Evaluating Europe’s largest project on citizen-inclusive decision making for clean air and carbon management

Posted on

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.

An evaluation of epic proportion

ClairCity was a fascinating project to evaluate for our SCU team including Dr Laura Fogg-Rogers, Dr Margarida Sardo, Dr Corra Boushel, Sophie Laggan, and David Judge. We have produced a full evaluation report with all of the findings, which you’re welcome to read if you have the time, and a shorter one if you have less time. For those visual learners, there is also a visual evaluation report and our webinar recording. Finally, to satisfy blog readers, we have you covered too! Read on to hear our reflections and key findings.

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.

Social prowess

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.

Demographics

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.

Learning outcomes

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.

Sophie Laggan, Communications Officer, ClairCity

Science Chatters

Posted on

Walking around the Frenchay campus at UWE Bristol is an intriguing experience. Wander down one corridor and you find yourself in the Centre for Appearance Research, down another and you’ll find yourself flanked by science labs. Just what is that researcher doing, hunched over their experiment? What about the one peering at their computer screen? Step outside and, tucked away behind the student union, is the Bristol Robotics Lab. Just what is going on behind those doors?

The Science Chatters podcast is a collaboration between students and staff from the SCU and seeks to answer such questions.

For episode one of the Science Chatters podcast we chose the theme of The Arctic.  Emma Brisdion, a student on the MSc in Science Communication chatted with Dr. Stephanie Sargeant, Senior Lecturer in Environmental Science about her recent research trip to the Arctic.

Priya Payment, studying on the Level 3 Wildlife Film and Media module, interviewed Annie Moir whose film, A Voice Above Nature, recently won a prestigious award at the Jackson Hole Wildlife Film Festival. Annie is a recent graduate from the MA in Wildlife Filmmaking.

From that sublime beginning, we had to turn to something more ridiculous and the second episode of Science Chatters is now live, with the enticing theme of Poo and Wee. Chloe Russell, studying the MSc in Science Communication speaks to Dr. Iwona Gadja about the Urine-tricity project, gaining electricity from urine.

The Urine-tricity project is one way in which researchers in the Bristol Robotics Lab are seeking to find ways to apply their knowledge of how to use “Pee Power” to provide electricity in areas including displacement and refugee camps. 

Fellow MSc student, Jessica Howard interviews Angeliki Savvantoglou about her PhD research into the bears of Greece…through the flies that interact with that thing that bears do in the woods.

Angeliki Savvantoglou examining bear scat.

There’s an argument that we should have called it Bears and Electricity but either way, you can listen here now.

Science Communication comes in many forms and Angeliki is an illustrator alongside her work on her PhD. If she is allowed to use the illustrations in her thesis, the reviewers will have a treat…as well as reading a lot of detail about poo.

Brown bear illustration by Angeliki Savvantoglou.

Jessica Howard, who interviewed Angeliki, is also an illustrator and designed the Science Chatters logo.

I’ve been something of a podcast fan for many years, both as a listener and as a creator. There’s something about the medium which lends itself to conversations which are filled with insight and honesty. In a world seemingly dominated by opinion and spin (to put it mildly), podcasts can provide a much needed escape. The relaxed format allows for conversations which are not afforded by other media and being able to hear directly to researchers involved in the science is really revealing.

UWE Bristol is a hotbed of research and Science Chatters allows listeners to listen in behind the scenes.

Andrew Glester, Lecturer in Science Communication at UWE Bristol.

Building our understanding of diabetes with Minecraft (even if you don’t have the game!)

Posted on

The inside of the human body, and all its organs, cells and molecules can be tricky to visualise, and that makes it difficult to understand how conditions like diabetes work. We can use things like models to help us see all these different features, and work out how they link together to do different things.

But models can take up a lot of space, and most of us don’t have anatomically accurate physical representations of the internal workings of the human body conveniently accessible at home, or even in many schools. Diagrams are an alternative, but they’re generally not very interactive.

The virtual construction game Minecraft, on the other hand, is great for exploring scientific concepts because it has many features and processes that relate to the real world, and can be used to visualise things that we can’t usually see – such as cells in the human body. Children and young people are often familiar with the game as it’s hugely popular, and this can give them a sense of expertise and ownership. We know Minecraft can act as a hook for children to engage with science topics, and that by participating in our sessions they can increase their subject knowledge and understanding, making it an effective tool for both catching children’s interest, and supporting their learning.

So what if we could use Minecraft to view and explore a large model of a human body on a computer? We could even get right inside it to investigate the internal organs, cells and processes.

In our ‘Building our understanding of diabetes with Minecraft’ project, we did just that. We have a human body constructed in Minecraft, which users can move around inside. They can explore the organs, cells and molecules inside it, and visualise and learn about processes that occur when someone does, and does not, have diabetes.

