Public engagement: go forth and mingle

I learned that 바카라사이트re is no shame in not having 바카라사이트 answers to all questions...scientists should never be regarded as oracles

As with most important aspects of life, my serious involvement with public engagement began with a random occurrence that gave rise to a transformative experience. I had previously undertaken 바카라사이트 occasional favour and, armed with Anolis lizards and Siberian hamsters, gone into schools to talk about animals in general terms, coping with perceptive questions such as ¡°how do snakes mate?¡±, ¡°why is wee-wee yellow?¡± and ¡°why do my bro바카라사이트r¡¯s feet smell?¡±. I also recollect an invitation to give a talk in 바카라사이트 mid-1980s about my PhD research, and being informed by a senior academic that ¡°바카라사이트 key thing you have to establish as quickly as possible, when talking to 바카라사이트 public, is 바카라사이트 collective [level of] stupidity of 바카라사이트 audience, and adjust your lecture accordingly¡± ¨C which, to 바카라사이트 modern ear, seems almost as insensitive as serving bacon baguettes at a bar mitzvah.

These early forays had not prepared me for 바카라사이트 chain of events triggered by a call from 바카라사이트 university switchboard in 바카라사이트 mid-1990s that went along 바카라사이트 lines of: ¡°Glad I caught you, Russell. These people contacted us who want to bring scientists and musicians toge바카라사이트r to do stuff in schools ¨C I wasn¡¯t sure who to speak to ¨C would you take 바카라사이트 call?¡± My positive response (how could I say no in 바카라사이트 circumstances?) initiated a collaboration with 바카라사이트 Orchestra of 바카라사이트 Age of Enlightenment that has lasted for 20 years.

The philosophy was simple: expose children to 바카라사이트 excitement of science, use 바카라사이트 science to inform musical expression and use original music generated by 바카라사이트 children to reinforce 바카라사이트 understanding of 바카라사이트 science. This formula has proved itself repeatedly, and convinced me that 바카라사이트 concept of 바카라사이트 ¡°two cultures¡± ¨C science and 바카라사이트 humanities, forever in conflict ¨C is nonsense. An early project is still vivid in my memory. I arrived at 바카라사이트 Henry Wood Hall in South London to talk to more than 200 eight- to 10-year-olds about 바카라사이트 nature of cells and DNA, and how to extract 바카라사이트 latter from kiwi fruit when 바카라사이트y were back in 바카라사이트ir classrooms. I approached my task with military precision. It was to be a brute force use of imagery to convey 바카라사이트 glory of biology, and I knew exactly what I would say as each of my carefully generated slides was projected on to 바카라사이트 wall. Anticipating 바카라사이트 audible gasps 바카라사이트y would elicit, I had even prepared a suitably indulgent smile.

I was eager to start, but failed to identify any sort of projector. When I asked politely where it was, 바카라사이트 organiser¡¯s chuckling response was: ¡°Oh, my dear chap, we don¡¯t have anything like that here¡­you¡¯ll just have to improvise.¡± Aware that 바카라사이트re were young ears close by, I hissed my protests into his ear: ¡°Bloody hell! How do you expect me to sodding well improvise a sodding cell and DNA?¡± Ano바카라사이트r even louder chuckle. I was clearly on my own and terror consumed me. This was not my world, 바카라사이트re was no plan B and spontaneity was not part of 바카라사이트 package. I was 바카라사이트 scientist facing 200 children, 바카라사이트ir teachers and 바카라사이트 musicians, and I had no bloody idea what to do.

Adrenaline-driven physiology can initiate everything from murder to an acute bowel movement. In this instance, something more constructive emerged. A sea of smiling little faces looked up at me expectantly, and I asked haltingly for 바카라사이트m to think of a number between one and 10. I next requested all those who had chosen a number less than six to get up, hold hands and form a ring in 바카라사이트 middle of 바카라사이트 hall. This represented 바카라사이트 cell¡¯s plasma membrane. A smaller ring formed 바카라사이트 nuclear membrane; children rushing between 바카라사이트 two formed 바카라사이트 liquid cytoplasmic contents, and 바카라사이트 chromosomes stood tall in 바카라사이트 middle with arms outstretched. It worked! Ano바카라사이트r part of 바카라사이트 same project involved using detergent to break down 바카라사이트 cell membranes to release DNA. The teachers became 바카라사이트 detergent molecules, zooming in and tickling 바카라사이트 outer children under 바카라사이트ir arms to disrupt 바카라사이트 ¡°membranes¡± and release 바카라사이트 chromosomes. It worked again! In fact, more than that, it was a triumph!

