional STEM Ambassador programme, finding and training scientists and engineers across the region to work with schools too.
I always wanted to work in a museum or a science centre, so when
I took the MSc I was keen to focus on the modules relating to delivering
science communication face to face. I remember being inspired by people from
the Gulbenkian Foundation, the Royal Society, at-Bristol (as it was then known)
who we met during the course, and they all motivated me to use my wide range of
interests – art, music, family learning as well as science – to tell stories
and create conversations.
I also loved the Science on Air and Screen module, some of
which took place at the BBC. At the time I would listen to a lot of radio
(before the days of podcasts which now feature heavily in my down time!) and I
loved working in a small team to produce both a short radio show about
‘progress’, including a poet as a live guest, and a short TV piece about
Healthy Living Day. Although I haven’t gone on to work in broadcast media the
lessons on how to sum up coherently yet colloquially have come in handy when I’ve
been interviewed for radio or TV, including for BBC Stargazing Live and local
My Masters project was an evaluation of a set of touchable exhibits at the Oxford University Museum of Natural History. Finally a chance to do some work in a museum setting! I devised and piloted a series of protocols to help the museum evaluate how families were using their new exhibition. I now use these skills every day in my job as Public Engagement Development Manager for the Science and Technologies Facilities Council (STFC), one of the UK research councils. A key component of my job has involved producing an evaluation framework for a complex programme of work. As STFC is a funder as well as a delivery body, we aim to measure and evaluate events and activities run by around 40 partners a year reaching in excess of 500,000 people face to face, and a further 2.5 million via online and broadcast media to better report, improve and celebrate what we do.
favourite part of the job has got to be working with scientists and engineers
who love what they do and who are really keen to share their enthusiasm with
others. I work with them to help them to do so in a way that is engaging, will
genuinely appeal to the audience they are wishing to engage – ensuring they
have thought about who that is! – and then hear all their brilliant creative
ideas for how to communicate their area of research to others!
I’ll also be using all of these skills in a new large project coming up called Wonder. The launch of Wonder marks a long-term commitment by STFC public engagement to move our focus towards audience-driven public engagement with under-served communities in the most socioeconomically-deprived areas of the UK. We want more working with people, and less delivering to people. The project is still in early days, but it means that I’ve been able to feed in ideas right from the start and use many of the skills I learned on the MSc – from reading lots of publications and reports that others have written to be sure we are using current good practice, to writing a brief for an external evaluation consultant.
Jo Lewis, MSc Science Communication student at UWE Bristol.
What language can we use to create inclusive environments in
science communication? How might letting go of expert knowledge benefit underserved
audiences? Delegates attending the Sci Comm South West 2019 conference at UWE
Bristol were asked to crowdsource solutions to these issues at the ‘Letting go
of what is not serving us’ session. Both questions generated animated group
discussions resulting in several potential solutions.
What is in a word?
Kate Baker and Silvia Bortoli, University of Exeter
Science communicators have learned the hard way that
labelling groups of people is difficult and, more often than not, inaccurate. Language
can be very powerful in setting the scene and defining the foundations of
relationships, particularly when carrying out research.
During this first part of the session, participants were
asked to consider the word ‘non-academic’.
A seemingly innocuous word which is actually quite value-laden. It hides the
expertise that exists outside universities and research centres and highlights
what people ‘are not’ rather than the skills and knowledge that they may have.
It has the potential to alienate.
So what advice did our science communicators have?
There was an overall recognition that the term ‘academic’ is
problematic, with a suggestion that should be replaced with ‘researcher’ as
this is more active and more accurately describes what they do. Some suggested
alternatives for ‘non-academic’ were:
Community – this could represent a large or
small group of people, including those online
Contributor – this is a more active term,
showing that they are not passive recipients
Collaborator – although this is seen as being
neutral and actively involved it may suggest a level of participation which is
Stakeholder – this is seen as active, but may be
more suitable for a community group or charity
Partner – this may be more suitable for an
organisation rather than an individual.
It was generally agreed that it is important not to call a
group by what they cannot do or what they are not, but rather identify what
they can do or what they are. The overall advice suggested asking the group
what they would like to be called as early on in the process as possible and
sticking with it.