During the 2019-2020 school year, we began using this specially constructed Minecraft human body to deliver sessions about diabetes in schools in England and Scotland. However, now we are unable to do that during the COVID-19 pandemic, we’ve created a slideshow to explain how diabetes works, using examples from the Minecraft build to illustrate components and concepts, and an accompanying video run through of the Minecraft human body. This way, more people can explore diabetes and the human body in Minecraft, even if we can’t visit them in schools or they don’t have Minecraft at home.

The slideshow and video can be used together, or the slideshow can be used as standalone resource. Each takes you on a virtual tour through the human body, exploring the relevant parts and processes involved in diabetes. They talk about what it’s like to have diabetes, and how it’s treated, and explore the pancreas, blood vessels, and cells and molecules to learn about their roles in diabetes. If you would like a creative challenge, the slideshow gives some ideas for activities, including building with Minecraft and Lego.  

The slideshow and video can be viewed below.

If you use the resources, we would really appreciate some feedback! There is a short online form here where you can report how children and young people found using them.

Project information

Exploring the molecular basis of diabetes with Minecraft is a Science Hunters project based at UWE Bristol, in collaboration with the University of Aberdeen, the University of Hull and Lancaster University and funded by a Royal Society of Chemistry Outreach Fund grant. The project was devised by Dr Laura Hobbs (UWE Bristol and Lancaster), Dr John Barrow (Aberdeen) and Professor Mark Lorch (Hull), and developed and delivered by them along with Sophie Bentley (UWE Bristol and Lancaster), Dr Jackie Hartley (Lancaster), Naziya Lokat (Lancaster), Jonathan Kim (UWE Bristol and Lancaster), Rebecca Rose (Lancaster), Dr Carly Stevens (Lancaster) and Jordan Bibby (NHS Lanarkshire). Science Hunters projects takes a child-led, play-based approach to learning and engagement, and have an inclusive Widening Participation ethos.

Laura Hobbs and Sophie Bentley

Research and writing placement exploring science communication and the tobacco industry

Posted on

Have you ever considered researching corporate misbehaviour?

I hadn’t either until October when, just after I had started my MSc, a placement opportunity came through the Science Communication Unit and landed in my email inbox. It was asking for applicants with attention to detail, good writing ability, an enquiring mind, and an interest in public health or social policy.

I was interested so I applied and that is how I ended up walking, getting the train, and jumping on a bus to get to Bath and back on some of the coldest and darkest days in January.

I spent a week with the Tobacco Control Research Group at the University of Bath. The placement and training course supported the work of the team of academics and journalists who produce the Tobacco Tactics website. This investigates and publishes on the activities of international tobacco companies and their allies.

We spent the first two days hearing from academic members of the research group and guest speakers as well as getting acquainted with the research topics. We participated in lectures on topics such as writing for different audiences, investigative techniques and freedom of information requests. By Wednesday we were ready for practical sessions. In groups we spent three days working on different topics, researching and writing up our findings. We worked hard!

Each day we also heard from PhD students. They presented their research topics which included corporate influence on science; illicit trade; and social media monitoring. These lunchtime talks were interesting and I particularly enjoyed learning about digital methods such as collecting and analysing Twitter data.

Working with students from undergraduate and postgraduate courses at Bath, UWE Bristol and Gloucester universities was really valuable as we were able to share our wide range of interests and experiences to learn from and collaborate with each other during the placement.

Throughout the week I had many moments where I linked what I was learning on placement to what I was learning in my MSc, to my previous studies, and to experiences I have had in different job roles. This was rewarding and motivating whilst I am studying and thinking about my future career plans.

Because of the industry the group researches, in order to undertake the placement we had to sign a conflict of interest form and our conversations and work were kept on a secure network which is required for this area of public health communication.

The commute was worth it!

By Morwenna Bugg, a student on the MSc in Science Communication at UWE Bristol

How we mapped the vast online science communication terrain

Posted on

The number of people writing, tweeting, instagramming, blogging, podcasting, vlogging about all things science is unfathomably large. Then there’s the universities, the charities, the businesses and so on who are adding to the mix. It’s no wonder then that the online science communication terrain isn’t mapped. We know it’s out there, yet exactly who is doing what, where and how is something we only have snapshots of information about. Yet mapping this vast terrain is exactly what we’ve been trying to do within the Science Communication Unit as part of our work on the European Commission-funded RETHINK project .

The RETHINK project involves 10 institutions across Europe including VU Amsterdam and Ecsite, the European network of science centres. Together, we’re trying to explore how science is communicated online so we can see what’s working well and understand more about what’s going wrong when it’s not, such as the audiences that aren’t being reached. To start this process, we needed a better view of the online science communication terrain in terms of who is doing the communicating, the platforms they are using and the forms their communication takes.

