The Perfect Jenkin Burger
Have had a few requests for some kind of summary for the The Perfect Jenkin Burger
We began by trying to identify the different motivations of Science Communicators and came up with five, fairly leaky, compartments
Promoters
Educators
Democratisers
Commodifiers
Popularisers
We then took Science on the Buses, identifying what had been the core motivations of those who had funded during its life to date.
First funder, the Millennium Commission [through the T'quest/Pantec Scheme], principal motive democratisation. [Frank always subsequently portrayed as the ordinary bloke who decided to do something for his community]
Second funder, The Royal Society of Chemistry, principal motive promotion [A little chemistry makes a big difference], secondary motive education [Sand = Silica, Glass = Silica]
Third funder, the OST, principal motive democratisation. [Inclusion of hard to reach groups as audience, taking science to the person on the bus]
Fourth funder, the Institute of Physics, principal motive promotion [Thanks to Physics, Moving Physics Forward]
Reported that although extensive efforts had been made to interest commodifiers of science, like for example the food and pharmaceutical industries, none had born fruit. Suggested this might be because their motives focus around taking product-related messages to consumers. Had gained some support for dissemination of posters into schools because this matched the missions of those responsible for schools liaison. This educational motive most probably relates to the need of big science based businesses for scientifically and technically literate employees.
Next looked very briefly at the Jenkin/OST/Wellcome reports [luckily as it turned out since these were covered in a great deal more detail later in the day]
Points we made were:
Some danger that too much of the previous activity of science communicators would be labeled as being Deficit Model focussed and discontinued
Dialogue, however initiated and structured, is only going to be meaningful in a culture where science has won a central place. Hence one of Graphic Science's core objectives was to underline the centrality of science to everyday life.
Comment on what people knew of the OST/Wellcome survey had tended to focus on the six audience categories when there were also some very mind focusing single findings [like a clear majority of the sample thinking that scientists were amoral mavericks]
The penultimate section of the presentation was about the Opinion Banks which GS and Mousepower had devised for Explore @ Bristol. These give visitors to express, explore and contextualise their opinions relating to Hot Topics like Cloning, Genetic Screening and Attitudes to Robots.
The conclusion was an attempt to get the Forum to consider which of the five "motive groups" identified would be most likely to fund dialogue promoting activities. Their view was that the biggest players were likely to be the Democatisers and the Commodifiers. The identification of the latter surprised us a little at the time, but on reflection we could see the logic. After all commodifiers have an over-riding interest in consumers and employ large numbers of people whose job it is to analyse consumer attitudes and behaviours. They have also had bruising experiences of what happens when the public feel excluded from decision-making [like being unable to avoid buying GM soya products]
My point made at the end of STEMPRA's excellent session was that, if the past is anything to go by, different "motive groups" within the science communication community will independently develop their own dialogue generating strategies. This approach could, in mind, have some advantages and some pitfalls.
The advantages could be:
Parallel testing of different approaches enabling the most effective to be identified and shared
Signaling the keenness of organisations to embrace Jenkin-ness
Pitfalls might include:
The public being bombarded with a potentially confusing number of invitations to be listened to.
Large amounts of resource might be dedicated to re-inventing not very round wheels
Some of the initiatives might be viewed cynically by the public because they doubt the motives of the organisation or sector that is seeking to engage them. The worst case scenario being that this colours their view of the credibility of all such approaches.
It is this last pitfall which particularly concerns me and leads me to suggest that all approaches should have the following characteristics
- Inclusiveness; a methodology that promotes participation by a broad cross section of the public
- Transparency; and in particular a clear statement of how the outcome of the dialogue will be fed into the decision making process;
- Independence; careful avoidance of the impression that the initiative is owned by a particular interest group [like say scientists or politicians]
- Responsiveness; a willingness to provide feedback to those polled on the final decision reached and reasons for reaching it
Back to the PUB
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 13:28:36 +0100
[log in to unmask] wrote:
> Hi, I thought I had sent this to psci-com Friday night, but it seems to have
> got lost. Apologies for the delay. Andy.
> ====
>
>
> New Ways of Slicing the Cake: Implications of Recent Research for
> Communications Strategies
> A Science Communicators Forum at the British Association
> Friday 8 September
>
> The first paper of the afternoon was from myself. The text below is partly
> the notes I did not use and partly my recollections of what I may have said.
