Outreach and public engagement

So far in this book we have mainly discussed how to develop inward-facing skills for communicating effectively within the scientific community. However, this is only a small section of society. Why then, as scientists, should we consider developing our outward-facing skills to communicate with people from outside of this community? How can we do this effectively? And what's in it for us?

As scientists, we communicate with non-scientists for three main reasons: because we have to, because we want to, and because we should do. The majority of large research grants (see chapter 3) now require a consideration of 'pathways to impact', i.e. the development and delivery of initiatives that will increase the likelihood of potential economic and societal impacts being achieved. In order to develop and deliver these initiatives it is necessary for the scientists involved to fully understand the potential of these impacts. Furthermore, it is largely the taxes paid by the wider society that fund much of our scientific research; they are stakeholders in our successes and failures. We communicate because we have to.

For the majority of scientists, the main reason that we are in this profession is because we are passionate about our subject and have a thirst for knowledge, discovery, and truth. There are certainly far more financially rewarding and secure career paths available (see chapter 9), but science is, for the most part, a vocation. Given our appreciation of the subject, it follows that most of us also enjoy talking about our work and research, not only to other scientists but to friends, family members, and generally anyone with a passing interest in what we do. We communicate because we want to.

As discussed in chapter 4, as scientists we have a responsibility to question illogical and misleading arguments and statements of unsubstantiated 'fact'. In doing so we also have a responsibility to help train non-scientists to question the status quo objectively, and to give them the confidence and skills to interrogate failures of truth. It is easy to forget the educational and intellectual privilege that we enjoy as scientists, and that many other people are often not in a similar position. We communicate because we should do.

However, scientists are not just obligated to communicate their research and other scientific advances to the rest of society in a one-way flow of information. Rather, they should be aiming to engage non-scientists in meaningful two-way dialogue, helping to create a society in which science is not only better understood, but also challenged, contested, and collaborative. This chapter will provide advice on how such dialogue can be developed in a meaningful way.

Aside from our responsibilities to engage with non-scientists, doing so also helps to develop us as scientists; for example, by improving our communication and organisational skills. Learning to communicate with different and varied audiences is also of direct benefit to how we communicate our research within both the broader scientific community and in university-level teaching. Furthermore, the interpersonal and teamwork skills that we develop when engaging with non-scientists are also essential in a variety of careers (see chapter 9).

Gaining experience in working with non-scientists is an advisable first step before starting to develop your own science communication initiatives, as doing so will help to build your skills and confidence in dealing with a range of audiences across a variety of formats. Many research institutes provide free training and professional development opportunities, and will likely have a large selection of initiatives that you can gain experience with. In addition, some funders and learned societies also offer training to researchers who want to develop science communication initiatives based on their research.

Some scientists may consider themselves to be 'too busy' to engage with non-scientists, or have a misconception that doing so results in little reward for a lot of effort. However, while developing effective science communication initiatives does indeed involve considerable commitment, the benefit for all parties can be considerable. Furthermore, as scientists we have an obligation to help to nurture a society in which scientific understanding extends beyond a basic knowledge of facts, and includes an ability to engage in meaningful discussions about the function and purpose of science. This chapter has been written to provide guidance for achieving these demanding, yet rewarding and necessary aspirations.

Science communication is not a new phenomenon. In the UK, the concept of scientists communicating their research findings to non-scientists dates back at least as far as the early 19th century, when scientists such as Michael Faraday and Humphry Davy spent a considerable amount of time and money trying to popularise science. However, as an academic discipline, science communication is a relatively new field, which in the UK has undergone three main stages [1, 2]: scientific literacy, Public Understanding of Science (PUS) and Public Engagement with Science and Technology (PEST). In moving through these three stages, the ideology of the communication of science has developed from a primarily deficit model (in which scientists try to 'fill' gaps in the knowledge of the public) into one which encourages two-way dialogue between scientists and non-scientists.

