“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you…”
Matthew 28:19 (English Standard Version)
If there is one thing that unites Evangelical Christianity, it’s The Great Commission: Jesus’ instruction to the disciples to going out into all the world and to bring them the gospel. So enthusiastic about this command are some strains of Christianity that a friend recently walked out of his bedroom stark naked, only to be surprised to find that his front door was open, and that two representatives of the local church were smiling at him and asking if he had time to talk about the Good News.
This urge to tell others about your perspective, with the aim of persuading them of it’s benefits as a world view, is common as a social behaviour. If we accept that humans are tribal animals, then its in our nature to both want people to share our value system, and to distrust people who do not. I’m sure that anyone who’s watched the news will be familiar with this, because it’s at the core of any dispute between any two groups you care to name. Participants will each try to besmirch the name of the opposing group whilst promoting the advantages of their own.
I feel the same pattern can be observed in much the same about some of the periodic science communication conversations that come round time and time again. You know the type, the stories which appear in specialist and public press, claiming that, for example, science literacy levels are embarrassingly low, or that governments are spending too little on science and technology or, today, that hard-to-reach groups are disengaged or unengaged in conversations about science. In short, the bread-and-butter of the interface between science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) and publics. Today, I see that Australians are jumping on this band wagon, complaining that communicators need to work harder to engage the unengaged.
The unspoken predicate for all these rhetorical attempts is that STEM is so important that in order to validate your existence as a consumer of its outputs, you must have a deep and meaningful understanding of, and views on, a wide range of STEM topics. If this assumption were not lying at the bottom of the discussion, it would be impossible to make a statement like: “But worse than any of the above [recoiling in horror or laughing heartily]: you may not have reacted at all [to news about STEM strategies]” (Cormick, ibid).
Consider the implications of that sentence.
If you recoiled in horror to news that people don’t do well on exams for which they haven’t prepared, then you are in Our Club. Alternatively, if you laughed at such ignorant fools who care so little for the universe around them, then we also approve of you, for you value Science.
If you celebrated that a government chief scientist is promoting the strategic consideration of STEM issues within a governmental context (and, by the way, I might argue that’s what a government chief scientist is paid to do, whether in Australia or Britain) then you are fighting the good fight, sister. If you shook your head, mildly embarrassed that such a basic step had yet to be properly implemented, then you too are a committed to the fight against the legions of uneducated darkness who threaten civilisation.
If, on the other hand, it passed you by, perhaps because you were distracted by the slightly-over-reported news of the birth of Royal Baby Prince Diana (it’s what she’d have wanted), or by news that supposedly-democratic states misuse surveillance technology, or by the introduction of fascist homophobic policies into Russian law, then you are a sinner! You will burn in hell for not caring the degree to which the government funds STEM development in universities. Your soul is forever damned for putting your immediate priorities (feeding the family, going to work, playing Candy Crush Saga) above the Gospel of STEM. AS Cormick puts it:
That’s three in every ten people lined up at the check-out at your average local shops who probably haven’t once thought of Brian Cox nor dinosaurs nor space, yet alone basic chemistry, in the last year!
I know! Thirty percent have not been saved! 3 in 10 of the population are trapped, forever doomed to not appreciate STEM. Worse, they don’t even understand what they are missing. So sinful are they that they cannot see the light, they deny the truth of the beauty of science, they say things like (brace yourselves, for this is horrifying to the True Believer):
Why do you think it so important that we know about your science?
(quoted in Cormick, ibid)
Such infidels hold deeply heretical perspectives, for example, worrying more about whether something is safe and works than how it works, or take sacrosanct rituals such as The Science Lesson and fail to see the inherent beauty in it. They might even take their teachings from people who aren’t Qualified Experts, and thus form an understanding that doesn’t appreciate the true, rational basis of the Truth being conveyed unto them.
Now, obviously, I am slightly paraphrasing and I am reframing the arguments, but if one were so inclined, one might find it difficult to differentiate between the rhetoric of the Science Zealot from that of the enthusiastic preacher from a pulpit of a Sunday morning.
