MSc Science Communication Part-Bursary Scheme – open for applications

Posted on

This year, the Science Communication Unit at UWE Bristol is able to offer a bursary which will part-fund a place on its renowned MSc Science Communication. The value of the bursary is £1500.

To apply for the bursary, you must have applied for the MSc Science Communication by Friday 5th June 2020 and be wishing to start the course in September 2020. Only those who have been or who are in the process of being offered a conditional or unconditional full time place will be considered eligible. The bursary may only be used on the Science Communication courses offered at UWE Bristol.

The MSc in Science Communication is taught at UWE Bristol’s Frenchay campus. If however restrictions due to coronavirus are in place during part of the programme, full teaching will be provided online so that your learning is not effected.

To apply for the bursary, please complete one of the following;

Write a short popular article that is no more than 300 words long on an area of science, health or the environment. The article should include a headline. Also provide brief details of the publication where the article would appear, outlining its audience, the types of article it publishes and why your article is a good fit with the publication – this should be no more than 200 words. The chosen publication should be a newspaper, magazine or website that covers science-related topics for non-experts.

OR

Write an outline for a science communication activity (maximum 500 words) on an area of science, health or the environment. The outline should describe the planned activity, give an indication of content and details of the target audience.

Your work should be emailed to Andy Ridgway (details below) to be received by 5pm on Monday 15th June 2020. You will be informed if you have been successful in your application for a bursary by Friday 3rd July 2020. The successful applicant should inform us if they are subsequently successful in receiving funding from a different source or sponsor i.e. employers, local schemes, so that the bursary may be allocated to a different student.

Further information on UWE Bristol fees, studentship and bursary advice is also available here:

Andy Ridgway, Programme Leader MSc Science Communication

Andy.Ridgway@uwe.ac.uk +44 (0)117 328 3332

If you are not interested in applying for a bursary, the deadline for applications to the programmes remains the 31st July 2020. Please note – we are currently receiving a high number of applications and would encourage you to apply as soon as your application is ready.

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

WeCount: a new European citizen science project aimed at improving local mobility

Posted on

Air quality and traffic congestion are among the main causes of poor urban living and have sparked rising concerns about the negative impact that transport has on people’s health and wellbeing in urban areas. According to the European Environment Agency, air pollution caused 400,000 premature European deaths in 2016.  As several European cities in Europe embark on bold action to improve local transport and promote the use of alternative and clean modes of transport, citizens are now mobilising to have their voice heard and to actively participate in local transport policy development.

WeCount (Citizens Observing UrbaN Transport), a new Horizon 2020 funded project, aims to empower citizens in five European cities to take a leading role in the production of the data, evidence and knowledge that is generated around mobility in their own communities.  Five cities: Madrid, Ljubljana, Dublin, Cardiff and Leuven are coming together to mobilise 1,500 citizens throughout the coming year (2020) by following participatory citizen science methods to co-create road traffic counting sensors based on the popular Telraam experience in Flanders.

The WeCount project brings together UWE Bristol staff from the Science Communication Unit (Dr Margarida Sardo and Dr Laura Fogg-Rogers)  and the Air Quality Management Resource Centre (Prof Enda Hayes and Dr Ben Williams).

A number of low-cost, automated, road traffic counting sensors (Telraams) will be mounted on each participating household’s window facing a road, which will allow authorities to determine the number and speeds of cars, large vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians. Furthermore, it will generate scientific knowledge in the field of mobility and environmental pollution and encourage the development of co-designed, informed solutions to tackle a variety of road transport challenges.

WeCount intends to establish a multi-stakeholder engagement mechanism to gather data in these five pilot cities. Data will then be used to formulate informed solutions to tackle a variety of road transport challenges, thus improving quality of life at the neighborhood level. WeCount aims to break down technological and societal silos, by putting citizens at the heart of the innovation process. The project is the perfect vehicle to not only generate data but also promote and support citizen advocacy to work towards cleaner and healthier cities.

UWE is one of seven knowledge partners involved in the WeCount project, a list which includes SMEs, academic institutions and non-profit organisations. UWE is participating alongside Transport & Mobility Leuven, Ideas for Change, University College Dublin, University of Ljubljana, Polis and Mobiel 21.

WeCount operates under the Research and Innovation Actions funding scheme, as facilitated by Horizon 2020 and the ‘Science with and for Society’ programme. WeCount will run until November 2021 and has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under Grant Agreement No 872743.

Details of the project were also featured in a recent UWE Bristol press release.

Behind the scenes at Bristol Museum and Art Gallery

Posted on

MSc in Science Communication student, Chloe Russell, describes their recent visit to Bristol Museum and Art Gallery as part of the Science, Public and the Media module.

It’s not every day you get to go behind the scenes at Bristol Museum and Art Gallery, and hear all about the interesting research that is underway.

We spent the morning with Isla Gladstone, a senior curator at Bristol Museum, learning about the museum’s action plan and ambitions. In the morning, we were given a group exercise to pick an audience and create a science communication led activity based on the taxidermy animal we were given. The groups were given a kiwi bird (Apteryx mantelli), a shrew (Soricidae), a couple of toads (Bufonidae), and an Eurasian jay (Garrulus glandarius). Through this exercise we found out that Eurasian jays are as sociable as dolphins and kiwi birds have enormous eggs! Seriously, google it.

You often see big doors in museums saying ‘private’ and it leaves you wondering what sort of wonders could be behind those doors… Well believe you me, it’s everything you could have dreamed of. Think ‘Night in the Museum’ with Ben Stiller. We met Geology curator Deborah Hutchinson, who led us down into the basement via a public floor of the museum, but not before we were warned of the low oxygen density and potential to faint in such conditions. These air settings are under high control to manage the artefacts’ quality.