Science communication as an academic discipline covers a broad range of topics [3, 4]. However, as the majority of research into the relationships between scientific knowledge, technological systems, and society tends to be done by STS (Science and Technology Studies) scholars, perhaps too little of the current recommendations and accepted best practices are communicated to scientists who are actively engaging with (or planning to engage with) non-scientists [5, 6]. Furthermore, the field of science communication tends to defy any singular definition [7], with any such attempt needing to reflect: the variety of formats in which such initiatives can be implemented [8], the wide spectrum of target audiences [9], and the range of objectives [10]. This multi-faceted nature is also illustrated by the many terms that are used when discussing outward-facing science communication, such as: widening participation, knowledge exchange, public engagement, and outreach [11]. As well as institutional and national biases towards the 'correct use' of these terminologies there often exist personal nuances in terms of their interpretation, depending on how individuals perceive science communication to fit into their individual research practices, and beyond.

Based on the current science communication literature, and our own experiences, the following broad definitions are offered:

• Outreach: a one-way discourse, in which scientists communicate their research to non-scientists.
• Public Engagement: a two-way dialogue, in which scientists converse with non-scientists in a mutually beneficial manner.
• Widening Participation: any initiative that engages with social groups under-represented in higher education, in order to encourage them to attend university.
• Knowledge Exchange: any initiative that involves engagement with businesses, public organisations, and third sector organisations (e.g. charities).

We acknowledge that there is still some overlap between these definitions. For example, a science talk at a local school given by a UK-based university researcher might be classed as being outreach, widening participation, and knowledge exchange. In this example, the researcher might classify the initiative as outreach, the university's widening participation team may catalogue it as widening participation, and the university's knowledge exchange offices could acknowledge it in their records for UK Research and Innovation.

Widening participation and knowledge exchange as defined above are beyond the scope of this chapter, which will instead focus on outreach and public engagement, these being the most likely to be encountered by the majority of scientists. For brevity, we will use the term 'science communication initiatives' to refer to both outreach and public engagement initiatives unless otherwise stated.

When thinking about which audience you want to engage with, the term 'general public' or 'lay audience' is somewhat misleading, as in reality there are many publics [9]. Simply targeting an audience that are not scientists is ineffectual, as 'not being a scientist' is not generally an identity, behaviour, or characteristic that people tend to identify and group themselves according to [12]. In developing your science communication initiative, it is essential that you consider which publics you intend to target, and why. In some instances, you might not have a choice, as your audience may be pre-determined by a larger initiative of which yours is only a part. In which case, have you considered if this larger initiative is a suitable platform for achieving your objectives? For example, if your objective is to raise awareness of climate change amongst local business leaders, then organising a panel debate at a local primary school (during the working week) might not represent the most effectual targeting of a suitable audience.

When determining which audience to engage with, try to think beyond previously-engaged audiences. The reasons for this are twofold: firstly, working with familiar audiences risks trapping you inside an echo chamber, and secondly there are many audiences that are underserved and under-represented by both science and science communication initiatives, and as ethical scientists (see chapter 9) we have a responsibility to engage these audiences.

An echo chamber is an environment in which a person encounters only beliefs or opinions that resonate with their own, so that existing views are reinforced and alternative ideas are not considered. As scientists we should be breaking out of these echo chambers, moving away from the same, traditionally engaged audiences. Instead, we should be enabling more effective communication with publics that have a diverse range of demographic, socio-structural, and value-based characteristics [13]. Working with these underserved and under-heard communities presents barriers and challenges, but it also creates many opportunities for both advancing scientific research and re-considering what is meant by meaningful impact [14].

But how do you engage with these audiences? Begin by developing a relationship with a member of the community that you want to work with, ideally someone who is in a position of responsibility; for example, if you are interested in working with a local youth group then you might first make contact with one of the adult leaders. Developing this relationship may involve emails, phone calls, and meetings over a relatively long period of time before you are able to deliver any initiative, as it will be necessary to build trust, especially if the community that you intend to work with includes people who might be considered to be vulnerable. When developing your initiative, involve your contact in the community, as they will have a better understanding of how you can tailor your plans to the relative needs and experiences of the target audience. Also, think carefully about where the initiative will take place; while research institutes are often convenient, 'safe ground' for the scientists involved, for many publics they are inaccessible locations that present several physical and psychological barriers. Finally, in thinking about which communities to develop your science communication initiative for, have you considered the communities to which you already belong. For example, do you volunteer at a local charity? Are you a member of a sports club? Do you host a weekly games evening? These are all communities which you might consider developing an initiative for, helping to refine your objectives in the process. The benefit of engaging with such communities is that you already have a relationship with existing members, and will be naturally sensitive to their needs and experiences.