There is a serious issue here: the less socioeconomic advantages a person has in life, the less engaged with STEM issues they tend to be. This to me is entirely understandable: the valency of a carbon atom tends not to be incredibly valuable information when you are working three minimum wage jobs, nor do you tend to have time to watch the latest Epistle from St Brian of Cox. When your education was punctuated with bullying because of your sexuality, when your ethnicity acted as a boundary in the classroom, or when your parents weren’t home and you had nothing to eat, I frankly find it unsurprising that STEM doesn’t seem like a priority.
This serious discussion, in which the failure to engage with STEM is placed at the door of the unengaged sinner, doesn’t address the underlying problem of social inequality and instead goes for the traditional Evangelical approaches to conversion: send more preachers out into the places where the poor wretched delinquents congregate, and
TESTIFY the Word of the Lord, sorry, promote the benefits of STEM unto the blasphemer unengaged until he (or she!) sees the light.
Such a conclusion about outreach (also what churches call it) can only be supported if you accept that without Science people cannot truly be citizens in society. It’s a fundamentally scientistic position in which we take a small step from the Creed of Scientism “everything that is worth knowing is science” to “unless you know science, you have no worth”.
I, for one, cannot accept that conclusion. I love science, I love the way in which science has transformed the ways in which I perceive the world, and I love the ways in which the world is transformed by science, but science is far from the only way to perceive the world, and it’s a privileged perspective at that.
Because if we accept Evangelical Scientism, we are but a step away from instituting a Science Literacy Inquisition. We are but a step away from using our privilege to oppress people whose perspectives differ from ours. And we are a mere step away from knocking on people’s doors at nine o’clock in the morning to ask them if they’ve heard the Good News about evolution.
I guess I’m not a typical blogger as I don’t like to generate my own reasons to blog: I blog when there’s a topic which interests me and about which I feel I can say something novel. (Which is another way of saying that a lot of blogs seem to be somewhat echo-chambery – not that echo chambers are inherently a bad thing, but that I don’t necessarily feel sufficiently married to any particular social group that I feel the need to necessarily reinforce my social bonds with that group by echoing discursive themes.)
However, having completed modules in science and the public and communicating science in the information age, and been awarded my post graduate diploma in science and society, I now have to research and write a 15,000 word dissertation. in order to get the full MSc in Science and society degree. (That’s mainly sociology of science and technology, with some philosophy of science, social psychology, linguistics, politics and other odds and sods.)
Well, my research proposal has been accepted. I’ll expand on the detail shortly, but part of the marking criteria includes keeping a regular research log. Rather than keep a purely private log, my intention is to develop it as part of my blog.
First, we are living in a networked world, and my research cannot exist independently of the world in which it exists, so this is a good way of acknowledging engaging what I’m doing with that world.
Second, one of my modules was on science communication in the digital age: if, as the basic thesis of that module proposes, the world of research is being transformed, I don’t think that can be restricted to just the natural sciences. I can do a bit of action research and actually try out the idea of a public lab book, and see how I feel about it, and how it compares with other projects I’ve worked on. May be it won’t work, but negative findings are still findings 😉
Third, the discipline of writing something each week will actually benefit me, ensuring I’m writing down what I’m thinking and allowing me to keep a track of the development of ideas and theories. It will probably allow me to air drafts of sections of the dissertation, and refine the arguments and presentation.
Fourth, I’d be interested in getting feedback on my ideas and actions. The main weakness of Open University study (and it’s not much of a weakness in the grand scheme of things) is that I often feel disconnected from the academic community, and I’d welcome intellectual discussion and constructive criticism of my ideas and action. This is not a licence to slag me off because you don’t like me, social science, my values, my face (you’re not alone in this one) or whatever, and I will cull comments which aren’t constructive, but could be fun for me. (Of course, what will probably happen is no-one will ever comment. Meh.)