> After my bit, I've appended my briefer notes on other speakers'
> contributions. Others may be able to contribute their notes or add to my
> recollection.
>
> ====
> Andy Boddington
> New Developments in Public Understanding of Science
> A View from the Public Understanding Bunker
>
> In the UK, public understanding of science is traditionally said to have
> started with COPUS in 1985. Of course, there was extensive science
> communication activity before that but COPUS marked the start of organised
> public understanding policy and action. So we are now a fifteen year old
> teenager, amorous and anarchistic.
>
> And, of course, teenagers are always being told off by their elders. In our
> case, the age of 15 will chiefly be remembered for the Jenkins Report,
> published in February this year. Formally a report of the House of Lords
> Select Committee on Science and Technology, Lord Jenkins and his team
> provided a succinct summary of the current state of public understanding and
> public science policy. Of course, much of the detail was known to
> enthusiasts of public understanding, but Jenkin's achievement was to provide
> a magisterial overview backed by the authority of the House of Lords. It was
> a timely report and widely welcomed.
>
> In contrast, the Science White Paper published by the Office of Science and
> Technology in July is less memorable, perhaps because it was talking to
> business and government, rather than the public understanding community.
>
> There is no doubt that there is a new mood in the public understanding
> community. Promoting science, promoting knowledge, promoting understanding
> are no longer enough. The new century is about dialogue.
>
> The other event we will remember in 10 years time, is the Dyball-King report
> (or King-Dyball, or OST/Wellcome Trust...) on science and the public. This
> has been much covered in some early sessions and will be returned to. I want
> to emphasise its importance and make a few specific comments.
>
> Regrettably, although publication was due in April, the printed report is
> not yet available so I am working from presentations in London and Edinburgh
> and the Sainsbury White Paper.
>
> The innovative contribution, which may make this a landmark study, is the
> division of the public into six groups.
>
> We await details of the methodology used to define the groups but as I
> understand it, the groups are based on people's attitudes to science, i.e.
> their responses to a set of statements about science. These attitudinal
> groups show distinct demographic differences; a market researcher, for
> example, would recognise the politically aware as social groups A/B. But
> being A/B does not necessarily mean you are politically aware and therein
> lies a difficulty with this study.
>
> How do we recognise these groups amongst the public? When entertaining
> people in my public understanding bunker with stories of amazing science, do
> I automatically assume that the young man with a No. 1 haircut and a bolt
> through his nose is in the "don't care" group and that the old codgers
> clustered in the snug are members of "Not for me?" Stereotypes can be a
> useful shorthand but can also be reckless and arrogant. We need to see the
> full analysis before we can decide how the study will help us improve the
> practice of public understanding.
>
> And I am concerned about the names given to the groups. This handy shorthand
> has a way of getting a life and importance of its own and already the
> Dyball-King terms are debated. I'd personally prefer to call them Types A,
> B, C...
>
> The debate over genetically-modified foods peaked in early 1999, though it
> remains very active. There are echoes of the BSE and irradiation debates
> where politicians and policy-makers struggled to counter press and public
> criticism-some of it informed, much of it not. John Durant has studied the
> debate.
>
> He has identified a build up of coverage before the peak, including a
> Blair-Hague confrontation in the Commons. Then Dr Arpad Pusztai told us of
> his GM potatoes and rats. Durant identifies a triggering event: a letter
> from 22 scientists to the Guardian defending Pusztai. The Press thereafter
> set the agenda. GM was not seen as a science story and they adopted a
> campaigning rather than reporting stance.
>
> This study is important as it helps us understand how science stories begin
> to twist & blast through public opinion and scientific commonsense like a
> tornado. It can take a long while before the cool down draught of science
> can stop the heat of public and media concern rising. And like real-life
> twisters, there is real-life damage: MMR, is one example.
>
> Underlying the Jenkin report and the GM debate, is concern about risk but we
> still understand little of how the public's understanding of risk is
> affected by their degree of trust in science and politicians, and by
> twisting stories in the media.
>
> There is a need to study the public in real time. Think of what we would
> have learnt if we had been interviewing members of each of the Dyball-King
> publics over the weeks and months as the GM twister hit the media. We can't
> stop twisters happening, but we can learn how to communicate a balanced
> perspective to different segments of the public once they start.