In developing any science communication initiative that involves scientists and non-scientists, you need to give thought to how you can level any so-called 'hierarchies of intellect'. These arise when there is a perception that one of the parties is an expert and the other is not [15], and can hinder meaningful discussions. Scientists might be experts in a particular topic, but non-scientists are experts in their own personal and professional capacities, and this expertise should be encouraged and highlighted in order to facilitate a more conducive environment. For example, if you want to develop a science communication initiative to find out what a rural community think about genetically modified foods, then create a platform in which non-scientists are asked to share their own expertise and knowledge, and where they are treated in a similar manner to the scientific 'experts' who are asked to do the same.

Once you have determined your audience and how you will reach them, you need to think about how you will frame your initiative. Framing was introduced in chapter 4 when discussing the importance of understanding your audience for science presentations. The advice that was provided there still holds, i.e. that understanding the needs and experiences of your audience is key to effectively framing any science communication initiative. Furthermore, in framing the way in which to discuss certain scientific topics, we also need to ensure that we avoid promoting false expectations [16], and to behave as ethical scientists throughout the process.

The advice that has been given so far in this chapter has been of a purposefully general nature, as it is not possible to provide specific advice for all of the various publics that you may encounter. However, given that for many scientists one of the first outward-facing publics that they will work with may be children, we thought it beneficial to provide more detailed advice for developing and delivering science communication initiatives for this particular audience. In most instances, these initiatives will take the form of outreach (i.e. one-way discourses, in which scientists communicate their research to non-scientists), although this need not always be the case.

Working with children can be an extremely rewarding and enjoyable experience. However, it can also be demanding, difficult, and at times disheartening. It is arrogant to assume that you will simply be able to walk into a classroom, or a more informal setting, and instantly command the room because you are a scientist. Before developing and delivering an initiative aimed at children it is advisable to first get some relevant training and experience.

The STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Maths) Ambassadors [17] are a national collective of volunteers who are dedicated to providing science communication opportunities in STEM subjects across the UK. In addition to providing training and advice, they also have a list of ready-made initiatives that are being run by schools or other organisations, which you can participate in to receive science communication experience.

If you are working with children in the UK then you need to have a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check, to make sure that you are fit to work with children. Other countries have similar requirements, and there is normally a small fee attached to having one of these checks performed, but your research institute will usually pay this for you if you are delivering initiatives on their behalf. However, a word of caution, even if you have an up-to-date DBS certificate: you should never be left alone in a room with a child or group of children.

Having a teacher or a guardian in the room with you at all times is a necessity, and guards against any potential claims of malpractice. Having a teacher present will also make it far easier for you to interact with children as they can help to introduce you and to control the environment, and can also work with you to deliver the initiative through careful co-design (see section 5.4.1).

The age of the children that you are working with will, to a large extent, determine the type of initiative that you develop and/or deliver. It is wrong to generalise and think that all teenagers are moody, and will have no interest or passion for science. However, some of them may have a negative attitude towards science because of a lack of engagement, poor teaching, or even previously ineffective science communication initiatives. In contrast, working with younger children can be a liberating and exhilarating experience. They are yet to develop the cynicism and awkwardness that can sometimes make engaging with older children so frustrating. Though be warned, the ebullience of this audience can also present problems in terms of behaviour and exhaustion. When working with any children, the same advice that was discussed in chapter 4 applies: do not attempt to patronise your audience; instead, ask them about their needs and experience and develop/deliver your initiative accordingly. Carefully developed science communication initiatives can engage and empower children, instilling in them a love of science at this early and impressionable age.

5.4.1. Children in a formal environment

5.4.2. Children in an informal environment

Just as there are a diverse range of publics, there are also a large variety of formats that can be used to achieve your objectives and engage your target audience. In this section several different formats, and the practicalities for running these, are discussed. While this is by no means an exhaustive list, the formats presented here have been chosen to demonstrate the wide variety that is available.

