> After eight years of engagement with PUS at British Antarctic Survey I
think
> we all realise that understanding is an amibitious (but worthy) term.
> Interested would be good.
How about "Public Affection for Science"?
("Public Interest in Science" has an even more unfortunate acronym than
PUS.)
The word "understanding" clearly flags up a prejudice in favour of cognitive
rather than affective initiatives, despite the fact that we all really want
the public to "like" science. It also highlights an implied deficit, and
does little to dispel the concept of an inaccessible, esoteric, scientific
priesthood.
It seems to me that most cognitive PUS initiatives tend to focus on
teenagers and adults, who are less easy to influence or even to reach.
Initiatives with an affective emphasis typically focus on younger
children, who are extremely easy to influence, and to attract into science
centres and Science Week events.
So there is an interesting issue of cost-effectiveness here.
Developing my Exploding Custard "lecture" over ten years has been an
interesting journey. I started off infuriating formal educators by flatly
refusing to explain any of the 40-odd demos I race through in an hour.
Older, mellow with age, and more balanced, I still emphasise affective
empowering more than cognitive explaining.
If you disagree and don't mind sitting among 250 noisy children, do
come and throw things at me, at the British Association BAYS Day at Imperial
College, London on Friday 17th and Saturday 18th March. I shall be
well-equipped to throw wetter things back at you.
http://www.interactives.co.uk/excustd.htm
[log in to unmask] | http://www.interactives.co.uk
"Give people facts and you feed their minds for an hour.
Awaken curiosity and they feed their own minds for a lifetime."
I said it and I believe it | Ian Russell
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|