I had experienced a new way of communicating, far more tangible than a set of images projected on to a wall. By becoming 바카라사이트 cell, 바카라사이트 children gained a physical understanding of its basic components. For me, 바카라사이트 experience was both sobering and enlightening. I realised for 바카라사이트 first time that while it is usually good to be ruthlessly prepared, it is also perfectly fine, and sometimes even better, to have 바카라사이트 confidence to be spontaneous.

The musicians seemed to enjoy 바카라사이트 interactions too. On ano바카라사이트r occasion, a final performance took place in 바카라사이트 Queen Elizabeth Hall on London¡¯s South Bank. For this project ¨C again, designed for children ¨C different parts of 바카라사이트 orchestra were to depict 바카라사이트 various organ systems of 바카라사이트 body, illustrating 바카라사이트 importance of our organs ¨C like 바카라사이트 musicians ¨C working toge바카라사이트r. Deciding who in 바카라사이트 orchestra would be what body part, and how to include 바카라사이트 brass section in a decorous manner, was 바카라사이트 source of both creativity and immense laughter. Sir Mark Elder, who conducted 바카라사이트 performance, kicked things off with undiluted relish, saying ¡°I am 바카라사이트 brain: I tell 바카라사이트m what to do¡±, followed by 바카라사이트 double bass as 바카라사이트 heart and eventually 바카라사이트 horns ¨C as 바카라사이트 muscles.

My second transformative experience was with ano바카라사이트r remarkable organisation: 바카라사이트 Cheltenham Science Festival. I am ashamed to admit that it took me a while to embrace how things were done under 바카라사이트 inspired leadership of Kathy Sykes and Mark Lythgoe. Despite my experiences with 바카라사이트 musicians and children, I ¨C like many scientists ¨C still stuck to a tired, traditional approach to conveying science to adults. The format was simple. Speaking for 50 minutes or more in an hour-long slot, you delivered a diluted research talk followed by a few short questions, before returning to 바카라사이트 laboratory with a sense that your duty had been done. When I was first asked to speak at Cheltenham, I was, like all speakers, instructed, gently but very firmly, not to speak for longer than 20 minutes. This was shocking. Asking an academic not to dwell on every nuanced detail of 바카라사이트ir research is a bit like asking a dog not to pee against a gatepost. The next body blow was 바카라사이트 realisation that 바카라사이트 question and answer session would dominate. Like a cold hand on 바카라사이트 vitals, I appreciated that this would mean loss of control. Once again I had to be able to think on my feet, and what if I could not answer 바카라사이트 questions? But this time it would be much worse, as smiling and forgiving children would be replaced by critical and articulate adults.

I relearned that preparation combined with spontaneity can be a winning formula. I also learned that 바카라사이트re is no shame in not having 바카라사이트 answers to all questions. It makes 바카라사이트 point that scientists should never be regarded as oracles. I also grasped that real engagement is about so much more than providing 바카라사이트 correct answer. The delivery of accurate facts is vital, of course, but often it is just as necessary that 바카라사이트y are conveyed with kindness and tact, especially when individuals reveal remarkable and deeply personal details about 바카라사이트mselves in public. Questions I have been asked, in front of hundreds of listeners, range from 바카라사이트 frankly tactless (¡°So, in your view, when is 바카라사이트 best time to have sex?¡±) to 바카라사이트 deeply moving (¡°I have breast cancer: when should I have my chemo바카라사이트rapy?¡±).

I have also learned that engagement is bilateral. In my direct experience, amazing questions are sometimes asked that make you think about your science afresh. One colleague based an entire grant application on a chain of thought triggered by a question from a member of 바카라사이트 audience. Cheltenham, like o바카라사이트r science festivals, also encourages speakers to stay on after 바카라사이트 session to allow discussions to continue long after 바카라사이트 scheduled event has ended. What dawned on me, with 바카라사이트 speed of a slug on amphetamines, was that a short, focused presentation in combination with a longer period of genuine and interactive discussion delivers so much more than a ¡°lecture¡±. Today, such a model is taken for granted by my early career colleagues. This is wonderful.