Some of the formats discussed below might be considered to be examples of outreach (one-way communication), some are public engagement (two-way communication), and some have the flexibility to be both. Over the past couple of decades, research in the field of science communication has generally tended to recommend public engagement formats as being more effective than outreach in engaging different publics [4]. This is largely because outreach is often associated with a deficit model of engagement, which has in turn been heavily criticised as being ineffectual, oversimplified, and derisory, in assuming that non-scientists are 'deficient' and scientists are 'sufficient' in knowledge [22]. However, while meaningful dialogue over science-related issues is essential for the development of science, and society more generally, providing reliable information in an accessible way is often an essential prerequisite for this to occur [23]. Furthermore, a gain in knowledge can have positive impacts on people's attitudes depending on their contexts and pre-knowledge [22]. If done correctly, outreach initiatives that are one-directional in format can still be extremely effective in achieving objectives and engaging audiences. We need only look at the impact that nature documentaries, such as the Blue Planet series hosted by David Attenborough, have had to see evidence of this [24].

The following introduction to these selected formats should help you to think about how to develop your own science communication initiative, with both your objectives and your audience in mind. Section 5.11 provides examples of some successful science communication initiatives that have made use of some of these formats.

Science talks

The most standard form of outreach is a science talk. This may consist of a lecture-style talk with an accompanying Q&A session, or a more informal discussion such as those hosted by a Café Scientifique [25]. Whatever the setting, the advice provided in chapter 4 still applies: consider your narrative, your audience, and yourself. Also, just because you are not speaking at an international scientific conference, do not assume that there are no experts in the room. Instead, try to find out who your audience will be, so that you can avoid either overestimating their knowledge or underestimating their intelligence. The advice that was given in chapter 4 with regards to preparation is also appropriate here: find out what AV equipment is available, and try to arrange a practice session or sound check in advance if possible.

Panel discussion

A panel discussion is an effective way of showcasing a variety of different opinions and knowledge surrounding a certain topic. They also help to demonstrate to the audience that science is a varied and much-debated topic, in which there are sometimes quite fierce and contrasting views. If taking part in a panel discussion, find out in advance about the format (round table, open Q&A, short presentations, etc) and also your fellow panellists, and their attitudes regarding the topic(s). If you are organising a panel discussion then choose a topic that is relevant to the intended audience, and invite a diverse selection of panellists (not just scientists), who can represent different points of view. If you are recording the panel discussion then get explicit permission from the panellists, and ensure that they are aware of how it will be shared (e.g. streamed via social media, or hosted on an institution's webpage). Picking a chairperson who can both keep to time and ensure that all voices are heard is also essential.

Science busking

Science busking involves capturing people's attention in a public space using the 'magic of science'. For example, you might make a cloud using only a bottle of water and a lit match, or demonstrate surface properties by putting a wooden kebab stick through a balloon without it bursting. When done properly, this can be an effective, enchanting, and innovative way of engaging a potentially large group of people. Like other forms of street performance, there is a definite skill in engaging an audience, and inspiring people to want to approach you to ask questions. If you are interested in finding out more about science busking, then Science Made Simple and the British Science Association have created a useful resource, which includes a selection of science busking activities that are suitable for all audiences [26].

Book clubs

Setting up and hosting a book club provides an innovative way of discussing science in an accessible and engaging format. If you plan on running a book club then it helps to have an overarching theme that is not too broad; for example, books that involve 'time travel,' rather than 'science' in general. Meeting once a month will give people enough time to read the selected title, and choosing books that are readily available from local libraries will help to keep the costs down. It is also recommended that you plan out a number of books in advance, and that each member of the group gets the opportunity to select a book as well as to take part in the discussions. You might also consider setting up a digital book club, in which members meet on social media (Twitter is ideal for this) at an allotted time. If you take this approach, then account for different time zones if you want to include a more diverse audience.

Workshops

We are using the term workshop here as a catch-all term that involves working with an audience in order to discuss and deliberate a specific topic of interest. This might be a one-hour meeting over tea and biscuits in a local community centre in which participants are invited to chat to scientists about their knowledge of the solar system, or a series of initiatives in which scientists and non-scientists are asked to brainstorm ideas for future clean energy solutions to present to local policymakers. Whatever the format of your workshop, they should have a clear objective, and be framed for a specific audience; they should also be conducted in a way which enables the participants to feel safe, and where all voices can be heard and respected.