Stengler, SUNY Oneonta, New York
As science communicators we are acutely aware of the
importance of knowing your audience. When developing public engagement or
outreach programmes, science communicators may be asked to liaise between
scientists and organisations who work closely with the audience. These
organisations can include charities, schools and community groups. In these
cases it is important to recognise that specialist organisations know their
audiences extremely well and are often best placed to tailor a public
engagement activity. Scientists and researchers are often reluctant to allow
individuals and organisations, with little or no prior knowledge of the science,
to plan or deliver the public engagement activity.
In light of this issue the second part of the session asked:
How can we help scientists let go of
their science and allow experts in the audience to run an outreach or public
So what are the top tips from Sci Comm South West delegates?
Identify any concerns the scientists may have early
on in the project
Clearly define the role of the scientists in the
Make sure priorities are understood between the scientist
and audience expert groups
Co-develop the project, with the experts in
science planning with the experts in audience
Make sure everyone understands why they are
collaborating and where the various expertise lies
Provide training to enable transition to take
place smoothly between the experts in science and the experts in audience
Develop longer term relationships between the
scientist and audience experts.
Alongside these recommendations, all delegate groups
recognised the importance of trust between scientists and audience experts, and
that the best way to achieve this was though collaboration and building
The Sci Comm South West Conference 2019 attracted over 100 practitioners and researchers based across the south-west (very loosely defined!). The success of the conference and the energy in the room proved that there is a huge appetite for a ‘devolution’ of the London-centric science communication network. After all, so much happens outside of the M25!
Delegates were given the opportunity to explore what a network of science communicators in the south west of the UK might look like in a session led by Angela Cassidy, chair of the UK-wide Science in Public Research Network.
questions were posed: what is the benefit of a regional south-west network? How
do you bound ‘the region’ (someone suggested North Wales as a part of the
south-west) and ‘science communication’? What is the preferred format? Who will
take the lead?
with discussing the value of creating a professional network. Everyone in the
room understood the importance of shifting the attention (and bidding
capability) from London, but how do you define a region? How far can people
travel? What places do they identify with? How to deal with unequal dynamics
between cities and countryside?
we deliberated the purpose of the network. In the most pragmatic sense, there
is a great benefit to being ‘bid ready’ – having a space to discuss ideas and
form teams before the calls are being
announced. However, would running a purely funding-oriented network compromise
its potential to create truly innovative ideas?
about an hour mapping the relevant events, organisations and places. With the
wide geographical spread, broad understanding of ‘science’ and multiple
thematic networks-within-a network, what is the real value of a south-west
network? While we haven’t reached a conclusion, two ideas we flagged up were:
Studying part-time and working full-time is challenging to say the least. But now that I’ve finished, I can honestly say it is one of the most rewarding things I have ever done. The blood (tonsillectomy a few months before project deadline), sweat (hobbling around UWE on crutches is exhausting) and tears (both happy and stress induced) were all worth it now that I can see the findings of my MSc project being used in the real world.
Over the past (nearly) five years, I have worked at the Centre for Environmental Data Analysis (CEDA) – a data centre and supercomputer facility geared towards supporting the UK’s atmospheric and earth observation science communities. We are a small team that provides services for over 50,000 users (including scientists/students/private companies/general science enthusiasts/etc.). In the past year alone, users have downloaded over 775 Terabytes of data – that’s equivalent to more than 175 million photos! We increasingly need to justify our role in funding applications in order to continue providing these services. However, providing evidence of what users are using our services for is not easy information to collate – which is where my MSc project comes in.
My project entitled ‘Community-led ideas for collecting impact stories from CEDA service users’ sprung from this funder requirement of evidencing our services impact and was supervised by Dr Clare Wilkinson. The term ‘impact’ has many different meanings depending on who you ask about it. For my project, we defined impact as: ‘‘Beneficial changes that occur in the real world (beyond the world of researchers) as a result of research that relied upon CEDA services for its success’. This is the information we need to provide as evidence to our funders; but if it’s tricky to define impact, it’s even more difficult trying to measure and collect it – especially when the impact is ‘once removed’ as with our situation.
