15. Research Partnerships in Education
Paper
Scientists’ Perspectives on Science Outreach
Maurizio Toscano, Victoria Millar, Jan van Driel, Deya Chakraborty
The University of Melbourne, Australia
Presenting Author: Toscano, Maurizio;
Millar, Victoria
The importance of science in acquiring and maintaining social, economic and political power cannot be understated (Weiss, 2005). Moreover, as scientific and technological advancements – particularly in recent decades – have made societies wealthier, healthier and better informed, there has been a corresponding demand from scientists to preserve, justify and promote the immense contribution of scientific to society, whilst also acknowledging the threats science poses. Meeting this demand requires sustained, open, and preferably two-way engagement between the scientific community and the public and a commitment to shared goals. Such public engagement with science takes many forms: formal public lectures and science festivals, communication in old and new media, school visits, science camps, mentoring programs and citizen science projects. The sub-set of science engagement practices that concerns us in this paper are ‘science outreach’ programs in which scientists interact directly with students at schools or scientific research sites, and often emphasising contemporary science research topics and/or applications.
It is estimated that half of practicing scientists participate in some form of science outreach at least a few times a year (Jensen et al., 2008; Woitowich et al., 2022), with a growing number of scientists acknowledging the value and necessity of science outreach activities (see e.g. Besely and Nisbet, 2013). This commitment to science-public engagement has been particularly strong since the early 2000s when science engagement became a major policy and political priority in Europe, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Given the growing impetus for science engagement and outreach, considerable efforts have been made to understand the motivations and barriers to scientists’ participation in these kinds of activities and programs. Attending to the macro-level of engagement, Weingart et al. (2021) provide a review of science engagement as it appears in the academic and policy literature. They recognise five main motivations driving engagement in recent decades: (i) Democratisation – empowering active, science-informed citizenship; (ii) Education – improving science knowledge; (iii) Legitimation – promoting public trust in science; (iv) Innovation – seeing the public as a resource for new knowledge; and (v) Inspiration – raising interest in science and science careers. This analysis complements the large body of literature dedicated to detailing the motivations of individual scientists, which has revealed trends in scientists’ intrinsic motivations (e.g. outreach is enjoyable and personally rewarding for participating scientists) and extrinsic motivations (e.g. outreach promises to improve participation in science careers; or grant funding or job promotion require it), as wells and barriers to scientists participating in outreach, such as not having enough time or training (see e.g. Polikoff & Webb, 2007; Besley et al, 2018; Royal Society, 2006; Burchell, 2015).
Combining the macro-level policy perspective with psychological interpretations of scientists’ motivation is helpful in providing a generalised view of what makes scientists participate in science outreach and continue to do so. Yet, how these motivations mesh with scientists’ values and principles, as well as their career and program-specific experiences of outreach, is less well understood. This paper, therefore, examines and presents the links between the motivations and values scientists draw upon in the development and implementation of science outreach, the structural and organisational aspects of outreach programs, and the individuals and groups of people who participate in science outreach.
The paper seeks to answer the following research questions:
- What values or principles motivate scientists’ participation in science outreach development and implementation?
- How is the structure and organisation of science outreach described and interpreted by scientists?
- What roles and identities (theirs and others’) do scientists assume and co-opt in the development and implementation of science outreach?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe question of how science education is developed and implemented surveys scientists’ perception and understanding of the structure and organisation of their outreach program.
The question of ‘who’ is involved in science outreach captures the different people who contribute directly to the function of the program, but also those who are seen as supportive or necessary to meeting the program objectives. This also includes who the scientists see as their proximal (school students) and distal (parents, community, society) audience. The ‘who’ also captures the biography of the scientists – their experiences and entry-points into science and science outreach, and hence how they identify with science and science outreach.
The question of why scientists are developing and implementing science outreach captures their values and motivations. These may be interpreted at the macro-level (broad, society-level motivations (Weingart et al. 2021)) or micro-level (what keeps them motivated in the everyday implementation of the project). Motivations may also show up in their evaluations of the success/failure/improvements/effectiveness of their program, or part thereof.
We conducted 45-60-minute interviews with fourteen scientists based in Australia who have participated in, designed, developed or coordinated science outreach programs for high school students. The participants represent a range of outreach program types, academic and professional roles, levels of experience, and gender. The scientists and the outreach programs cover the disciplines of biology, physics, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, or a combination.