Citizens' juries

A citizens' jury is a special type of workshop; a specific method of deliberation in which a small group of people (typically 10 to 20) come together to discuss a well-framed question or issue, over a time period of two to seven days. The jury members are selected to be representative of the target audience, and the aim of the jury is to allow non-scientists to meaningfully discuss, in detail, a topic that tends to be either controversial or of deep societal significance. Developing and delivering a citizen's jury is not something that should be taken lightly, as they require large amounts of resources, in terms of both time and money. However, they can create a platform which genuinely involves the participants, granting them ownership and agency of the process. Involve, the UK's leading public participation charity, have a large variety of resources that can help you to plan a citizens' jury, including detailed explanations of suitable methods and successful case studies to draw from [16].

Whatever format you decide upon, it is vital that you consider the ethical implications of your initiative. If you are planning on conducting any research, or carrying out an evaluation which involves collecting personal data from the participants (see section 5.9), then you should seek ethical clearance from your research institute. Even if you are not collecting any data from the participants you should still think carefully about the repercussions of your proposed format. For example, if you are talking to a group of elderly people about the latest medical research on dementia, then be sensitive to the effect that this may have on some of the audience members. Similarly, if you are planning on discussing anything that others might perceive to be upsetting or offensive, then signpost this with appropriate trigger warnings. Developing your science communication initiative with members of your intended audience will help you to identify when and where such incidents may occur.

Citizen science is a popular example of a public engagement format. In essence it is a type of collaborative research that involves members of society (or citizens) in actively collecting, generating, and in some instances analysing data.

There are many examples of citizen science projects, but one of the most well-known is Galaxy Zoo [27], an online series of projects which invites participants to classify different types of galaxies according to their structure; the human eye being better equipped at making these distinctions than a machine. There have been many versions of Galaxy Zoo, with Galaxy Zoo 1 (which ran from 2007 to 2009) receiving more than 50 million classifications from over 150 000 people in just year one of the project.

Another popular citizen science project is Old Weather [28], which aims to help scientists recover weather observations made by US ships since the mid-19th century, by enlisting citizens to digitalise old transcriptions recorded in ship logbooks. Such information ultimately improves the collective knowledge of past environmental conditions, with a better understanding of these past occurrences leading to an improvement in modelling future weather patterns.

There are also a number of citizen science programmes that actively source data directly from members of the public. For example, the Community Collaborative Rain, Hail & Snow Network [29] is a non-profit, community-based network of volunteers who measure and map precipitation using low-cost measurement tools with an interactive website. The project started in Colorado in 1998 and now has networks across the United States and Canada, involving thousands of volunteers, and making it the largest provider of daily precipitation observation in North America.

The main objection to these types of citizen science projects are that they are potentially tantamount to free labour, with scientists relying on non-scientists to collect and/or analyse vast swaths of data. While there are many incentives for performing these tasks (such as prizes, badges, and general kudos), it tends not to be the citizens whose names appear on the associated research publications and/or grant applications.

If you are thinking of developing a citizen science initiative then make sure that the citizens you recruit are properly recognised, and where possible involved throughout the whole process. As an example, the UK Community Rain Network, in which children from across the UK monitored precipitation using home-made rain gauges, acknowledged all of the participating citizens in the subsequent journal publication [30].

Overall, citizen science projects are becoming an increasingly popular means by which to engage the public, while also benefiting scientific research, especially given the growing ubiquity of social media and other communications platforms (see chapter 7). However, there is a need to actively involve the participants in these projects, and to ensure that they receive the appropriate acknowledgements; otherwise scientists run the risk of treating their new colleagues as nothing more than second-class citizens.

If you are interested in setting up your own citizen science project, then the Natural Environmental Research Council and the Natural History Museum have produced a very useful guide on how to do this both effectively and ethically [31].

After determining how your science communication initiative will meet the needs of your objective and your audience, you need to consider how to finance it. Even the most basic of initiatives will have some consumable costs, while larger initiatives will also have to account for travel and venue hire, plus maybe even a contribution to the salary of those involved. Here are five potential revenue streams for you to consider:

