What does the UK public want from academic science communication?

Current views and science communication

The majority of respondents agreed that they were interested in science (87.5%), with only 7.1% stating the opposite. Of the remaining respondents, 4.5% selected ‘other’ and provided mixed opinions whilst 0.9% did not provide an answer. Respondents provided a range of comments, which were coded into 18 different themes (Figure 1). The most common reason (21%) given for interest in science attempts to understand the unknown.

Figure 1. Responses categorised into themes relating to respondents current interest in science.

            “It's based on facts, discoveries and inventions improve our lives, it's interesting to know how the world works”

The second and third most common themes were the ethos of science (scientific method and its basis in evidence-based practice), and the perception that science is beneficial to society (both 13%). One respondent had mixed views about these aspects, noting that whilst science allows people to discover the unknown, the ‘dogma’ of science and the inability to access scientific literature made it difficult for people to interact with. This is interesting and supportive to the ongoing Open Access movement within academia, attempting to make all peer-reviewed research manuscripts freely available to everyone. Other respondents specified favoured disciplines; biology (12.5%), physics (8.8%), chemistry (3.7%), environmental or earth sciences (1.5%), social sciences (1.5%), mathematics (0.7%) and sustainability studies (0.7%).

Of the respondents who stated that they had no interest in science, no explanation related to a specific scientific discipline. Instead they referred to personal experience with science education (50%), the conflict scientific method can have with religion (25%), or a personal dislike of scientists themselves (25%).

            “Snobs, know it all! Better than others just because they are intelligent, boring and thinking everyone should know what they know!”

One respondent, when discussing their education, detailed how intrigued they often are, but are made to feel inadequate and lacking in capacity and understanding.

            “…like it’s no big deal, and my wonder and awe is ill inspired”.

To understand how respondents engaged with science in their day-to-day lives, they were asked to select either very regularly, somewhat regularly, somewhat infrequently or never (Figure 2). When asked about different engagement mechanisms, the most frequently selected mechanism was via the Internet, with 55% of respondents using it very regularly, and a further 25% somewhat regularly. A further four mechanisms were used by over 50% of respondents at least somewhat regularly, these were: non-specific websites such as news pages, social media (28% very regular, 30% somewhat regular), specific websites such as blogs (30% very regularly, 24% somewhat regularly), and television (16.8% very regularly, 36.2% somewhat regularly). Interestingly, the top four are all online methods of communication, and represent all of the online options provided. Academics too are actively engaged with social media to network, discuss, plan and carryout studies¹⁷, with 80–90% of research scientists being at least aware of Twitter and Facebook¹⁸. This rich and existing community of academics could therefore be utilised more frequently and imaginatively to engage members of the public.

Figure 2. Distribution of answers regarding how often respondents use different mechanisms to interact with scientific information (displayed as percentage of overall respondents).

Traditional media, i.e. magazines (10% very regular and 21% somewhat regularly), newspapers (9% very regular and 17% somewhat regularly) and radio (6.25% very regular & 12.5% somewhat regularly) are used less often to access science. A small group of respondents used physical events, such as museum visits (8% very regularly and 20% somewhat regularly), or attendance at science festivals to engage (3.5% very regular and 7% somewhat regularly). As noted in the introduction, academics practising science communication and engagement appear to favour these types of activities for public engagement events¹⁹, perhaps due to opportunity to adhere to a more standard format they are comfortable with – e.g. standing in front of people and explaining.

Some respondents noted other methods for engagement with science that were not included in the survey. They were: multimedia content (e.g. DVD and on-demand streaming services, n=3), amateur science (e.g. amateur astronomer club or designing experiments for their children, n=3), through their workplace/job (e.g. working in a library, n=2), and by reading (books and academic literature, n=2).

Respondents were also asked which events/activities aimed at engaging the public with science, if any, they had previously attended or participated in. Of all the respondents who provided a 33.8% of them had not attended any science engagement events.

            “No, I've never been aware of such an event.”

Museums were the most popular attended location (23.5%), with 13.2% attending but not specifying details. Universities and science festivals/fairs had a similar response rate (11.8% and 10.3% respectively); only 1.5% had previously engaged in a science communication activity online. This contrasts with the responses from the previous question, which revealed that the Internet was used to actively engage with science (Figure 2). It seems that if the curiosity is driven by the consumer rather than prescribed by the academic, then engagement with science is better recognised. The role of the scientist in creating activities is of little concern.

How can we better engage with the public?