So over the coming few months (the dissertation is to be submitted in September 2012) I will try to post a blog at least once a fortnight touching on my research; for example, my next post will be on choosing a methodology for undertaking the research. If you have questions, ideas and comments, please post them.
So, now for the big reveal, what is it I’m studying? I’m interested in the way social groups construct their views of scientific topics, and in particular in medical subjects. I’m also interested in a social group who describe themselves as “skeptics”; they’ve become increasingly active and high profile in the UK and I have a lot of sympathy with a lot of what they say and do, but there’s very little research into them as a social group, influence and norms and values. So, my proposal aims to explore those key areas.
My accepted proposal reads as follows:
The Burzynski Affair: a case study in perspectives on alternative cancer therapy
Patients with terminal cancers, their friends and families often seek out therapies which would not normally be considered as a “last ditch” effort to save their own or loved ones’ lives. An example of this type of therapy, which appears in the press not infrequently, is the “antineoplaston therapy” promoted by the Burzynski Clinic in Texas, USA (http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/). A typical story is that of Chiane Cloete, a five year old girl who has been diagnosed with a supratentorial primitive neuroectodermal tumour in the brain; her parents are seeking to raise £130,000 to get her treatment “not available in the UK” at the Burzynski clinic (Parsons, 2011).
I am interested in exploring how four different groups represent the Burzynski Clinic’s therapies in discourse available publicly. The first group will be that of proponents of the Burzynski Clinic and its work. The principle sources will be the Burzynski website, promotional materials, testimonials (via blogs, tweets and publicly accessible fora) from patients and associated materials.
The second group will be that of skeptics in the UK (the spelling using a ‘k’ comes from the American spelling, and is used to differentiate skepticism – the movement – from scepticism – the philosophical position – although the two are not unrelated). Writing about the emerging skeptical community in the USA in 1993, Hess described skeptics as “antiantiscientists” (Hess, 1993, p 11) who focus on debunking and demystifying “parapsychology … superstition, occultism and ‘pseudoscience’” (ibid. p 11). In the intervening 18 years, a sceptical community has arisen in the UK, complete with its own internet counter-culture and real-world community events (such as skeptics in the pub, and conferences such as Q.E.D.). After skeptics in the UK raised concerns about Burzynski in September 2011, a threat of libel action was made against several of the sceptical voices. The principle sources will be sceptical websites, blogs, tweets and other associated materials of people in the UK who self-identify as skeptics, or who are strongly associated with the skeptic movement in the UK (for example, Dr Ben Goldacre, Robin Ince and Dr Brian Cox).
The third group will be the printed news media in the UK. The principle sources will be Nexis and using Google to find other material hosted on major outlet (ie. national distribution) websites. This will be limited to information available at no direct cost to the consumer.
The fourth group will involve a literature search exploring the view of peer-reviewed scientific journals and associated research (eg. Cochrane reviews). This will be as light-touch as possible, to identify the boundaries of knowledge rather than to provide a considered opinion on the use of such treatments.
In order to undertake this research, the following questions will be considered:
- What language is used by each group to describe the Burzynski therapy, and what are the implications of the language used?
- What are the similarities between the way the Burzynski therapy is represented by each groups, and what are the differences?
- What values are revealed or highlighted by the language used by the contrasting groups?
- How does what each of the groups say compare with what the scientific literature has to say on the issue? What situated knowledge is implicit or explicit in the discourse?
- How are groups (particularly proponents and skeptics) represented by the other participants in the discourse?
- What implications does this analysis of the discourse have for understanding the ways in which an issue is represented in the public?
Exploring these research questions will demonstrate an understanding of the ways in science, scientists and their limitations are understood and represented by contrasting public groups. This will touch on issues raised in S802 such as concepts of anti-science, ethics, expertise, regulation, policy and risk.
Certainly the issue raises questions of what constitutes science and non-science (see for example: Grove, 1989), but also raises the issues of the knowledge boundaries of scientific research (Collins & Pinch, 1998). It also touches on how scientific knowledge is used, constructed and reconstructed in everyday life (Irwin & Wynne, 1996).