Given the terrain’s scale, we decided to set some boundaries to our exploration. Firstly, in conjunction with the other RETHINK project partners, we decided to concentrate our mapping efforts on three topic areas – climate change, artificial intelligence and healthy diets. These topics were selected because they are important to all our lives. But they also represent very different online habitats; with different individuals and organisations doing the communicating and very diverse subject matter. It means we get a richer insight into how varied the online science communication landscape is.

Secondly, we limited the number of each type of communicator we would map to 10. So, for example, once we had found 10 universities communicating about climate change, we would stop. Otherwise the mapping would have been an insurmountable task. After all, what we were really aiming to do was to explore the different types of communicator as well as the forms of communication they are involved with. We were mapping the extent of the terrain – how far it reached and what was there – rather than trying to measure the peak of each mountain; the number of specific types of organisation or individual communicating about each topic.

To get an even better view of the terrain, the mapping was carried out by RETHINK team members in seven countries across Europe – Italy, The Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Sweden and Serbia as well as the UK. Each country chose two of the three topics they were going to map. Again, to make the exploration more manageable.

To make sure we could compare the online science communication terrains in different countries, the exploration needed to be carried out in exactly the same way in each country.  So Elena Milani, a Research Fellow within the Science Communication Unit, developed a ‘mapping protocol’ – a set of instructions for researchers in each country to follow when they were exploring.

So what did we find? Well, across the seven countries, 697 different individuals and organisations that communicate climate change, artificial intelligence and healthy diets were identified. Digging into the data in a little more detail provides some interesting insights, including:

  • Climate change has the widest range of individuals and organisations communicating about it online of the three topics. In other words, it has a particularly rich communication environment.
  • The online science communication landscape is complex – there are large differences in the types of communicators, the platforms used and content shared between science-related subjects.
  • With all three topics, many of the sources of information are not traditional experts, such as scientists or health practitioners. Nor are they traditional mediators of information, such as journalists. There are lots of alternative sources of information, such as non-professional communicators and support communities.

But this is just the start. Having a clearer view of the landscape thanks to our mapping will help with the next stages of RETHINK, such as understanding the connections formed by communicators with their audiences.

For the full report on the online science communication mapping carried out by the RETHINK team across Europe, visit: https://zenodo.org/record/3607152#.Xh1zmRdKjOQ.

To learn more about the project overall visit: http://www.rethinkscicomm.eu/acerca-de/

Within UWE Bristol’s Science Communication Unit, the RETHINK team includes Elena Milani, Emma Weitkamp, Clare Wilkinson and Andy Ridgway.

The organisations involved with RETHINK are: Science Communication Unit, UWE Bristol, VU Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Ecsite, Zeppelin University, Germany, SISSA Medialab, Italy, Danish Board of Technology Foundation, ITQB Nova, Portugal, Center for the Promotion of Science, Serbia, Vetenskap and Allmanhet, Sweden.

How do the residents of former metal mining areas value this heritage?

Posted on

By Danni Sinnett (Centre for Sustainable Planning and Environments) and Margarida Sardo (Science Communication Unit).

There are around 5,000 former metal mines in England and Wales, and many hundreds of thousands globally. Many of these mines have a legacy of highly polluted wastes, which can pose a risk to water quality and human health. As metal supplies diminish and new sources of metals are needed, especially for use in smart technologies, the potential to extract metals from these mine wastes is being examined. However, they often support important habitats and species assemblages, or are important for their historical significance. For example, around 20% of former metal mines are associated with Sites of Special Scientific Interest, around 14% are protected by European designations including in the lead mining areas in the Pennines and North Wales, and the tin-copper mines of Cornwall. Around 15% of former metal mines in England are in a World Heritage Site including the Cornwall and West Devon Mining Landscape (Sinnett, 2018).

Wheal Maid mine Cornwall

Much of the research and policy concerned with the management of abandoned mine wastes is focussed on environmental protection, landscape quality and the need to balance this with the conservation of nature and, to a lesser extent, heritage. In recent years there have also be a number of studies examining the motivation and preferences of those visiting restored mineral extraction sites.

However, there has been very little research on how local residents value their mining heritage and their preferences for its long-term management. This is important as it is ultimately local people who are affected by both the positive and negative impacts of this legacy, as well as any changes to the status quo. It is also essential to ensure that local people are supportive of any plans for the management of the sites. Understanding their preferences and concerns can inform this process.

We undertook some research with residents of former mining areas to address this gap in our understanding. Specifically, we explored the following questions: how do those living in former metal mining landscapes value them in terms of aesthetic appearance, role in preserving cultural heritage, nature conservation and tourism? What are the preferred options for managing abandoned metal mines?

We used the Q Method to examine the preferences of those living in six areas of metal mining in England and Wales. Q Method allows participants to ‘sort’ a series of statements based on the degree to which the statement represents their perspective on a subject. We selected a set of statements from the academic literature, policy and articles in local press. They covered a range of opinions and options on the mining legacy and its management.