The project was undertaken in Summer 2018 with an online survey (520 responses) and a series of focus groups (26 attendees) at conferences and meetings that our key user communities were attending. The findings were generally positive and constructive – our users were keen to help us! However, there were disagreements as to how the impact information should be collected. Key recommendations from the research included;
Be transparent about why collecting impact information is necessary
Emphasise why it is beneficial to the user personally and for the service provider
One process will not fit all users. Think about the purpose of collecting the impact stories, and tailor the process accordingly
Provide a simple process that avoids wasting users’ time by;
Not asking for information too frequently
Collecting information via existing processes where possible
Asking for basic information first, later followed up (for more details) if the information is relevant and the user is willing
Providing support when writing impact stories
As these findings were ‘the answers’ to how we could collect impact information, it has meant we have been able to implement and act upon them. In January 2019, we targeted a section of our user community with a short survey asking them for basic information about the impactful science our services have enabled them to carry out. Over 50 responses were submitted, of which approximately 80% were suitable for use as a more detailed impact story – meaning we now have access to ~40 stories that CEDA can use as evidence when applying for funding.
We are hoping to share some of the stories with our user communities soon, however as we received more stories than we expected it’s taking some time… it’s just me working on this!
The MSc Science Communication at UWE Bristol has allowed me to steer my career path where I want it to be, and I am now CEDA’s (first) Communications Manager. I don’t believe this would have been possible without studying at UWE.
word we should learn to say loudly and clearly, without embarrassment: funding.
As an early career researcher and communicator, I often come across requests
for funding ‘help’. What can I do to manage my colleagues’ expectations and
negotiate the best rates for my work?
In the Sci
Comm South West workshop ‘Funding, funding everywhere’, Rae Hoole shared some
insights on securing finance. Science communicators, especially if freelance,
often wait to hear from schools, universities and councils who are in a
position to offer available work. However, is there anything we could do to
become more proactive and turn our ‘gigs’ into a conscious career choice?
commenced the workshop by telling the story of her career. With a background in
theatre, Rae managed to carve herself a niche as a director of a creative
learning company, Links to a Life, which combines physics education
with play and storytelling.
the first tip: it is challenging to bid
for funding as an individual! A much better way is to approach potential
partners or funders as a charity or a company (it’s not that hard to set one
up!). This will provide weight to your application and help you come across as the
amazing and experienced practitioner you are!
Second, discuss your potential project early on
so your application looks less like an accidental brainstorm and more like a
streamlined and deliverable idea. Clarity of your aims and impacts is
essential. You need to be able to evidence
who will benefit and how: have you got an evaluation strategy and measures
in place? Once you have developed a partnership, perhaps it’s worth to keep an
idea bank of potential projects ready to be turned into bids once funding calls
are open. This goes to show the importance of ongoing nurturing of networks you
establish at conferences like this one.
coming back to the F-word. The skill of
discussing rates is essential. First of all, I wish we didn’t have to put
up with this power dynamic and expectations that science communication or
freelance work is free – but hey ho – we live in a society. However, I
genuinely believe that collectively we have the power to shape this community
of practice. Every interaction we have – whether with a junior colleague, a
high school pupil or a potential funder – influences societal norms about the
value of science communication labour.
Meanwhile, one of the workshop participants shared with me how she measures her daily rate.
“You need to take the annual salary you aspire to and divide it by 100. That’s your daily rate. The overheads cover your admin, sick leave and pension. We don’t automatically get it as freelancers, yet we still have to take care of all the above!”.
are your experiences of bidding and negotiating salary? Do you ever work ‘for
exposure’? Share your views in comments!
Palaeontology – the study of past life – is a key element of understanding biology, changes in life over time and responses to large scale environmental changes. Despite this, the extent to which schools can teach their students about the subject is often limited by access to teaching materials, in terms of both funding to buy physical resources and space to store them. Looking at digital collections of specimens residing in museums around the world could be a way round this, but then schools run into the problem that such collections tend to be research-oriented and not constructed or presented to facilitate public or educational use. Even if they are able to look at these databases online, complex structures and specialist language are unlikely to be accessible or engaging for school students (or their teachers and families who may be supporting them to complete their work) to explore. Trips to visit physical museums, while undoubtedly of great value, can bring their own difficulties, with aspects such as cost, logistics and time out of school to consider and aren’t an experience or learning resource that can be offered regularly.