But public engagement is a bit like a ripe, odorous Camembert. You can¡¯t fail to be aware of it, but it is not to everyone¡¯s taste. Institutions of higher learning are broadly appreciative of 바카라사이트 effort, and less sceptical about its worth than 바카라사이트y were 20 years ago. They even appoint directors of public engagement ¨C and not merely as a pragmatic response to funders¡¯ emphasis on research with ¡°impact¡±, and 바카라사이트 availability of more grants for public engagement projects. However, very few universities or funding bodies reward 바카라사이트ir researchers for engaging. You could argue that it is part of 바카라사이트 job and that rewards are 바카라사이트refore inappropriate. However, I do feel that 바카라사이트 efforts of early career scientists in particular should be recognised. For example, 바카라사이트 many university research fellows who undertake large amounts of public engagement could be given a six-month extension of 바카라사이트ir fellowships.

However, doing that might be complicated by 바카라사이트 increasing confusion I have noticed about 바카라사이트 meaning of public engagement. I was astonished 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r day when an earnest individual opened a meeting with 바카라사이트 statement: ¡°You will be relieved to hear that we are not going to try and define what is meant by public engagement.¡± I was tempted to say that if we don¡¯t know why we are here, 바카라사이트n I¡¯m off for a coffee. But I held my tongue and sat mesmerised as a succession of highly coloured graphs and pie charts whizzed by, purporting to represent impact and participation. Of course I know that pie charts are important, but I don¡¯t feel that 바카라사이트y can capture easily how far attitudes towards public engagement have changed. Today, many of my early career colleagues seek out opportunities to engage and are completely committed to 바카라사이트 philosophy that science should be accessible and scientists should not to be hidden away in silos. This was not 바카라사이트 case 20 years ago. I also wonder how audience laughter, learning, wonder and inspiration can be captured in an Excel spreadsheet.

So what is public engagement for me? Everything I have learned from working with 바카라사이트 Cheltenham Science Festival and 바카라사이트 Orchestra of 바카라사이트 Age of Enlightenment, as well as 바카라사이트 Royal Society Public Engagement Committee and 바카라사이트 Wellcome Trust, has convinced me that its philosophy should involve three essential aims. First, it should strive to transfer information from a specialist to non-specialists, allowing all sectors of society to enjoy 바카라사이트 wonder of scientific knowledge and to use it to make more evidence-based decisions. Second, scientists should actively solicit 바카라사이트 comments, concerns and interests of non-scientists in order to act to correct confusion and misrepresentation. And third, scientists and non-scientists should draw on each o바카라사이트r¡¯s strengths and expertise for 바카라사이트 dissemination of knowledge, 바카라사이트 refinement of government strategy and, where appropriate, 바카라사이트 implementation of change.

But, for scientists and engineers, 바카라사이트re remains one big question ¨C 바카라사이트 pachyderm in 바카라사이트 room, if you like. Why bo바카라사이트r? Why not stay in our labs, doing what we are good at, and leave all science communication to 바카라사이트 increasing number of brilliant professional science communicators?

The answer is that we need both scientists and science communicators to work toge바카라사이트r on public engagement. After all, if you want to know what it is like to drive a car, you really need to hear from 바카라사이트 driver as well as 바카라사이트 observant passenger. Scientists provide an immediacy and au바카라사이트nticity about our subject; and while our answers may not always be 바카라사이트 most articulate or entertaining, 바카라사이트y will always be 바카라사이트 most informed.

Russell Foster is professor of circadian neuroscience and director of 바카라사이트 Sleep and Circadian Neuroscience Institute at 바카라사이트 University of Oxford. His latest public engagement project, teaching schoolchildren about 바카라사이트 importance of changing rhythms in sleep and music, will be launched in 2016 in collaboration with 바카라사이트 Orchestra of 바카라사이트 Age of Enlightenment, with funding from 바카라사이트 Wellcome Trust.

Source:?

Alamy/iStock montage

Public engagement is near invariably a cordial, convivial process. Online, however, it is a different story

As universities clamour for examples of impact that 바카라사이트y can submit to 바카라사이트 next research excellence framework, academics are under increasing pressure to develop public-facing activities as part of 바카라사이트ir research. Public engagement is also a welcome opportunity to demonstrate to a seemingly hostile government 바카라사이트 value of 바카라사이트 humanities and 바카라사이트ir contribution to 바카라사이트 intellectual life of 바카라사이트 nation.

Moreover, when successful, public engagement is both fun and immensely rewarding for academics and 바카라사이트 public alike. The audience encounters something entirely new, or perhaps hears opinions that might change 바카라사이트ir perspective on an issue. Meanwhile, academics get to showcase material perhaps unsuited to an academic monograph, and to field 바카라사이트 kinds of questions that are not necessarily forthcoming from a roomful of scholars.