• 1.  
  Science communication funding. The National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement (NCCPE) have a useful resource on their website which lists most of the funding grants available for science communication in STEM in the UK [32]. When applying for one of these grants, follow the advice given in chapter 3; in addition, getting match funding from one of the other sources on this list will greatly strengthen your application.
• 2.  
  Universities. Almost all universities have a widening participation team, with many also having people dedicated to co-ordinating science communication initiatives. Find out who these people are, and ask them for advice when developing your initiative. Furthermore, they might have access to funds that you can utilise, especially if your plans align with the University's wider strategy.
• 3.  
  Existing research grants. As discussed in section 5.1, most large research grants must now demonstrate 'pathways to impact', i.e. they must show how they are making a conscious effort to inform society of the research that they are doing, and the relevance that this has to the wider community. Funds will normally have been set aside to do this, and therefore represent a potential revenue stream for future initiatives.
• 4.  
  Local councils. Your local council will have certain allocations of funds that they must use to help improve engagement with the local population. They are also a very useful source in terms of school and community contacts, and will often have venues that they can offer for use at a reduced rate.
• 5.  
  Learned societies. Most academic or scientific societies offer some kind of support for science communication initiatives, both through formal grants, and also via development funds for associated members and fellows. For example, the Institute of Physics' Public Engagement Grant Scheme provides funding to individuals and organisations running physics-based science communication initiatives in the UK and Ireland.

With your science communication initiative fully developed, tested, and funded, how do you ensure that there is an audience? If you are doing an outreach initiative that involves going into schools, or having schoolchildren come to you, then it is necessary for you to make prior arrangements with the schools that are involved. As discussed in section 5.3, if you are working with traditionally underserved audiences, then any science communication initiative should be developed alongside a member of this community, who should be able to help advise on how best to locate, schedule, and advertise your initiative in order to cater for this audience. We would also advise taking this approach for all publics, as working with representatives from your target audience will help to identify the most effective way of reaching them.

Mailing lists are a useful way of engaging with a specific (but often largely academic) audience. For example, the PSCI-COMM (psci-com@jiscmail.ac.uk) and PCST (network@lists.pcst.co) email discussion lists reach a large number of people with an interest in science communication, and people on these lists often recommend other local interest groups that might also be interested in your initiatives. Personalised emails to contacts who you know might be interested (or know someone who might be interested) in your forthcoming initiative can also be an effective advertising strategy. On the other hand, generic emails that are sent out to a large group of people will probably not be opened by the majority of the recipients.

It is often worth contacting local newspapers and magazines, as well as international publications with regional offices and initiatives listings, such as Time Out magazine. In addition to offering paid advertisements, many of these publications also run free listings, in both online and print formats. Posters and flyers can also help to raise awareness for your initiative, especially if put up in locations that your intended audience frequents, and in places where they cannot help but look at them, such as in elevators or toilet cubicles.

Social media (see chapter 7) can raise awareness amongst a potentially very large group of your target audience in a relatively short amount of time. If your initiative is aimed at a particular audience (e.g. amateur astronomers), or if it is related to a local or global initiative (e.g. World AIDS Day), then you should also be sharing information about your initiative with the people who control the various social media channels of any associated organisations. Learned societies and other organisations that are somehow related to the topic of your initiative should also be informed in advance, as should any funders.

The logistical side of ticketing has been made much easier with the advent of free online tools such as Eventbrite. Experience seems to suggest that as a rule of thumb, for free and ticketed initiatives an attrition rate of about 30%–50% is the norm. This can be especially annoying for people who are unable to attend something that is 'sold out', only to find out later that only half the people with tickets turned up. To account for this, it is good practice to have a reserve list, or to consider introducing a small charge to encourage attendance; it is amazing how a couple of pounds/euros/dollars can incentivise people to attend. There is also an argument to be made that charging even a relatively small amount for a ticket gives inferred value that might actually increase attendance rates. Despite the software available to help with the logistical side of things, ticketing is a fine art that benefits from experience, and sadly one for which there is no one-size-fits-all solution.

Failing to properly evaluate any science communication initiative means that you will be unlikely to fully assess if you have successfully met your objectives. As an absolute minimum you should be recording the number of participants who attend your initiatives, both for your own records and those of any associated research institute or external funder. A short personal summary of each initiative is also good practice, as by recording your experiences and reflecting on these (see chapter 9 for a discussion of formal models of reflection) you will be able to make improvements.

