class 20: revision

Sarah started this class by writing up a blank timeline: 1985 at one end of the whiteboard, 2007 at the other. She asked the class to tell her where major developments in science communication would go within it. PUS, and events such as the Bodmer report ended up at one end, with PEST at the other. You might find the overview on this page a neat summary.

I then tried to synthesise some of the rest of term one in reference to a sightly 'sensational' story on bird flu. To quote Gregory and Miller on this topic:

sensationalism and gee-whizzary... [is] not a punishment inflicted on science stories by disdainful or malicious journalists. It arises in science journalism because of the rhetorical conventions of popularization (Gregory & Miller, 1998, 116-7)

This points us towards thinking about news values, and other contextual differences between the cultures producing news language and those constructing scientific discourse. It's also worth thinking about the specific context of the issue covered - are stories on MMR a different case from 'Climate Porn'?

In some ways linked to this, I also discussed questions around science and fiction. I went through the opinions of a variety of thinkers on the topic (e.g. Russell Stannard, Joan Solomon, Rosalind Haynes) and emphasised that students should take a developed approach to considering audience effects (an issue which is worth keeping in mind across the course)

Sarah then put some of term two together, by considering each of the specific media we've looked at.

• Museums
• The Internet
• Popular Science
• Documentary
• Education

She asked the class to list specific issues relating to these media, and what topics (such as boundary work, structure, interactivity, etc) might be an issue across them.

Sciencehorizons

A new government funded "PEST" programme, Sciencehorizons, was launched yesterday. A series of events will run nationally over the next 6 months, aiming to get people discussing their hopes and fears for future technologies. The discussions will be fed back to the government and could help shape future science policy.

Sciencehorizons aren't just running events at places like Dana, but have provided interactive packs to download, so you can run their own dialogue events. The BBC news story's spin on them is "science by cartoons". To spark discussion, the packs use cartoon characters of "everyday folk" living in the future.

(click on the image to see a bigger version if you want to read the text)

Personally, I think the resources look more like something aimed at people in their early teens than adults. Which I'm sure isn't the (patronising?) tone they'd want to go for. But that's just my view, maybe it is a great way of engaging people with science policy. I'll keep an open mind, at least till the results come out.

demos expertise pamphlet

To bring something out of the comments to the last post, there's a new pamphlet from Demos on expertise. Students might find it useful as further reading for some of the policy and PEST orientated topics we've been covering this half of the term, including the assignment (if you are choosing to design a dialogue-for-policy event).

To quote from the introductory blurb on their website:

Opening-up needs to mean more than showing people how expert advice works. Opening-up needs to mean open-mindedness, it needs to mean asking new questions and it needs to mean listening to a much wider range of perspectives.

Have a happy holidays - remember Humanities are all moving offices this week, so you can't expect to find us in the same place next term.

Play event at Dana

Last night a few of us went to the Dana Centre for a "PEST" type event (on play and learning).

The event eschewed the traditional set up of speakers giving presentations followed by questions. Instead, four speakers gave short (3 min) introductions of themselves. We were then sorted into groups, so you'd not necessarily be with people you know.

Each group was timetabled 10 mins with each speaker. The speakers sat in a circle of chairs and when we joined them we were just expected to talk. Some speakers gave a lead in, some just said "so, what you want to talk about". At the end of the night the groups joined together again and the speakers made a sum up comment. There was the opportunity to for the debate to continue, although no one took it up.

There was a whiff of speed-dating about the process.

Personally, I thought it worked better than I imagined it was going to. Conversation was quite stilted at the start, but by the end people had relaxed into it. A little at least, there was never a huge amount of energy in the room. Moreover, I worry the set-up of letting the audience talk as much as possible favours those who come with previously formed views on a topic. One problem might just be that audiences aren't used to acting like that - several people had come along armed with notebooks.

playing to learn...

...is the Dana event some of us will be attending next Thursday (the 7th). Check out this web-page for further details of the topic and the speakers.

A couple of things that struck me from the info given: the event is supported (i.e. paid for) by Nintendo, and the panellists are all 'experts' of one kind or another (academics, policy types). It will be interesting to hear the voices of the 'public' from the audience. Is there anyone else that you think should be given a voice in the debate?

Class 8: thanks for your presentations

Just to say well done on your presentations earlier - I thought they were fantastic. If we'd had more time we could have discussed the pros and cons of the mechanisms and how well they fitted the different situations; as it is, you'll have to think about those things yourselves. (The info sheets are up on WebCT if anyone wants more details.)

Particularly well done for being creative with the mechanisms. These are not hard and fast processes, just as they are not a comprehensive list. Feel free to mix and match and to bend the formats when you come to do your assignments - just as long as you show why you're doing that.

That was your last class with me until after Christmas, so unless you're coming to Dana next week (I'll email those who are with more details) I'll see you then!

Class 8: Dialogue for policy

If the public are knowledgable and capable in dealing with science, then why shouldn't we involve them in science policy? And how could we do this?

These were the big questions of today's class. The work of critical authors - and the fact that we live in a democracy, and that millions of pounds of taxpayer's money goes to pay for public science - points us towards the need to engage publics in the science policy process. What this means in practice, we seemed to decide, varies from case to case.

A key point in solidifying these arguments was the 2000 House of Lords Third Report on Science and Society, which argued that "...direct dialogue with the public should move from being an optional add-on to science-based policy-making and to the activities of research organisations and learned institutions, and should become a normal and integral part of the process." A few years later, Demos argued that this dialogue should move 'upstream', to early in a technology's development, rather than just being tacked on at the end.

There are lots of ways of doing this. Participation mechanisms vary from e-consultation to consensus conferences to science shops to small group deliberations. The important thing is to fit the mechanism to the situation and to be clear about the aims and outcomes. As the GM Nation? debate proved, people rapidly lose patience with being engaged merely for PR purposes...

some useful sites...

...for this Monday's class. We'll be talking about science shops, consensus conferences, citizen's juries, and other kinds of deliberative dialogue. We'll also be discussing part of this Spiked debate and the 2000 House of Lords Third Report on Science and Society.

Class 7: PUS vs. PEST

Two weeks ago we discussed the deficit model and the critical authors who argued that it was an inaccurate picture of the public. This week we talked about the effects knowing this will have on our communication.

Once we acknowledge that science's publics are active and knowledgable, how we communicate needs to take this into account. A one-way flow of scientific 'facts' isn't acceptable any more: we now need to 'engage' people with science and technology. Communication is dialogic, interactive and public-led; using anything from market research to public debates to tailor each communication to its audience and to produce a 'dialogue' between science and the public. We have moved from the Public Understanding of Science to Public Engagement with Science and Technology.

We talked - and you planned - some examples of this new kind of sci-comm: from theatre to interactive computer programmes to model bridge-building or using public nature surveys. Creativity is key, as is remembering your audience.

This week's set reading (now on WebCT, albeit it as an upside pdf) gives some more examples of what one museum thinks of 'dialogue'. Today's powerpoint is also up there, as is next week's reading from a Demos paper (in full - you only need to read the first chapter), which starts us thinking a bit more about what 'dialogue' really is or should be.

And don't forget I have a couple more tickets for the Dana event on Thursday 7th Dec; you need to let me know asap if you want one.