>
> This type of study, I call a "third generation study." The first generation
> were the studies by Durant, Miller, Eurobarometer, etc. These looked at
> whether the public knew whether the earth went round the sun and basic
> attitudinal things, and we spent a long time arguing about what it all meant
> .
>
> The second generation of studies is trying to understand the structure of
> the public (Dyball-King) and how media stories develop (Durant). The
> Wellcome Trust has been conducting further surveys of science communicators
> and scientists and these will eventually add to our second generation
> debate.
>
> What we need now are third generation studies that look at the interaction
> between the public, media, politicians, scientists and communicators. These
> need to be real-time studies to analyse the twisters as they happen, not as
> historical events.
>
> Two important questions for this audience:
> * Are science communicators trusted facilitators in the new world of debate
> (or are they seen as lobbyists for the science cause?)
> * Now that we are beginning to understand scientists, media and the public,
> can we understand the interactions between them?
>
> ====
> Sheila Anderson. A Research Funder's View
>
> Sheila spoke formally on behalf of NERC and informally on behalf of the
> Research Councils. Perhaps she might supply her own notes. I recall...
>
> She stressed that the Councils have a duty to say what they have done with
> public money. But this is not the single aim. "We have failed to create
> public trust [...and] science still has its language, private clubs and high
> priests."
>
> NERC (and the other Councils?) are pursuing a new list of drivers for the
> public understanding and communication strategies, including Jenkins and the
> Dyball-King report. They are exploring increasing public interest and
> confidence in science through dialogue and access to Council discussions.
>
> Sheila is heartened by a successful web-based Gene Flow consultation
> conducted by NERC (described earlier on psci-com, I think), But programme
> managers are also asking, "What if the public says no to GM?" Issues like
> this are cascading through her organisation.
>
> There was discussion about legitimisation of science communication
> activities for scientists. Here the Higher Education Funding Councils and
> DfEE were seen to be wanting.
>
> ====
> Tim Reynolds. The Consultancy View
>
> Tim Reynolds from Key Communications based his presentation on King-Dyball.
> Much of that is familiar to psci-commers. He dwelled on the linear
> relationship between public interest in science and the benefits they
> perceive science to bring. I got the impression that he was suggesting that
> increasing interest was the key to increasing public support.
>
> [I may have noted this incorrectly as I have doubts that this relationship
> is useful. I think it just shows that science consumers are selfish;
> increase the benefits and they get more interested.]
>
> It is more important to build confidence rather than understanding. We
> should:
> * Influence "Confident Believers" (formerly Politically Aware)
> * Inform "Technophiles"
> * Reinforce "Supporters"
> * Address "Don't Cares"
> * And stress the benefits to "Not for me."
>
> There is no media for science consumers in the UK, however, all media have
> time for good life style stories. The examples shown were sub-zero beer and
> an article about the time tsar at NPL.
>
> Scientists are stereotyped in the media and we need to address this.
>
> Our aims should be to:
> * emphasise the benefits and relevance to lifestyle of science
> * increase its profile in tabloid media why looking in the future to new
> media
> * a long term strategy of integrating science with culture.
>
> ====
> Anita Heward and Regan Forrest from the National Space Centre
>
> These two should have got the job to run the Dome. I only made notes on
> Regan's section.
>
> "We cannot afford not to listen [to the public.]" They are concentrating on
> making the Space Centre (opens Spring 2001) an attraction, while taking
> education goals and subject matter seriously. Visitor behaviour is freewill
> and they will do as little or as much as they like. "Top down" communication
> won't work in this environment. The Exhibits need to work at many different
> levels.
>
> Evaluation is not an optional extra. The only way to know how visitors will
> really react is to ask them. It is essential to keep focused on what is
> important and build evaluation into the development process. It saves money
> in the long run.
>
> ====
> Discussion
>
> I had to dash off during the discussion. Frank Burnett said something very
> wise about this being a critical time and there being an opportunity to pull
> together and avoid the fragmentation of the last 15 years. Over to you to
> state your argument Frank.
>
> Andy Boddington
>
----------------------------------------
Dr Frank Burnet MBE
Principal Lecturer in the Public Understanding of Science
School of Interdisciplinary Sciences
UWE
Coldharbour Lane
Bristol
BS16 1QY
e-mail [log in to unmask]
tel 0117 976 3879
fax 0117 976 3871
mobile 07881 580523
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|