It was very exciting indeed, one step into the basement of wonders and I noticed my first gulp of air was tighter than usual. It felt like the air I was breathing couldn’t reach the bottom of my lungs unless I took a longer, deeper breath. This must be how people faint! Soon this feeling evaporated and we were left in awe of the countless, brilliant objects in the Geology stores. I say countless, but there is a margin of a million objects in there… Drawers and drawers and drawers of ‘Jurassic’ labels, skulls and bones of pre-existing dinosaurs strewn near and wide. So many incredible fossils, minerals and stories to be told including Bristol diamonds, which are in fact none other than quartz!

After our tour in the Geology store, we were led to the Natural History store. Immediately you were met with a cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) holding its prey just above your eye level. Led by Natural Sciences curator Rhian Rowson, we were guided through the narrow hallways, walking single file, listening intently to some of the stories behind the collection. There were a couple of house sparrows (Passer domesticus) pulled out of their drawer, one was darker than the other, and to our shock it was due to the coal in the air during the industrial revolution. Researchers can use the darker house sparrow as an indicator of the extent of air pollution during this time.

What really amazed and humbled me were the personal touches within both collections. The hand written labels, hand thrown plastic covers over the odd elephant skeleton in the room… it felt very homely. There wasn’t a need to present the spaces as squeaky clean galleries, which you see so often. I did however, walk backwards into a deer, which between me and the deer, I’m not sure who was more startled. There was a feeling of genuine character, care and comfort of stepping into these narrow hallways and oxygen thin walkways. For someone like myself, with a keen interest in geology and natural history, this trip was a massive privilege, and I’m very fortunate to take my camera along with me.

Chloe Russell, MSc Science Communication student, 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.

Modernising the iconic Royal Institution Christmas Lectures

Posted on

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?’

Aoife McLysaght and Alice Roberts. Photo credit: Paul Wilkinson Photography

Following interviews 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.

Photo credit: Paul Wilkinson Photography

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.

Photo credit: Paul Wilkinson Photography

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.

The full evaluation report can be accessed here.

Photo credit: Paul Wilkinson Photography

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.

From the lab to science communication, exploring creativity, evaluation and Wonder

Posted on

During my undergraduate degree in biochemistry I spent a year studying abroad in Grenoble in the French Alps. I studied in the university for some of the time, and also did a 5 month placement in a research lab.  Although interesting, it was enough to show me that a career in research was perhaps not for me, so I spent much of time gazing dreamily at the mountains wondering what else I could do.

Grenoble_credit_Flickr_ Mariusz Kucharczyk

I liked working in the laboratory, but I realised I really wanted to be on the outside, telling people about all of the exciting things that were going on inside. So when I came back for my final year I persuaded my supervisors to let me do a science communication project for my final project, rather than a bench research project, and I was hooked!

The UWE Bristol MSc Science Communication programme gave me an opportunity to work part time at Science Oxford – a small but influential charity that works to encourage the pursuit of science and enterprise. I was delivering workshops and shows to schools and the public, and also ran the regional STEM Ambassador programme, finding and training scientists and engineers across the region to work with schools too.

I always wanted to work in a museum or a science centre, so when I took the MSc I was keen to focus on the modules relating to delivering science communication face to face. I remember being inspired by people from the Gulbenkian Foundation, the Royal Society, at-Bristol (as it was then known) who we met during the course, and they all motivated me to use my wide range of interests – art, music, family learning as well as science – to tell stories and create conversations.

Jo Lewis at CERN

I also loved the Science on Air and Screen module, some of which took place at the BBC. At the time I would listen to a lot of radio (before the days of podcasts which now feature heavily in my down time!) and I loved working in a small team to produce both a short radio show about ‘progress’, including a poet as a live guest, and a short TV piece about Healthy Living Day. Although I haven’t gone on to work in broadcast media the lessons on how to sum up coherently yet colloquially have come in handy when I’ve been interviewed for radio or TV, including for BBC Stargazing Live and local radio.

My Masters project was an evaluation of a set of touchable exhibits at the Oxford University Museum of Natural History. Finally a chance to do some work in a museum setting! I devised and piloted a series of protocols to help the museum evaluate how families were using their new exhibition. I now use these skills every day in my job as Public Engagement Development Manager for the Science and Technologies Facilities Council (STFC), one of the UK research councils.  A key component of my job has involved producing an evaluation framework for a complex programme of work. As STFC is a funder as well as a delivery body, we aim to measure and evaluate events and activities run by around 40 partners a year reaching in excess of 500,000 people face to face, and a further 2.5 million via online and broadcast media to better report, improve and celebrate what we do.

Jo Lewis at Boulby Mine

My favourite part of the job has got to be working with scientists and engineers who love what they do and who are really keen to share their enthusiasm with others. I work with them to help them to do so in a way that is engaging, will genuinely appeal to the audience they are wishing to engage – ensuring they have thought about who that is! – and then hear all their brilliant creative ideas for how to communicate their area of research to others!

I’ll also be using all of these skills in a new large project coming up called Wonder. The launch of Wonder marks a long-term commitment by STFC public engagement to move our focus towards audience-driven public engagement with under-served communities in the most socioeconomically-deprived areas of the UK. We want more working with people, and less delivering to people. The project is still in early days, but it means that I’ve been able to feed in ideas right from the start and use many of the skills I learned on the MSc – from reading lots of publications and reports that others have written to be sure we are using current good practice, to writing a brief for an external evaluation consultant.

Jo Lewis, MSc Science Communication student at UWE Bristol.

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.