Neurodiversity Week (15-21 March 2021) celebrates our unique strengths and differences, while recognising that the many talents of people with ADHD, autism, dyslexia, dyspraxia and other neurodiverse ways of thinking and learning are often not suited to traditional, formal learning environments. Science Hunters is a Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths (STEM) outreach and research programme that uses Minecraft to engage children from under-represented groups with STEM. Projects have covered a wide range of topics such as the Amazon rainforest, understanding diabetes, earth science and volcanoes and space, with the Building to Break Barriers project currently running at UWE Bristol engaging children with many aspects of engineering.
Minecraft is the second-best selling video game of all time and extremely popular with children. Players place and break blocks with a wide range of appearances and properties, to build a huge range of constructions. It can be played either as a single-player game or in a shared virtual world with multiple users playing together, and was chosen for Science Hunters because of its popularity (children want to play it!), particular appeal to children who learn differently, and suitability for explaining science.
A key target group for Science Hunters is children with Special Educational Needs (SEN), particularly through a dedicated Minecraft Club that has been running since 2015. It soon became clear that taking part in the club, alongside children with similar needs in an accepting environment, and playing a game which was a shared special interest, had more benefits for participants than STEM learning alone.
When face-to-face sessions are possible, as they were until the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, Minecraft Club uses a dedicated server, so that children can play together in a safe social online space. Most of the children who attend have ADHD, autism and/or dyslexia. Spaces are limited to no more than 16 at a time, with simple guidelines to keep the club fun; children are not under pressure to conform to ‘neurotypical’ behaviour norms as may be expected in non-specific settings. STEM topics are briefly introduced, and then participants are free to build in Minecraft in relation to that topic; while adults are there to guide and support, children are encouraged to follow their own interests and ideas to create their own unique designs. For four years, data were collected from participating children and their parents/carers, who attended with them, through surveys and interviews.
During this time, 101 children aged 5-17 years attended; responses were gathered from 29 children and 37 caregivers. Results indicated that children both enjoyed and learnt something from attending, and while their feedback understandably often focused on Minecraft, they also indicated that they had benefitted socially and emotionally from being in the shared space with other children with similar interests. This was supported by insights from parents and carers, who described benefits outside the club, such as improved confidence and wellbeing, improved social skills, and reduced need for formal learning support.
Interest in playing Minecraft is what motivates children to attend, and the game provides a range of opportunities for children to potentially develop social and educational skills. This is supported by the process of designing and completing builds, independently or collaboratively, and communicating with others within the shared virtual world. Playing in the same physical space enhances this, as communication can move between the virtual and real worlds and allow in-person peer support and the ‘safe space’ provided in our Minecraft Club supports children with SEN to interact naturally and spontaneously. While it was set up as part of STEM outreach, the social communication impacts of our Minecraft Club – such as making friends, fitting in, and feeling valued without judgement regardless of completing tasks or conforming to expected social behaviours – are at least as important.
Minecraft Club is currently running virtually as part of Building to Break Barriers. We’ve looked at earthquake-proof buildings, protecting against flooding, tunnels, drones and more, and are exploring the effects of the change to meeting online.
When children are asked what an engineer is, and what they look like, it can often be a tricky question. They may jump to the image of an engine mechanic, or a man in overalls with a spanner and a hard-hat. They may also have trouble recognising familiar jobs as coming under the umbrella of engineering.
Engineering is defined as ‘working artfully to bring something about’. More literally, it is the application of science and maths to solve problems. And it’s a career that is more relevant than ever – to achieve net zero and a low carbon global economy, everything we make and use, from aircraft to cars, batteries to wind turbines, will need to be completely re-imagined and re-engineered.
When a child does not personally know an engineer, or does not recognise the role of engineering in solving the problems faced by a society, then this notion of an engineer becomes more removed from their view, and critically, from their career aspirations. In science communication, we encounter children with low science capital throughout our work. So how can the children dream of becoming an engineer, if they don’t know what one is?
You can’t be what you can’t see
It is difficult for children to imagine themselves in that job, when the engineer does not look like them. Encouraging girls and children from minority ethnic groups into engineering careers, and STEM careers more broadly, is a key focus of the DETI Inspire team working out of UWE.
In collaboration with My Future My Choice, as well as many local engineers; the DETI Inspire team at UWE have developed the Engineering Curiosity cards and lesson resources for schools. The aim is to bring the diversity of the West of England’s amazing engineers into the classroom and enthuse and inspire both primary and secondary pupils. Through not only learning about what an engineer is and recognising their role, but also introducing them to real-life local engineers that may come from similar beginnings, so that they can start to think of engineering as something that could be for them!
