science engagement

You are currently browsing the archive for the science engagement category.

I’m a Scientist, Get me out of here is an award-winning online event allowing teenagers to interact with real live scientists. We’re looking for 5 moderators to work on the next event which will run from the 12th to the 23rd of March. I’m an Engineer is launched at the same time and also needs moderating!

Your job would be hosting/moderating live chats, approving questions, checking the site for errors and inappropriate content and helping to run the site. It’s actually a lot of fun as the young people are sparky and funny and full of energy. And hey, promoting science engagement is a good thing.

You should be bright, pick stuff up easily, ideally with an interest in science engagement. You’ll have great attention to detail and will enjoy being online. The site is all built on wordpress, so if you’ve used that the techy stuff will be pretty familiar. You’d be working from home, so you must also have broadband.

Please send a CV and short covering letter ASAP (by this Friday 2nd March), to Shamini on shamini@gallomanor.com telling us why you think you’d be a good moderator. Feel free to give us a ring to find out more about the job – 07527 021004.

Dates: 12th – 23rd March (weekdays)

Hours: 37.5/week, 08.30-16.00 GMT

Pay: £7.50/hr

You can find out more about the events at: imascientist.org.uk and imanengineer.org.uk.

How can we evaluate the impact on students taking part in I’m a Scientist? Can we measure if they’re more likely to take a STEM subject at A Level? If they’re more likely to study science at University? How should we use the large amounts of data generated by online projects? How can we share our evaluation in a more useful way?

These are just some of the questions we’re trying to answer about evaluating I’m a Scientist and other Gallomanor run projects. Judging from the first in a series of seminars looking at Evaluating Impacts of Public Engagement and Non-Formal Learning, last Friday 4th November, others are thinking along the same lines.

The Core Issues & Debates seminar kicked off the series at the Dana Centre in London, and bought together a range of researchers, evaluators and learning and communication practitioners. Future seminars focus on areas such as how to reach new audiences, evaluating online engagement and using qualitative evaluation methods.

The 7 speakers approached evaluating impacts from different views – funding, strategy, science festivals, academic, and museums/science centres. There were some key themes that emerged during each of the 20 minute talks and the resultant Q+A sessions. (It would have been useful to have a bit more time for Q+A discussion after each speaker, as the allocated 10 minutes were quickly eaten into.)

  1. Evaluation needs to be shared with others so all projects are ‘learning projects’. The British Science Association’s Collective Memory is a good place to start. It’s worth constantly thinking about how to improve evaluation during a project, such as changing evaluation questions so they return more useful responses.
  2. Evaluation is very important right from the grant application stage at the start of a project, but shouldn’t be done for the sake of it, or just because funders ask for it.
  3. There are still lots of questions unanswered about how to evaluate and measure the impacts of an engagement project. Is it really possible to measure if students are more engaged with or interested about science as a direct result of one activity? Is it enough to accept your activity is one of many factors that may have influenced a change seen? These will hopefully be explored further, and maybe even answered, in future seminars in the series.
  4. Negativity can be hard to capture in evaluation. Evaluation studies can therefore be designed to try and capture negativity, such as framing questions to encourage participants to think not just about the positives of the event.
  5. Bad evaluation that draws inaccurate or invalid conclusions from data can be more damaging than no evaluation.

Overall it was a useful introduction and summary of how impacts are being evaluated. Armed with my 7 pages of dense notes scribbled during the seminar we’re now working out how to put some of these ideas into practice with I’m a Scientist. This will likely spark another post in due course.

Click on the RSS symbol at the top left of the page to subscribe to the blog, or register for email updates.

The logo for the British Science AssociationThe British Science Association have asked us for a guest blog spot to promote their conference. The theme is ‘online science engagement’ and we rule at that:-) (Don’t believe me? Check what happens if you google online science engagement. Four of the top links are about IAS. Yes, you’re right, I do deserve a raise, don’t I?)

Naturally the I’m a Scientist team will be proposing a session on what we’ve learnt about online engagement by running this event. Hopefully we’ll see you there!

The Wellcome Trust and the Science in Society team at the British Science Association are working in partnership to organise the 2011 Science Communication Conference taking place on Wednesday 25 and Thursday 26 May 2011 at Kings Place, London.

The Conference addresses the key issues facing science communicators in the UK. Each year brings together people who are involved in public engagement – a diverse group of people from a broad range of backgrounds. It is a fantastic opportunity to network, share ideas and good practice.

Call for Proposals

We have now opened a call for proposals for sessions to contribute to the programme.