In order to fully assess the extent to which you met the outcomes of your science communication initiative, you should try to get detailed feedback from both your audience and also any colleagues who helped deliver the initiative. In constructing a feedback survey think carefully about the data that you want to receive from the participants. Many surveys ask for detailed demographic information, but if you are not going to use this information, then there is no need to ask for it. For example, it might be conducive to ask the participants 'what they enjoyed' or to 'rate the accessibility of an initiative from 1 to 5 (1 being very poor and 5 being very good)'. However, unless you are conducting research into how gender or age might influence people's attitudes, or you are interested in better understating the demographics of your audience, then there is no need to ask people to provide this information. Finally, please be considerate in the layout and phrasing of your surveys. For example, if you need to ask people what gender they associate with then leave an open space for them to fill in, rather than simply presenting a binary option or a multiple choice of 'male/female/other'.

Google Forms [33] is a useful resource for managing feedback, as it can be used to both create and distribute a variety of surveys, using a dedicated link that can be emailed to participants. If you are worried about people not following up after the initiative then you can either ask them to fill in the survey on their electronic devices before they leave, or print out some copies for them to fill out, which can then be uploaded to Google Forms at a later date. Google Forms also has some basic analytical tools for evaluating the responses, and you can export these into a spreadsheet for further analysis.

One of the major drawbacks of asking participants to fill in a long and cumbersome survey is that it can sometimes detract from what they have just experienced. Where possible, see if you can incorporate any opportunities for feedback into your initiative, and if you can make the process innovative and enjoyable. For example, the feedback form shown in figure 5.1 was used to evaluate a science talk about the geographies of light and dark. These forms were printed out on two sides of A5 card, and were handed to participants at the end of the talk, along with pencils and pens. This resulted in a fun and easy method of giving feedback, which was also quick and enjoyable to analyse.

Zoom In Zoom Out Reset image size

The feedback that has been discussed thus far is useful for determining the extent to which people enjoyed your science communication initiative, and is helpful for assessing how to improve future initiatives. However, in order to fully assess the success of these initiatives, i.e. the extent to which they have achieved the desired objectives, a more considered approach is required. Figure 5.2 is a pictorial representation of the scientific process: you begin with a hypothesis, design an experiment to test it, carry out those tests, and based on the outcomes of these tests you either accept the original hypothesis or adjust it and repeat the cycle. This is a process which, as scientists, we carry out on a daily, sometimes hourly basis, and yet when it comes to evaluating our science communication initiatives, the majority of us are guilty of forgetting our scientific training, resulting in a lack of meaningful evaluation.

Zoom In Zoom Out Reset image size

As an example, suppose that you are developing an outreach initiative to raise awareness of subject X for a group of schoolchildren between the ages of 10 and 12. In this instance, the hypothesis would be that 'this initiative raises the awareness of subject X amongst schoolchildren between the ages of 10 and 12.' However, it is not possible to test this hypothesis without first assessing the level of awareness that these students had about subject X prior to your intervention. In this instance, the evaluation process needs to begin before you even set foot in the classroom.

Assessing any prior level of understanding or awareness needn't be overcomplicated; if for example your initiative is aimed at raising an audience's awareness of global warming, then their initial familiarity with the subject could be assessed by asking them questions such as: what is global warming? What causes global warming? What can be done to reduce global warming? These same questions could then be asked after the initiative, and your hypothesis could then be better tested based on a comparison of the participants' pre- and post-understanding of the subject. Monitoring any lasting effects, for example by asking the audience to complete a short questionnaire six months later, is an even more effective way to assess the impact that your initiative has had; such an approach is referred to as longitudinal evaluation.

This particular approach to assessing the prior and posterior level of understanding can, for some, be overly reminiscent of 'assessment', resulting in negative attitudes about your initiative. In such cases it might be better to adopt a more informal 'focus group' approach, where participants are encouraged to chat about subject X both before and after the initiative, with their comments and remarks recorded and later analysed by yourself and your colleagues.

Any detailed evaluation that involves capturing information and attitudes from participants, should be designed using the advice that was provided for creating a feedback survey. Furthermore, if the evaluation of these responses is to be used for any report or future publication (see below) then informed consent must be sought from all of the participants. It is also recommended that you seek ethical approval from your research institute, and that you design appropriate participation information and consent forms that outline how and where this information will be used (and stored), and which provide details of how the participants can get in touch if they later wish to have their responses redacted. It should also be made explicitly clear that taking part in this evaluation is not a prerequisite for participation in the initiative itself. When working with schoolchildren and other potentially vulnerable audiences, special care must be taken to ensure that they fully understand the implications of their participation, and where appropriate explicit and informed consent from a guardian should be sought.