Engineering Curiosity is a collection of 52 cards, based upon 52 local engineers in a wide variety of different roles and industries, in a kind of ‘Top Trumps’ meets ‘Happy Families’ style game. The engineers featured have also each produced an engaging TikTok style video, giving a fun snapshot of their role and their route into it. The project has developed lesson plans, curriculum linked worksheets and activities, and school-wide assemblies to accompany the cards and videos, all to aid schools in running sessions that involve the real engineers joining them live in the classroom through video link.
During the recent British Science Week, local schools around the West have been taking part in DETI’s ‘Big Beam In!’, bringing the sessions to life and reaching over 3500 pupils. Some of which may just be the West’s future engineers!
Looking to inspire in your science communication, or want to check out all the engineering roles for yourself? You can find the resources, lesson plans and cards on the Curiosity Connections website.
With just ten years left to change our carbon intensive lifestyles to mitigate climate chaos, urgent decisions need to be made about how we can reach net zero and clean air. Meanwhile, the Covid19 pandemic and the Black Lives Matter movement show that citizen involvement in science communication has never been more critical to ensure a socially just transition.
At this critical moment, the ClairCity project has reached its final dissemination stage; Europe’s largest ever research project on citizen-led decision making for clean air and carbon reductions. Six cities and regions came together to share engagement methods to involve citizens in policymaking, namely, Amsterdam in The Netherlands, the Aveiro Region of Portugal, Bristol in the UK, the Liguria region of Italy, Ljubljana in Slovenia and Sosnowiec in Poland.
As a result of the project team’s efforts, 818,736 citizens were involved in some form or another. Of these, 8,302 were directly engaged through workshops, events, schools’ activities, mobile games and apps, and even videos, a number which far exceeded the expectations of the team.
Why was this significant? Because these 8,302 citizens all influenced clean air and climate change decisions in their local context.
Over four years, the project partners and Council officers made many collaborations with local community organisations and together with a strong social media presence, the project’s on- and offline presence grew. Through a variety of engagement tools, citizens were able to have their say on what mattered to them regarding transport and home heating and what they would like to see change to enable them to make greener choices. There were also candid discussions on the potential barriers to such changes to not only make these concerns known to decision makers, but to have a deeper understanding of the challenges and trade-offs that need to be made when taking policy decisions.
Equipped with this information, ClairCity was then able to consult policy makers about the policies proposed by citizens and discuss how to operationalise them. As a final step, the top citizen policies were modelled against current policy plans for each case study to assess whether citizens’ demands could affect future emissions and associated health impacts. In nearly every context, citizens were more ambitious than ‘business as usual’, with the exception of Amsterdam where the local government was in fact more ambitious than its citizens.
The aim of the evaluation was to see whether the project had fulfilled its aim of ‘raising awareness of environmental challenges and their solutions through proactive dissemination of the project outcomes’. To do this, we explored the demographics of participants and those less directly involved, examined indicators of awareness, attitudes, knowledge and enjoyment (so called Generic Learning Outcomes) and citizen’s intended behavioural changes. Additionally, we explored differences across countries, demographics and engagement tools, to understand perceptions in different contexts. Data collection was carried out through paper/online questionnaires, including pop-up windows in the game and app, as well as in-depth interviews with staff and social media analysis.
All tools exceeded their targets for audience reach, apart from the App which remained at BETA testing due to technical issues. The Delphi workshops were particularly impressive, with 4887 participants compared with 200 expected, and the ClairCity Skylines game, with 2,800 players worldwide compared with 1500 players expected. Both successes can be largely attributed to the on-the-ground outreach and marketing activities of our case study partners, who made connections with community organisations, produced flyers, spoke on the radio, attended events, and generally made lots of noise to attract people. The cities that spent less time and resources on this groundwork had fewer participants as a result.
Our social media platforms gained a lot of traction over the years, although they were again limited by time and resources available. Our Communication Coordinator in Bristol was able to orchestrate our main sites, resulting in (at the time of writing) 1,392 Twitter followers and 416 Facebook followers, and 36,482 website visitors. Sites managed by our partners – who weren’t dedicated science communicators – had considerably less traffic.
Data was collected for age, gender and educational attainment. Given the fact that ClairCity had targeted schools’ engagements, with several team members having direct connections to local schools, in addition to a mobile game, over 40% of participants were aged between 13-24. Working adults occupied around 50% of participants, and over 55+ represented less than 10%. This is quite an impressive finding considering most engagement projects fail to capture the full spectrum of ages.