Our analysis revealed five perspectives:

  • Preservationists want to maintain the status quo, and recognise the value of the mining landscape for its industrial heritage and nature conservation. They want former mine sites to be left alone, and protected, primarily for their heritage value.
  • Environmentalists are more motivated by water quality and pollution mitigation. They feel that that mine wastes would benefit from vegetation establishment and recognise their contribution to nature conservation. They value the role of experts.
  • Industry supporters prioritise the local economy and are the most supportive of mineral extraction in general and the reworking of mine wastes, feeling that it would create jobs and bring in new people.
  • Nature enthusiasts prioritise vegetation establishment on mine sites. They recognise the contribution mine sites make, or could make, to nature conservation. They want to see the sites restored, feeling they should not be left as they are.
  • Landscape lovers are focussed on improving the aesthetic appearance of the mine wastes. They are most concerned with the impact of mines on the landscape, but are open to the idea of reworking the mines to aid the local economy.

There were also several areas of agreement:

  • All residents prioritised water quality to some degree, with environmentalists and landscape lovers in particular feeling very strongly that this should take precedence over heritage features and nature conservation.
  • They also felt that the preference of the people living locally should take be a priority in deciding the future of the post-mining landscape, with most disagreeing that the future management of mine waste should be expert-led.

In summary, we found that most residents view their mining heritage positively for the cultural and ecological benefits that it provides, but they are concerned about the adverse impact on water quality and the lack of vegetation on many sites. There may be some support for metal recovery from abandoned mines if it is combined with high quality restoration that mitigates water pollution and revegetates the sites, whilst preserving their cultural heritage. Residents must be part of the process – too many feel that landscape decisions are taken out of the hands of local communities and do not benefit them.

This work was funded by the Natural Environment Research Council and Economic and Social Research Council through INSPIRE: IN Situ Processes In Resource Extraction from waste repositories; Grant number: NE/L013908/1.

You can read the papers from this research here:

Sinnett, D. (2019) Going to waste? The potential impacts on nature conservation and cultural heritage from resource recovery on former mineral extraction sites in England and Wales. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 62(7), 1227-1248. Available from https://uwe-repository.worktribe.com/output/852458.

Sinnett, D. E., & Sardo, A. M. (2020) Former metal mining landscapes in England and Wales: Five perspectives from local residents. Landscape and Urban Planning, 193. Available from https://uwe-repository.worktribe.com/output/3851958.

Designing an inclusive event: Sci Comm South West 2019

Posted on

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…

Definition of inclusion: the practice or policy of including people who might otherwise be excluded or marginalised, such as those who have physical or mental health conditions and members of minority groups.

Start early

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 and here) and social media.

Location, accessibility, location

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.

Conference venue, UWE Bristol’s X Block_Credit Tom Sparey

Think about the room layout

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.

Reach out

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 .

Seek help

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.

Consider cost

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 themselves

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..  

Credit_Tom Sparey

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 ongoing journey

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!

Practitioner checklist

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 hold.

Who

  • Does your team reflect the diversity you want to see at the conference?
  • Does the panel represent the diversity you want to see?
  • 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 possible?
  • Have you asked about access and dietary requirements and permissions (e.g. for photos, recordings, etc.) upon registration?

Where

  • Is the venue easily accessible by public transport?
  • 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)?

When

  • 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?

What

  • 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?

How

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.

Read more about our event here.

Letting go of what is not serving us to make science communication more inclusive

Posted on

Author: Karen Collins (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.

Credit Tom Sparey

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 unrepresentative
  • 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.

Credit Tom Sparey

Expertise. Erik 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.

Credit Tom Sparey

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 engagement activity?

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 project
  • 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 relationships.

Funding, funding everywhere? Sci Comm South West insights into the F-word

Posted on

Author: Ola Michalec @Ola_Michalec

The ‘F’ 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?

Rae 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.

Credit Tom Sparey

Here comes 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.

Finally, 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!”.

What are your experiences of bidding and negotiating salary? Do you ever work ‘for exposure’? Share your views in comments!

Celebrating science communication talent in the South West

Posted on

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.

Keynote with Carla Almeida_Credit Tom Sparey

After 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.

Coffee breaks offered networking_Credit Tom Sparey
Coffee breaks offered networking_Credit Tom Sparey

Several 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 communities.

Binning the jargon with Malcom Gladwell from Mufti Games_credit Tom Sparey
Binning the jargon with Malcom Gladwell from Mufti Games_credit Tom Sparey

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.  

Huddling in for a story with Dawn Ellis_credit Tom Sparey

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 events.

We’re looking forward to the next one already!

Sophie Laggan, Project Coordinator: Sci Comm South West Conference 2019