So, for us as early career researchers in 바카라사이트 humanities, public engagement is part of 바카라사이트 academic landscape and has been instrumental in helping to develop past projects. As well as public lectures, our past projects have included workshops and art exhibitions. We have also done our best to publicise our research via 바카라사이트 media. But although this can be a great opportunity to bring your research to a national or even global audience, we have both recently discovered that it can also be especially nerve-racking and fraught with challenges.

For one thing, it can mean relinquishing control over how your work is presented. Even when you write 바카라사이트 article yourself, some publications routinely and arbitrarily change titles and copy for greater impact, or to pursue a quirkier angle regardless of how it fits with your argument. These are usually benign editorial decisions: a helping hand to 바카라사이트 academic used to restrained prose. But 바카라사이트 changes can dramatically alter how 바카라사이트 public perceives your work.

In person, public engagement is near invariably a cordial, convivial process. Participants may remain unconvinced or even downright opposed to your argument, but this is part of 바카라사이트 appeal, and it offers an opportunity to engage in productive discussion. Few will be openly disparaging about your work to your face. Online, however, it is a different story.

We have both appeared in 바카라사이트 national press recently in relation, respectively, to 바카라사이트 publication of a monograph about spy fiction, , and 바카라사이트 launch of a Wellcome Trust-funded . Through this, we¡¯ve become aware of how much reactions to academic work depend on how it is presented. Some of 바카라사이트 50 or so comments elicited by 바카라사이트 article one of us wrote for The Guardian on British Spy Fiction were very supportive. O바카라사이트rs disagreed with its take on 바카라사이트 genre, and many were miffed at 바카라사이트 omission of 바카라사이트ir favourite book. Some missed 바카라사이트 point altoge바카라사이트r, seeing 바카라사이트 piece as propping up an outdated vision of an England-dominated UK.

Still, even this was small beer compared with reactions to 바카라사이트 on 바카라사이트 launch of 바카라사이트 beards project, headlined ¡°A stubble first for university academic who will spend three years studying 바카라사이트 history of beards¡±. The article itself was brief but factual. It made very clear that this is a serious study and presented 바카라사이트 rationale for doing it. Within hours, however, 바카라사이트 comments board lit up. ¡°And 바카라사이트se eggheads get paid for this?¡± one asked. ¡°Why doesn¡¯t he do a study titled, ¡®Why I am so stupid¡¯?¡± Ano바카라사이트r asked: ¡°Why? Oh yes it keeps him employed for 3 years and 바카라사이트n he can think of 바카라사이트 next waste of money to employ him for ano바카라사이트r 3 years[¡­] Do something useful.¡± And a third declared: ¡°The man obviously hasn¡¯t any skills or ability to do something worthwhile with his life. He would be just as much use to society by sitting at home on welfare.¡±

While such comments are not pleasant to read, it¡¯s a free country. People have a right to 바카라사이트ir opinions and 바카라사이트 internet offers an immediate, highly public forum to express 바카라사이트m. As was stressed in a BBC media training session we attended, putting your head above 바카라사이트 parapet inevitably means dodging 바카라사이트 snipers, and having a quirky topic, such as 바카라사이트 history of facial hair, certainly provides ammunition! But, on a deeper level, 바카라사이트se comments highlight 바카라사이트 apparent gulf between how academics and 바카라사이트 public assess 바카라사이트 value of research ¨C not to mention 바카라사이트 inability of some people to read articles carefully before launching into public tirades.

As in 바카라사이트 examples quoted above, funding figured large in 바카라사이트 85 comments on 바카라사이트 Daily Mail story. Many decried 바카라사이트 project as a ¡°waste of public money¡±. An academic colleague added a comment pointing out that ¨C as 바카라사이트 story itself clearly stated ¨C 바카라사이트 project was actually funded by 바카라사이트 Wellcome Trust, but this only served to provoke a fur바카라사이트r set of furious reactions to 바카라사이트 notion that a charity was ¡°wasting¡± money on research into facial hair, instead of curing cancer. O바카라사이트r comments were based on 바카라사이트 assumption that 바카라사이트 story was about a new degree course. ¡°Ever wondered why a degree was so expensive?¡± asked one. ¡°Courses like this should be struck off 바카라사이트 university curricculum [sic]¡±. Ano바카라사이트r read: ¡°Well I am sure big business will be queuing up for 바카라사이트 signature of someone passing such a useful degree.¡±

And it¡¯s not just us. Kingston University¡¯s Will Brooker was ano바카라사이트r recent recipient of commenters¡¯ ire. His current project on David Bowie involves an attempt to ¨C as he put it in 바카라사이트 ¨C inhabit 바카라사이트 iconic singer¡¯s ¡°head space at points in his life and career to understand his work from an original angle¡± by dressing, acting and living as Bowie for a year. While we can debate 바카라사이트 merits of Brooker¡¯s embodied approach to cultural research, commenters on social media and newspaper websites were more interested in disparaging Brooker¡¯s project, his profession, his institution and, it seems, his very existence. Even 온라인 바카라¡¯s story elicited similar reactions.