In an effort to find a solution, the Virtual Natural History
Museum is a novel engagement project that aims
palaeontological multimedia into a single educational resource. The website takes the form of a giant
computer game museum which visitors can explore, just as they would a physical
museum, viewing digital versions of fossils and other items you’d find in a
museum as they go.
The virtual museum will be free to
use and will run within website browsers, so no additional software will be
required. This way, anyone with an internet connection will be able access world-class
natural history collections and learn about fossils and past environments, from
wherever they are. The website will mainly rely on the online research catalogues
that museums produce for academics, bringing them together in one place and
making them accessible.
The project is ripe for development
for use in schools, as a resource for teachers to set homework projects and
class-based tasks to explore the world of fossils, dinosaurs and more. In order
to understand how the team behind the museum can continue to create this
exciting new resource in a way that will best suit schools and teachers, we are
engaging with teachers from primary and secondary schools, as well as science
communicators, in research to find out where they should go next. The V-NHM
project is hosted by the University
of Bristol, with UWE Bristol leading this pilot research to inform its future
We’re doing this by running an online
survey which allows educators to try out the museum and give
their thoughts, conducting focused interviews with teachers to further explore
their perspective on the virtual natural history museum concept, and giving
primary and secondary schools students the opportunity to test the museum
concept and give their feedback. Their insights will be invaluable in directing
the future of the virtual museum, and school students participating in the
study are enjoying the opportunity to be involved with and contribute to real
For more information about this research, please
contact Dr Laura Hobbs;
to find out more about the Virtual Natural History Museum please contact the
project lead, Dave Marshall.
I’ve never decided the fate of a large slice of land before, fictional or otherwise. Stepping into the shoes of town planners and developers at Sci Comm South West 2019, participants in the workshop ‘Can you solve the city’s sustainability dilemma?’ were given the opportunity to explore the decisions that need to be made when considering urbanisation, city growth and the all-important sustainable development goals (SDGs).
Ruth Larbey, a Science Communication Unit (SCU) expert in communicating science to environmental decision-makers, gave us a simple brief. We had two minutes to make an elevator pitch (as in, the time it takes for a long elevator ride) to convince a representative of the fictional city, Swester, that our vision for a newly available two acres of inner-city land was most suitable for the needs of the city and its residents.
We were split into groups
and given an idea to pitch. I found myself in the camp proposing the building
of a new leisure center. However, we were up against fierce competition in the
forms of: a business incubator, a renewable energy company, a community farm,
and housing developers.
The UN’s SDGs had to be
considered and we had to pitch how our idea would best integrate ecosystem and
biodiversity values, contribute to sustainable urbanisation and best provide for the
local community. We were to use our powers of persuasion to convince the city
authorities that ours was the best use of the land for the sustainable growth
of the city and would best improve the health and welfare of its residents.
Before we started our pitches, we were also given the following information
about the city of Swester:
Developing IT and technology sector
Fast growing population
Need for more affordable housing
Lack of green space
Lack of facilities for exercise
High air pollution due to increased number of cars
High rates of medical conditions, such as asthma,
cardiovascular diseases and diabetes
Considering the above
problems, here are the pitches proposed by each stakeholder group:
As housing developers,
Orchard Housing unsurprisingly suggested a new local development. They promised
30% affordable housing to fill the gap in the market and suggested a shared
community allotment to maximise green space. The houses would incorporate renewable
designs and architecture in line with the SDG of integrating ecosystem and
biodiversity values into local planning.
suggested the land would be best used as a solar farm. They wanted to turn
industrial land into business space and work alongside Swester’s growing tech sector to
develop the city into a green business hub. Their aim was to move the city
towards being carbon neutral and providing local fuel discounts to help
alleviate fuel poverty.
Swestershire Sports were pitching the
idea of a new sport and leisure centre. Their argument was that a sports center
would improve the physical and mental health of the population of Swester, thereby relieving some
of the pressures of an unhealthy and increasing population on the local
hospital. They suggested school schemes and discounts for residents who would
not otherwise be able to afford membership.