63% of participants in the study identified as male. The biggest gender differential came from the game, with more than twice as many male players than female, which skewed the gender balance. Alongside this, many stakeholder workshop participants were senior men in regional organisations, which again skewed the gender balance.
Participants were asked about their education level in our workshops. 81% of respondents held a Bachelor’s degree or above. On the other hand, in the game, 79% ranked their level of knowledge on air quality as being low/none. In other words meaning, the game appealed to people with less expertise.
Both policy makers and teachers were asked about the usefulness of the tool relevant to them. An overwhelming percentage of policy makers found the policy workshop useful/very useful (95%), compared with a more modest percentage of teachers finding for the schools’ competition (61%). The schools’ activities have since been expanded following this feedback, and our Educator Pack (part one and two) is freely available online, and has been featured in the British Science Association Science Week pack, and through Sustainable Learning.
The majority of participants enjoyed or loved the activities in which they were involved. Both the Delphi and Stakeholder workshops greatly improved participants’ understanding of air quality (88% and 82% more understanding, respectively). 39% of game players left with more understanding, however for 45% their understanding stayed the same. The app mainly left people with the same understanding (47%), or feeling confused (18%).
Perhaps one of the biggest findings was in regards to behaviour change. At least half of all participants in the Delphi workshops, game, schools’ activities and stakeholder intended to change their behaviours as a result of their involvement (58%, 80%, 67% and 79%, respectively).
Upon cross-comparison, it was found that the more participants enjoyed the activity, the more they reported that their understanding of air quality had improved. Similarly, the more participants reported that their understanding had improved, the more they reported that they would change their behaviour. Younger people and those with lower education to start with were more likely to say they would change their behaviour. All of these relationships were highly statistically significant.
Ultimately, the more enjoyable the engagement activities, the more people gain understanding about the issues, and the more likely people are to make a change to their behaviour to reduce air pollution and carbon emissi0ns, and improve the health of our cities.
Reflections on the evaluation process
In future we would recommend other projects take additional time to target women’s groups, or develop ‘tools’ that appeal to women
While efforts were made to reach representivity through undertaking the Delphi process in low socio-economic status neighbourhoods, in hindsight we would have worked harder to amplify under represented voices. Recent Black Lives Matter protests have been a stark reminder of the need to make our work inclusive..
Working on an international project presented issues with translating the website and evaluation forms. More dedicated evaluation time, or expert science communicators in each country, would have helped researchers who were less experienced in social science research methods.
We benefitted from having evaluation embedded from the beginning (rather than an add-on), and as such designed our evaluation methods to work in different contexts and cultures
Most ClairCity staff found engaging with citizens challenging (due to not having experience in this) but highly rewarding. By the end of the project the vast majority stated they have enjoyed engaging with citizens. This was a rich experience in terms of new skills, with our staff reporting to have learned how to pitch their ideas, how to talk to citizens and how important is to listen to people as well.
If you are interested in our experiences, or in benefitting from our reports, please check out our website for a variety of resources and tools to aid future citizen-led decision making on climate change and air pollution.
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.
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
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.
You hear a lot of advice from people when you are thinking of setting up a podcast. People have all sorts of opinions about how long episodes should be, what you should talk about, how you should talk, how often you should release episodes. I’m not sure any of them are right. Think about the podcasts you listen to. Are they all the same length as each other? All the same format? All series or all regular? I doubt it.
I’m the host of The Cosmic Shed podcast which was recently named as one of the Guardian’s favourite podcasts of 2018. It’s recorded in the crumbling garden shed at the bottom of my garden, somewhere in suburban Bristol. It really is an awful shed but guests on the podcast include Tim Peake, Alice Roberts, Benedict Cumberbatch, Nichelle Nichols and Chris Hadfield. We discuss science fact, science fiction and everything in between. Occasionally we take the podcast on the road for live events, like our takeover of Bristol’s planetarium with Andy Weir, the author of The Martian.
Podcasts are what the hosts make them to be. If you’re
thinking of setting one up, think about what your favourite podcast are and why
you like them. The thing that the best all have in common is that the people
hosting and presenting them have a huge passion for their topics. That passion
is infectious and vital for the listener but it takes many forms. My favourite
podcasts are a mixture of scripted, well researched shows like Caliphate and
RadioLab and the more relaxed, informal formats like Spooktator and The Adam
The idea for The Cosmic Shed came to me while I was studying
for the MSc in Science Communication at UWE. I had recently moved to Bristol
and bought a house which needed a lot of work. A lot of work. Water came up through
the floor and down through the ceiling. The waste pipe from the toilet went out
onto the roof. That’s the end of that sentence but I would add that this part
of the roof did not leak. In the garden stood a shed. A truly awful, rotting
shed with more holes than the house and half the floor missing. “That looks
like a great place to record a podcast”, I thought.