Interview questions focussed on scientists’ current and career-long experiences with science outreach with an emphasis on how interest, expertise, skills and roles in science outreach evolved and developed over time. These were coupled with questions about the aims of outreach and the values identified by scientists, and their peers’ perceptions. The questions also interrogated how the programs were structured and run, what aspects of the project were successful and unsuccessful, why that was the case and how that affected meeting the aims of the program. Questions also considered scientists’ understanding of their audiences, and what makes someone likely to pursue science. Questions were drawn from and adapted from existing literature (Bergerson et al., 2014; Besely et al., 2018; Ecklund et al., 2014; Fogg-Rogers & Moss, 2019; Rao, 2016).
Interviews were transcribed and coded according to the motivational categories identified by Weingart et al. (2021): Democratisation, Education, Legitimation, Innovation, and Inspiration. Thematic analysis revealed additional coding categories reflecting scientists’ values and motivations: partnerships with and in schools, curriculum reform, and public accountability.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThere was considerable variety in the values that underpinned scientists’ perception of and participation in outreach; reflecting both the differentiation in the roles/levels that scientists held. Whilst motivated to promote science to students to secure and increase career pathways in science, the values that underscored this concern about the career ‘pipeline’ were nuanced. They reflected a broadening of the long-standing agenda to increase the diversity of the scientific profession by engaging with traditionally underrepresented groups, including members of Indigenous communities. It was in this sense that outreach for the sake of democratisation appeared.
Interestingly, the scientists acknowledged the complex and characteristic demands placed on scientists today: the kinds of skills and dispositions they need. This was important in shaping both realistic representations of science (science requires considerable perseverance and excellence; applications of science are important) and idealistic representations (science requires curiosity and a sense of wonder and asking the ‘big questions’). Hence, the motivation to inspire young people was multi-faceted and based on an insider’s view of science, which also helped with legitimising and humanising science. The role of science outreach in education was also important to the scientists but extended well beyond developing conceptional understanding or presenting new knowledge. Scientists recognised and were motivated by the capacity for outreach to reform curriculum, but also to enhance science education in schools by supporting and learning from/with teachers.
Finally, the structure of how scientist perceived outreach developed and delivery was significantly influenced by their personal experiences of science and pathways towards science outreach, but most importantly whether they identified as science outreach practitioner specialists or as scientists heavily involved in outreach development and project management.
These findings suggest that the motivation of scientists and their perceptions of outreach are more complex and interdependent than existing macro-level and psychological accounts would suggest.
ReferencesBergerson, A. A., Hotchkins, B. K., & Furse, C. (2014). Outreach and Identity Development: New Perspectives on College Student Persistence. Journal of College Student Retention, 16(2), 165–185.
Besley, J. C., Dudo, A., Yuan, S., & Lawrence, F. (2018). Understanding Scientists’ Willingness to Engage. Science Communication, 40(5), 559–590.
Besley, J. C., & Nisbet, M. (2013). How scientists view the public, the media and the political process. Public understanding of science, 22(6), 644–659.
Burchell, K. (2015). Factors affecting public engagement by researchers: Literature review.
Ecklund, E. H., James, S. A., & Lincoln, A. E. (2012). How Academic Biologists and Physicists View Science Outreach. PLoS ONE, 7(5), 1–5.
Fogg-Rogers, L., & Moss, T. (2019). Validating a scale to measure engineers’ perceived self-efficacy for engineering education outreach. PLoS One, 14(10), e0223728.
Jensen, P., Rouquier, J. B., Kreimer, P., & Croissant, Y. (2008). Scientists who engage with science perform better academically. Science and Public Policy, 35(7), 527–541.
Poliakoff, E., & Webb, T. L. (2007). What factors predict scientists' intentions to participate in public engagement of science activities? Science communication, 29(2), 242–263.
Rao, A. (2016, August 3–10). Support for participating in outreach and the benefits of doing so [Paper Presentation]. 38th International Conference on High Energy Physics, Chicago, USA.
Royal Society. (2006). Survey of factors affecting science communication by scientists and engineers. Final report. London. Author
Weingart, P., Joubert, M., & Connoway, K. (2021). Public engagement with science – Origins, motives and impact in academic literature and science policy. PloS One, 16(7), e0254201.
Weiss, C. (2005). Science, technology and international relations. Technology in Society, 27(3), 295-313.
Woitowich, N. C., Hunt, G. C., Muhammad, L. N., & Garbarino, J. (2022). Assessing motivations and barriers to science outreach within academic science research settings: A mixed-methods survey. Frontiers in Communication, 7, 907762.