The following questions asked respondents how scientists and other organisations such as museums and universities may encourage people to attend events to see/discuss/participate with science. Respondents provided a wide range of reasons (n=146) or actions that may alter their decision to attend a science communication/outreach event (Figure 3). The most common theme related to their interest in the topic (21.9%). Suggested topics were wide-ranging, from science of practical value to the respondent, to any topic that the respondent may find interesting as long as it followed scientific methodology.

Figure 3. Distribution of answers regarding what would encourage respondents to attend a science event at a university or museum.

            “Novel exhibitions (e.g. opportunity to try a jet pack)”

Advertising and visibility of events were also considered (13.7%), with many respondents suggesting that they rarely see science communication events being advertised, but generally would attend if they knew far enough in advance. Some respondents elaborated on this, suggesting that advertising should be carried out on social media (n=6) whilst two respondents suggested that advertising be written with inviting language, so as not to intimidate or patronise any potential attendees.

Also of concern was the ability to engage with a hands-on practical demonstration with “more than just storyboards” (13.7%) as well as the geographic location (8.9%) of the activities, as some respondents lived in locations away from major universities or other organisations and so did not have the option to attend without travelling. These responses provide an interesting consideration for scientists; whilst many may consider hands-on practical demonstrations of science to be a valuable tool for the effective communication of science (again, similar to experiences they may have within the undergraduate classroom), participation will be limited to those within the commutable area. Providing further support to develop science communication activities within the digital landscape may be one way to enable participation with people in any geographical location, and is a change that is likely to be embraced given previous answers discussed relating to Internet-based engagement (Figure 2).

Despite the interesting opportunities for active involvement that citizen science and crowd sourcing can offer [e.g. 20], only two respondents specified they would like experiments they could investigate themselves. Interestingly, the lecture format was suggested to a lesser extent (3.4%), a low approval for an anecdotally common format. Other considerations included cost (notably the requirement for events to be free, 6.8%) and the inclusion of enthusiastic (2.7%), or famous (2.7%) scientists.

Respondents were asked to consider how they themselves could be better engaged by scientists trying to communicate scientific information (Figure 4). The most common answer was to bring scientific information to social media (41%). Of these respondents, 34% specified a type of social media (Figure 5), the most common being blogs, followed by Twitter, Facebook and YouTube.

Figure 4. Distribution of answers regarding what the respondent suggested scientists could do to engage better with them.

n=106.

Figure 5. Distribution of particular elements of social media that respondents described if they selected social media as an answer when considering how scientists can better engage with them (Figure 4).

Not all respondents who selected social media provided a specific answer. n=32.

Suggestions for output content via social media were, interestingly varied. The need for “idiot proof websites” and short scientific “facts” to gain people’s attention, contrasted with suggestions for “more detailed” and “accurate” online dialogue, reflecting the two types of social media suggested, Twitter, where currently only short snippets of information can be posted at any given time due to 180 character limits; and blogs, where the norm is to create pieces of writing of variable length, allowing more detail. Within the comments regarding social media, there was an overall consensus that its convenient nature makes it an attractive mode for scientists and audiences to interact.

The second most common theme was open-door events, but only one respondent provided any detailed thought, suggesting open-door events should take place within a University. Two respondents linked hands-on activities with open-door events, but it may be assumed from previous responses that people associate hands-on activities with open-door events, and thus did not feel the need to discuss them separately. Events in ‘real life’ locations (outside of typical engagement locations e.g. university or museum) were also suggested (12.2%). Including Café Scientifique (http://cafescientifique.org) or The Green Man music festival (http://www.greenman.net/).

Respondents also suggested that online resources or websites were useful (but not specifically social media, 11.3%). A slightly smaller percentage of respondents recommended podcasting as a medium to better engage them with science (8.5%). Debate, discussion and interviews were all mentioned with reference to podcasts. Other themes resulting from this question included providing open-access literature (3.8%), community-specific events (such as local astronomy clubs, 1.9%), non-fiction books on scientific topics, better news coverage of scientific topics and more famous scientist personalities (0.9%). Also, 0.9% of responses suggest scientists should continue as is, as they believed scientists were successfully achieving their aim in effectively communicating with the public.

The age at which engagement events should be aimed was also investigated. The majority of responses suggested events should be split equally between adult-oriented and child-oriented (60.2%). The number of respondents suggesting that events should be aimed at children, adults or teenagers alone were similar (12.5%, 9.8% and 9.8% respectively). A small number of respondents believed events should be designed for families as a whole (3.6%), whilst the same number felt that the level of pre-existing knowledge should be the definition of who an event is aimed at, not the person’s age.