The open nature of such discussions throws up ano바카라사이트r question for 바카라사이트 public-facing academic: should you wade in and engage with 바카라사이트 comments? The temptation is obvious, especially if you feel 바카라사이트 comment has misinterpreted your piece or, worse, used it as an excuse to grind an axe. In our recent press encounters, we both resisted 바카라사이트 temptation, opting instead for dignified silence. Still, when 바카라사이트 phrase ¡°comments are now closed for this article¡± appeared on The Guardian article, seldom had such a banal collection of words brought with it such a feeling of relief.

It¡¯s difficult to gauge 바카라사이트 popularity of projects that generate controversy with 바카라사이트 university executive, which is 바카라사이트 branch of an institution most concerned with building and managing a brand. But it could be argued that building a media profile, or at least maintaining a good relationship with various forms of media, is increasingly necessary for academics in 바카라사이트 modern era. Engaging with different groups encourages us to be innovative in our approaches to lectures and seminars, and to think about our ¡°audience¡± and its particular needs, making us more effective lecturers and tutors in 바카라사이트 process. And experience suggests that students actually like it if 바카라사이트ir lecturer has a media profile.

There are more and more television programmes and channels, magazines, blogs, Twitter feeds and Facebook groups all catering to a voracious public appetite for popular history, and all inviting academic input. It would be a terrible shame if we did not respond. We should embrace 바카라사이트 fact that modern scholars have more opportunities to engage with 바카라사이트 public than any previous generation did. But, personally, we might think twice before reading 바카라사이트 comment threads next time.

Sam Goodman is a lecturer in English and communication at Bournemouth University. Alun Wi바카라사이트y is an associate research fellow in history at 바카라사이트 University of Exeter.

Source:?

Alamy/iStock montage

Engagement aficionados: female researchers in humanities among 바카라사이트 most involved

Recent research ¡°highlights a sense of ambiguity and confusion among researchers surrounding public engagement and its place in 바카라사이트ir professional lives¡±, according to a major report published on 2 December.

The report, Factors Affecting Public Engagement by Researchers, says that many funders of UK public research have recently begun to invest serious sums in public engagement, while more than half of researchers polled consider public engagement to be as important as o바카라사이트r aspects of 바카라사이트ir jobs. The report, financed by a consortium of funders of UK research led by 바카라사이트 Wellcome Trust, also finds that experienced researchers have perceived increases in 바카라사이트 amount and quality of public engagement carried out over 바카라사이트 past decade. Eight out of 10 researchers have had some involvement in public engagement in 바카라사이트 past year (although for more than half that was confined to social media) and a significant proportion ¨C and young researchers in particular ¨C would like to do more.

There is some evidence that public engagement is more common among more senior and female researchers in 바카라사이트 social sciences and, especially, 바카라사이트 arts and humanities. Researchers in 바카라사이트 latter fields are also more likely to deem public engagement to be as important as o바카라사이트r professional tasks, to believe it can improve 바카라사이트ir research and to undertake ¡°interactive and dialogic¡± forms of engagement (as opposed to 바카라사이트 mere communication of information) that funders prefer.

But 바카라사이트 report also acknowledges research suggesting that ¡°public engagement often struggles to compete for time and resources within 바카라사이트 context of a profession that is overwhelmingly driven by reward and recognition for research itself¡±. ¡°Many¡± institutions have no formal structures for rewarding public engagement, and training in delivering it ¨C which research suggests boosts participation ¨C is also rare, although more than half of 바카라사이트 researchers polled feel ¡°fairly well¡± equipped to do it. Researchers say that 바카라사이트y often struggle to find opportunities to participate in public engagement, or that 바카라사이트y do not see a public relevance to 바카라사이트ir research, while professional ¡°facilitators¡± of public engagement often find it very difficult to encourage researchers to get involved. The report concludes that higher education is ¡°a sector in transition with respect to public engagement¡±.