15. Research Partnerships in Education
Paper
Documentary Theatre Practice Partnership to the Service of Teachers Transition
Corinne Covez
Institut Agro, France
Presenting Author: Covez, Corinne
We would like to consider this action-research in the post-Covid pandemic, where relations within or out of schools have suffered (Franck & Haesebaert, 2023) and climate change time which both stimulate us to think of where we want to land ! (Latour, 2017). The specific aim of this proposal is to consider the documentary theatre practice partnership experienced through a workshop on the aim of Agro-Ecological Transition (AET). It lasted a week in December 2023 in the National Support Disposal of the French Agricultural Training System (FATS) in charge of experiencing and educators’ formation, thanks to Théo dramatist in the collectif Cortège de tête. Benefitting from last year experience mixing 2 teachers and 5 students, this experiment has been realized with 8 teachers and organised in the Institut Agro (Montpellier, Florac campus). This theatre practice was chosen to experience AET, out of teaching sessions and understand the skills development. On one hand, the sensitive dimension of artistic practices to the service education partnership (Covez 2023, 2017, 2015) has been introduced. On the other hand, the capacity of embodying AET through artistic practices (Covez, 2023) has been shown. But the FATS encounters difficulties to transform the AET priority into reality, as this means professional posture changes. This can be observed when the Otherwise Producing Teaching program n°2 tends into a more efficient plan on transitions. Besides, Institut Agro has recognized the quality of the documentary theatre practice (ecoanxiety and bifurcation decline, empowerment in transformative actions) and aims to realize it at a national level. And the higher education school now uses the Socio-Ecological Transition as a major concern enlarging the approach. These evolutions encourage us to put transition at the centre of concerns, practices and praxis. Finally, Sharon Todd thoughts (2016) helps us moving our aim, so as to question transition in relation with education, formation and transformation as layered. The documentary theatre practice by teachers represents an opportunity to experiment and question these issues. As Michèle (one of last year’s workshop teachers) has received a regional creativity prize for her students’ performance on textile transition, this encourages us to consider it as a potential change in education.
The question is “Does a documentary theatre practice partnership contribute to teachers transition education ?”. Actually, the partnership action-research goes on, disseminating in high schools. It seems documentary theatre partnership is seen as efficient, valuable so as to change the habitus on individual and collective ways. The hypothesis is that it represents a specific tool for educational change in respect to transition, thanks to the presence of a research engineer-trainer and an artist dedicated to artistic matters. The risks are inherent to self-expression and expose before others and the performance is very stressful. Taking into consideration post-Covid work conditions and climate change anxiety, the partnership tended to welcome and respect all personal ideas, difficulties and assumed limits, caring people and present time (Fleury, 2024). The positions have been articulated with care, as debating and creating on transition, is a difficult task, dealing with sensitive positions. The theatre partnership brought comfort and empowerment to participants, that we wish to deepen. We want to understand the impacts of this active pedagogy relaunching the artistic partnership education value. Co-sharing while becoming aware of points of view and experience differences (Mérini, 2012), our sensitive common engagement (Théo and trainer) is still strengthening in the objective of creating a transformation through partnership (Laing & Alii, 2022) and prevent tensions (Capacchi & alii, 2022) within highschools. Participants express living a transformation, meaning education for real, and partnership could help a chosen and assumed transition.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe ethnographic methodological approach consists in interviews with the 8 adults and the artist Théo actor, dramatist and director, who prepared the project one year long, so as to adapt to the teachers participants. The approach is also nourished with participative observation, meetings minutes, diaries and small filmed interviews. The research is not finished yet, as the interviews are going on showing that transition at large was considered so as to be transformed as a matter of theatre, expression and communication before the public. On the theatre perspective, it is very important to specify the methodology used by the documentary theatre. Amongst different theatre types (Magris & Ali, 2019), Théo in Florac defines it as a récit fictionnel form. The workshop made of debates, growing shared concepts and problematics leads to the definition and creation of scenes (conceived through mise à plat methodology enriched with theatre and improvisation exercises). The themes emerged out of the reflexions and postures were: patriarchy, symbiotic relationships, traditional farmers, living creatures, hyper consumption and countryside exile in remote mountains! Between the scripts, the transition notion was criticized as very old, fixed to the agriculture profession, in need of a revolution, akin to cycle…or without any sense at all in the actual global context! This suggests that form and content were equally debated and co-created when the sense of humour, the street theatre, “the truth of the heart” or open questions were expressed to the