Adopting this rigorous approach to evaluating your science communication initiatives means that you might consider publishing the process and its outcomes, alongside what these findings mean for the wider scientific community, in a suitable journal such as one of those listed in chapter 1. Publishing original findings in peer-reviewed journals can help to justify the legitimacy of any science communication initiative to your line manager, supervisor, or external funding body. Furthermore, such publications can help to develop your reputation, while also helping to advance knowledge and best practice in the field.

When preparing a manuscript for one of these journals the same advice that was provided in chapter 2 holds true. Journals such as Geoscience Communication also provide support for scientists who are thinking about applying the same scientific rigour to their science communication initiatives as they do to their scientific research, but who might be inexperienced in preparing such manuscripts in the field of science communication.

The table below represents a checklist that will help you to deliver, develop, and evaluate your science communication initiatives.

Listed below are some examples of successful science communication initiatives, each of which has a well-defined objective for a specific audience, with a format that has been chosen accordingly. They serve to highlight the wide range of science communication initiatives that can be developed, and will hopefully serve as inspiration for your own.

Science Ceilidh

Cell Block Science

Catan^®: Global Warming

Rhyme and Reason

This chapter has outlined how scientists can work with non-scientists, introducing some of the nomenclature of science communication, and differentiating between outreach (the one-way communication of ideas, from scientists to non-scientists) and public engagement (a two-way discourse between scientists and non-scientists), providing examples of each. This chapter has also provided guidance for developing your own science communication initiatives, highlighting the need to: define your objectives, consider your audience, and explore suitable formats. Furthermore, it has discussed how to fund, advertise, and evaluate your initiatives, and in doing so has asked how you might contribute towards the development of original knowledge in the field; for example, through peer-reviewed publications.

Delivering effective science communication initiatives can be a time-consuming and resource-draining task. However, it is also an extremely rewarding pursuit, which can help to further develop skills that are useful in other areas of academia (and beyond), such as supervising, presenting, and networking (see chapter 9). At times, the pressures that are placed on scientists via research, teaching, and administrative responsibilities means that it is unreasonable to expect us to also excel at developing and delivering innovative science communication initiatives. In order to ease this workload, you might also consider working with professional science communicators and social scientists. These experts will be able to ease the burden associated with logistics, assist in the setting of clear, long-term objectives, and help to effectively evaluate the process, providing of course that you involve them at the very beginning of your plans.

The further study in this chapter is designed to help you think more about developing and delivering a science communication initiative:

• 1.  
  Evaluate an initiative. Find an upcoming science communication initiative in your local area and attend as a participant. Can you identify the objectives of the initiative? Is it aimed at a specific audience? Is the chosen format suitable and appropriate? Make a note of everything that you enjoyed and disliked about the experience, and use this to help critique your own current and future initiatives.
• 2.  
  Become a citizen of (another) science. Find a citizen science project that is of interest to you, but which does not necessarily correlate to your current area of research. For example, if you are an astronomer then consider taking part in a national wildlife survey. When you join this project consider how much agency and ownership you are granted by the process. Do you feel like you are genuinely collaborating in the development of new knowledge, or are you nothing more than an unpaid labourer? Use this experience to help shape any future citizen science project (or other initiative) that you are developing.
• 3.  
  Get out there. Track down the designated outreach, public engagement, or schools liaison officer at your place of work. Ask for their advice about your science communication initiatives, and ascertain if there is any funding and/or training available to you. Making them aware of the work that you are doing will also make you more likely to be considered for future science communication opportunities.

A concise, thoughtful and easy-to-read review by D. B. Short [40] provides a brief history of science communication in the UK, focussing on initiatives following the publication of the impactful Bodmer Report in 1985 [41]. Science Communication: A Practical Guide for Scientists [2] provides an excellent resource for developing and delivering science communication initiatives, and includes a number of useful and inspiring case studies. Similarly, 'Delivering effective science communication: advice from a professional science communicator' [8] provides further practical advice for developing your objectives, considering your audience, and exploring new formats. Finally, the references in this chapter represent an excellent starting point for finding out more about the history of science communication, and how it continues to develop as an academic discipline.