Temple Seeds are a
community group interested in food growing. They proposed that the land would
be best developed into a community farm to address the lack of green space and
improve air quality, local food production and community isolation. The farm
would be a hub of growing knowledge and organise food swaps as well as
allotments and an education center to teach children about food.
West Country Innovation
The business hub wanted
to bring jobs to the local economy. They suggested a business park of remodelled
shipping containers, highlighting that it would bring more jobs within walking
distance, thus reducing residents’ reliance on cars for transport and alleviating
air pollution in the process. The park’s design would be in keeping with the
SDGs and would provide some, if not all, its power from green sources.
stakeholder group was also given the opportunity to choose one other group to
partner up with and share the development space. Given the city’s lack of green
space, most groups chose to pair with Temple Seeds, as they felt a community
garden could be the most easily incorporated into their design.
What I found most
interesting about this exercise was considering not just the immediate benefits
of each idea for the land, but also the benefits from every angle, and then
trying to cram all those benefits into just two minutes of talking.
We realised that the communication
of science and policy is what would make or break our pitches for the land, and
so had to really think hard about how to maximise all the ways in which
our ideas fitted the needs of the community and the requirements of the SDGs.
It made us appreciate how precious development land is, particularly with
increasing populations and scarcer resources.
Deciding a winner was
difficult. All pitches were made convincingly, and all had their own merits for
the community and for the environment. They also all had their own challenges
in implementation, but in the end the best pitch won – I’ll let you decide
which that one was.
On 21st June, UWE Bristol’s Science Communication Unit welcomed over 100 delegates to X Block on UWE Bristol’s Frenchay campus to celebrate regional ‘sci comm’ talent and debate how researchers and practitioners can harness this resource to begin addressing today’s most pressing societal, economic and planetary challenges.
a warm welcome from Professor Olena Doran, the key note speaker, Dr Carla
Almeida offered insights into the challenges of communicating science and
health related issues in the Favela surrounding the Museum
of Life in Rio De Janeiro, her home city in Brazil. She spoke passionately of
how the Museum is reaching out to the local community, training students from
the local area as science communicators and raising their aspirations. These
students help to break down barriers between favelas and Foundation Oswaldo
Cruz in which the Museum is located. The Museum also takes part in the annual
Carnival which draws in the community. At the heart of what they do is a
mission to foster a two-way dialogue with local people so they can begin to
address some of the socio-environmental and health related issues facing the
community of which they are a part.
parallel sessions throughout the day built on this theme, including With Whom Do You Communicate? A sessionthat introduced two novel projects (Black2Nature and STFC’s The Wonder Initiative) that aim to widen participation in science,
technology and nature conservation; and Letting
Go of What’s Not Serving Us, which crowdsourced solutions to the
difficulties of using academic language when trying to engage with local
Talking of academic
language, in a joint interactive session between James Nobles (NIHR
CLAHRC West), Zoe Banks Gross (Knowle West
Media Centre) and Malcolm Hamilton (Mufti
Games) gave delegates a chance let go (and bin) the
jargon that wasn’t serving them, an exercise they play with low socio-economic
status residents across Bristol to get them moving and to discuss how
effectively physical activity guidelines are communicated.
The voices and perspectives on the day were truly diverse, as were the types of sessions and activities on offer. You could have chosen to play Periodic Table Top Trumps or taken part in a decision-making simulation run by Ruth Larbey of the Science Communication Unit, while during lunch there was opportunity to explore UWE grounds with a guided nature walk by Richie Fleuster and discover what’s being done to improve biodiversity across our campuses. The day ended with a keynote from speakers representing Eden Project, I’m A Scientist, We The Curious and The Natural History Consortium, among others. During the drinks reception storyteller Dawn Ellis seamlessly wove in highlights from the day into a tale about ninja’s from the West Country on a mission to save the world.
The conference was so
well received that we are already being asked when we will host the next one,
and believe this event has successfully reminded people of the role of the
Science Communication Unit regionally, nationally, and internationally.
Over the coming weeks we will be sharing articles
on our blog about the event, including one on how to design inclusive
We’re looking forward to the next one already!
Sophie Laggan, Project Coordinator: Sci Comm South West Conference 2019