public, underlying the complexity of the transition! The 45 minutes long representation was quite imaginative, meaningful and applauded. But the partnership allowing and organizing the workshop process is at the core of our study. Therefore the quality research is used so as to get a comprehensive view on the expectations or representations at work. The focus is strongly on teachers as half of them are Socio-Cultural Educators (SCE: partly teachers and also project activity leaders in high schools) while the others were French, Computing or zootechnics teachers. Only half were already concerned with artistic matters, SCE teachers. Besides, there was also one education assistant younger than teachers. This kind of status mix practice which got the highest mark assessment, is extremely rare and valuable. Besides, this extra-ordinary situation was pointed out very emotionally from the first day, increasing the artistic and research partners envolvement in taking care of the people even more, in regard of the sensitivity of the workshop.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe theatre practice was quite successful, the next step is to reproduce it in more highschools with envolved teachers. Emotional body use mixed with cognitive matters, seems to be much appreciated as the rhythm that was tence and demanding but helped creating a challenging and successful performance. Transformation is at the core of the practice where personal and professional experiences and documents are shared and allow a co-constructed creation and performance, getting from an individual to a group production. For all, such an active pedagogical and educational situation can only lead to a real change in transition. In that respect, the artistic partnership is considered as essential so as to get people to work together on such a complex concept. The accompaniment by the artist Théo was a key point as he led the collective and directed the theatre style groups to a structured result. His role as a dramatist is artistic while the IA research engineer’s one is to welcome and accompany them through the personal or group difficulties, impulse, balancing and sometimes getting out of the space to let them progress on their own. Both partners sharing this experience from morning till night allowed creating a sensitive and safe space where emotions, ideas could be expressed despite some tensions in relation with divergences. Regulating on artistic and professional/personal issues helped participants succeed the challenge of transformation revelling technical/general teachers can talk and work together “which is great!”. The partnership puts transformation to the service of transition education legitimizing participants’ point of view and experience and making them aware of what their future students theatre work could be! A partnership reassuring transformation capacities would transmit an active transformative empowerment back to high schools. Could it represent a “responsive” (Rosa, 2022) formation partnership ?
ReferencesBenhaiem, J-M. (2023). Une nouvelle voie pour guérir. Paris: Odile Jacob.
Boal, A. (1996). Théâtre de l’opprimé. Paris: La découverte.
Capacchi F.M.,K., Callewaert, I., Strappazzon S.(2022). Working as Co-Actors to Reduce Inequalities and Prevent Tensions in Partnership, in K. Otrel-Cass et al. (eds.) Partnerships in Education: Risks in Transdisciplinary Educational Research, p. 143-172. Zürich: Springer.
Covez C. (2023), «Documentary Theatre Practice to the Service of Engineers-Students Agro-Ecological Transition Education”. congrès “The Value of Diversity in Education and Educational Research” ECER de l’EERA (European Conference on Educational Research), Université Glasgow, 21-25 août.
Covez, C. (2023), «Documentary Theatre Partnership for Agro Ecological Transition Education to the risk of transformation”. Congrès “The Value of Diversity in Education and Educational Research” ECER de l’EERA (European Conference on Educational Research), Université Glasgow, 21-25 août.
Covez, C. (2017), “Artistic Partnership Contribution to Agroecology Education”, congrès “Reforming Education and the Imperative of Constant Change: Ambivalent Roles of Policy and Educational Research” ECER de l’EERA (European Conference on Educational Research), Université de Copenhague (Danemark), 22-25 août.
Covez, C. (2015), “Orchestra in Prison: A Sensitive Change in Partnership”, congrès “Education and Transition. Contributions from Educational Research” ECER de l’EERA (European Conference on Educational Research), Université de Budapest (Hongrie), 8-11 septembre.
Fleury, C. & Fenoglio, A. (2024). Ethique et Design: pour un climat du soin. Paris: PUF.
Franck, N. & Haesebaert F.(2023). Protéger sa santé mentale après la crise. Paris: Odile Jacob.
Latour, B. (2017), Où atterrir? Comment s’orienter en politique. Paris: La découverte.
Lévy, I., Martin-Moreau, M. & Ménascé, D. (2022). From ecological transition to ecological transformation: consensus and fault lines. The Journal of Field actions https://journals.openedition.org/factsreports/6853
Mérini, C. (2012). Du partenariat en général dans la formation des élèves-maîtres et de sprofesseurs des écoles en particulier (115p.). Université Paris 8.
Laing,K., Robson, S., Thomson, H. and Todd, L (2022). Creating Transformal Change Through Partnership, in K. Otrel-Cass et al. (eds.) Partnerships in Education: Risks in Transdisciplinary Educational Research, p. 359-384. Zürich: Springer.
Magris, E & Picon-Vallin, B. (2019). Les théâtres documentaires. Montpellier : Deuxième époque.
Rosa, H. (2022). Accélérons la résonance ! Entretien Wallenhorst. Paris: le Pommier/Humensis.
Todd, S. (2016). Facing uncertainty in education: Beyond the harmonies of Eurovision education. European Educational Research Journal, 15 (6). pp. 617-627.
|