This year’s programme will explore a variety of subjects and will also feature a themed strand of ‘Online Engagement’, which aims to discuss the developing and evolving world of online science communication.

We also welcome any other suggestions that debate, consider and celebrate the diverse community.

If you would like to submit a session idea please visit our website.

You can also view programmes and reports from previous conferences on the website.

The deadline for submitting your proposal is Friday 26 November 2010.

To discuss your idea prior to submission, please contact Alice Taylor-Gee, 020 7019 4940, email alice.taylor-gee@britishscienceassociation.org.

We look forward to seeing you in 2011!

Save the date in your diaries and follow @SciCommConf on Twitter for regular updates (hashtag #SCC2011).

Tags: , , ,

The following is a version of an article I wrote for the British Science Association’s magazine in May 2009. It puts forward some arguments for why I think young people should be involved in decisions about science funding. I’m posting it now because it’s relevant to conversations we were having on twitter yesterday.

There are further arguments, not covered here, which are that having to explain their work and its implications to teenagers helps scientists think them through. And that kids are good bullshit detectors. I might get round to writing a post on those aspects one day.

“Interesting but badly paid work on offer” said the email. As an out-of-work TV researcher, paid work sounded good and interesting was even better. I signed up for two weeks as an online moderator for a youth engagement project called I’m a Councillor, Get me out of Here!

The event got young people talking to and voting for their councillors and the way it grabbed me took me by surprise.

The young people were honest, earnest, sparky, warm – and so frustrated. I began to see that our society scapegoats and marginalises young people, and that this wasn’t the way to help them grow up happy, sane and integrated into society.

During the event I saw councillors and teenagers making connections. I saw young people blossom as we gave them a voice that was listened to. “Why don’t we do this for science?” I thought.

Several years later we have now run two I’m a Scientist events and they’ve worked even better than I’d hoped. I firmly believe we should go further and use events like this to give young people some real input into funding decisions in science. I think there are several moral arguments for this:-

1. They are the adults of the future.

Young people will be affected by the decisions made now far more than most adults, because they will live with the results for longer. Shouldn’t they have some say in the world we make for them.

2. They are the young people of now.

Even when today’s teenagers are grown up, there will still be new teenagers. If there are ways that teenagers are particularly affected by science and technology then isn’t it only democratic to have some input from actual teenagers?

3. Engagement just has to be two-way.

If we want people to engage with science, then it can’t be a one-way street. People aren’t just an audience for our clever science, nor just a chequebook to pay for it. If we want their attention and their money then we need to give them a say too. This argument applies to young people as much as the rest of the population.

I think there’s a pragmatic argument too: people engage much better if they are included, not lectured at. They take more of an interest in things they can affect, they feel ownership over things they’ve been involved with and they learn by doing more than they learn by rote.

So are there risks of giving young people some input into funding decisions? Well, some would suggest young people might make the ‘wrong’ decisions. I’m not sure how we know what the ‘right’ decisions are though. If wrong means ‘not the same as the experts’, then surely all arguments for public participartion fall at the same hurdle?

Another objection I’ve heard is that it would trivialise the funding process (and by extension, science). It’s the people who haven’t taken part in the event who think this.

I’ve stood in a classroom observing an I’m a Scientist lesson, eavesdropping on a group of young people fiercely disagreeing about which scientist to vote for. One scientist was trying to reduce road deaths, another developing anti-cancer drugs. The students earnestly argued back and forth about the numbers killed on the roads or by cancer, whether that was all cancers or just specific ones, how many a given treatment might save, how to factor in people not killed but maimed.

Most young people take the responsibility they’ve been given very seriously – the more so because they appreciate that they’ve been trusted with something, which is not the way they are normally treated by the adult world.  It is my experience that, given the chance, young people are very capable of making informed and considered decisions. So let’s give them the chance.

I’m making this very quick post as twitter is awash today with people protesting about Vince Cable’s remarks on proposed science budget cuts.

Back in July Shane and I went to Alice Bell’s excellent talkfest on science blogging. Shane then wrote this typically provocative post about how the bloggers weren’t being ambitious enough – why did nobody want to change the world?

Blogs are fantastic, not to diss blogs at all, but there’s a lot more that can be done online than writing blog posts. We decided that instead of just whinging, we should put our money where our mouth is, and do something to help!

We are now planning a workshop/get-together called Beyond Blogging. This would bring together people from the worlds of science, science communication and engagement, with some of the hackers and doers involved in civil society online engagement, to see what interesting ideas and projects could be sparked off by it.

The event will be on 20th October, in central London. If you are interested in taking part, or have ideas about who we should invite, please let us know in the comments.