Several years later, The Cosmic Shed podcast has over 100
episodes, won awards and, yet, the shed still looks awful from the outside.
There are a cohort of co-hosts for the Cosmic Shed. We have a nanoscientist Dr Maddy Nichols, an aerospace engineer Dr Steve Bullock, a film nerd (understatement) Timon Singh and more regular guest/hosts like Tushna Commisariat (Physics World) and Achintya Rao (CERN). We all have our own expertise and our own loves of science fiction.
We get a fair amount of correspondence from people who tell
us that we are like friends to them. They look forward to our episodes and feel
like they are sitting in the shed with us as they listen. If you think of your
favourite podcasts, I suspect you’ll find most of them have regular hosts who
you get to know and like. It’s one of the main reasons why people like
podcasts. Not that that is deliberate from our point of view. I believe that
it’s just a natural consequence of the way we record the podcast.
The Guardian newspaper described us as a “light-hearted, curious and nerdy listen” and I think that’s what you get if you put a group of friends in a terrible shed, watch a bit of science fiction and record the conversation.
Your podcast should be as long as you want it to be, as often as you want it to be and about what you want to it be about. That way, you’ll enjoy doing it as much as your listeners love listening to it.
If you are a podcaster or you are thinking of becoming one,
do feel free to get in touch. I’d be delighted to have a chat with you but
beware. The first question anyone asks me is how we get such brilliant guests.
I never answer it.
2712 children from across the South West answered this question with their designs to solve real-world problems.
The Leaders Awards is organised by Primary Engineer, helping children to meet real-life engineers. Led by the SCU’s Laura Fogg Rogers, UWE Bristol is an official sponsor, in partnership with Defence Equipment and Support (the procurement arm of the Ministry of Defence).
The shortlisted entries were showcased at a public exhibition in June 2018, bringing together 19 winners and their parents in a celebration with engineers from across the South West.
Children from Reception through to Year 10 were recognised for their efforts. Designs ranged from rotating bunk beds to bird-identifier binoculars. Students from UWE Bristol’s EngWest Studio will make one of the winning entries as part of their studies.
The future of engineering is here!
Ready to engineer your future?
Following International Women in Engineering Day on 23rd June, 135 female students in Years 9-11 from across the South West had the chance to participate in hands-on activities, demonstrating the ways in which engineering careers impact many aspects of society.
Each zone focused on a different contribution to society, with the ultimate challenge of designing and building a city of the future. The girls got involved in bridge building, urban design, smart technologies, and sustainable solutions. All these courses are taught in the Faculty of Environment and Technology at UWE Bristol.
The event aimed to challenge traditional perceptions that engineering is mainly for men, in order to tackle a lack of diversity in the profession. Laura Fogg Rogers, who helped to organise it, has also recently initiated the Women Like Me project at UWE Bristol, which aims to further encourage and support girls and women to enter and remain in engineering professions.
Living in cities impacts on our health and the health of the planet. If you were able to develop your city to prioritise health, what would you change first?
The SCU team have just launched Shape Our City, a creative, online consultation that allows you to step into the shoes of a city decision maker, weigh up the evidence and have your say on the health of our city. Working within a realistically limited budget, you will have to make trade-offs between types of investment and the scale at which you invest. Do you think it’s more urgent to improve the quality of buildings, to make roads safer, to increase the number of cycle paths or amount of green space, or to improve access to healthy food?
Shape Our City is part of a project encouraging citizens to take a more active role in urban decision-making concerning their health – and the health of future city residents. Luke Jerram’s Inhale diesel soot particle sculpture, 3 million times larger than the real size of a diesel soot particle and designed to start conversations about the invisible health risks of air pollution, is another part of the project, and, in Bristol, Shape Our City will be gathering citizen preferences until November 2018.
What you choose to prioritise will be used to inform city developers and future research on designing cities for people and planetary health: so make sure you invest wisely!
Sophie Laggan, Project Coordinator of Our City, Our Health in SCU says: “We have gathered the latest evidence on the links between the built environment and our health and also quantified the health costs and savings from how cities are developed. Our consultation reveals these savings so, for the first time, we can make visible the positive benefits to be gained from prioritising our health in urban decision-making – and find out what is most important to you. It’s all quite exciting!”