- Construct a narrative relating to the Burzynski affair based on publicly available material
- Compare and contrast through discourse analysis four differing perspectives on the Burzynski affair: proponents, skeptics in the UK, UK news media and published papers in scientific journals
- Understand how the perspectives reflect on the construction of scientific knowledge, uncertainty and how the values of each group influence their representation of the issue
Collins, H., & Pinch, T. (1998). The Golem: What You Should Know about Science (Second.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grove, J. (1989). Anti-science. In Defence of Science: Science, Technology and Politics in Modern Society (pp. 151-177). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Hess, D. J. (1993). Science in the New Age: the paranormal, its defenders and debunkers, and American culture. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Irwin, A., & Wynne, B. (1996). Misunderstanding Science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kozinets, R. V. (2010). Netnography: doing ethnographic research online. London: Sage.
Parsons, R. (2011, December 14). Cancer girl’s £130,000 plea for life-saving operation in US | News. The London Evening Standard. London.
Can I first of all say thanks to the staff of Nature who took the time to make these fantastic Storify blogs of Twitter reportage of the Science Communication Conference? They’re broken down into Day 1 and Day 2 which nicely shows the range of sessions which people attended (I must declare a personal interest: I am quite heavily quoted). In addition, the Public Attitudes to Science 2011 Storify is also a useful reflection on a particular session.
So why Twitter, and what can it do that, say, a formal report of a session cannot do?
First, it’s important to locate Twitter in the spectrum of communication. Although “written” (ie. encoded in symbols), I personally see Twitter as, predominantly (and slightly paradoxically), an informal oral communication medium, more akin to conversation than to prose. It’s informal, it’s normally “spur of the moment” (as opposed to planned) and it has its own linguistic norms, which tend to be less strict and more forgiving than is normally aloud in written text. I’d love to say this is all my thinking, but Zeynef Tufekci over at Technosociology has already written an excellent piece on Twitter as an oral culture which is well worth reading.
So, live Tweets, to me, represent the thinking of people as they are in the situation; there is no time to reflect, to consider meaning or to parse it into an alternate interpretation: a live Twitter feed can approximate being inside the mind of people present at an event, and you can bring a range of tools to bear on this record and use it to notice things which might not otherwise have been obvious.
One way of doing this is frequency analysis; looking at the number of times significant words (as opposed to words which merely provide structure to text, like “as, to, which, the” etc…) appear in the text. Frequency analysis gives you an idea of how big a particular concept was, and how that concept was being presented. A great, visual way of doing this is to create a Wordle; here are three which people have previously created:
Day 1 (from an analysis of the Nature Storify):
Day 2 (again from the Nature Storify):
Over all days analysis, from @clivebgs:
As you can see, words which are larger represent more frequent use within the Tweets; on Day 1, it’s safe to say that “SCC2011” was used more than anything else. From Day 1 and the overall analyses, this word has been excluded, so creating a visual representation of frequency analysis is as much an art as a science. In addition, derivative words (eg. home/homes) are typically only shown as the word which had the greatest frequency.
Across all three images, the most common words are (ignoring SCC2011, broadly in descending order, but not able to quantify that!): science, engagement, people and public. All words we’d expect to see at the conference.
However, for me a couple of things jarred: both science and public are in the singular form. And this surprises me because science is not a single, monolithic entity and neither is “the public”. Indeed, both are sprawling, diverse concepts which can mean a multitude of things to different people.
Science can (in theory) be anything from physics to sociology, from biochemistry to neurolinguistics, and each of these have distinct characteristics which benefit from different approaches to communication. However, also interesting is the words not shown, words like “technology”, “engineering” and “mathematics”. Although STEM is common acronym, in reality the language is dominated by the natural sciences, with TEM (and medicine and social sciences) rarely having much of a look-in. I was pleased, incidentally, to see someone talking about communication of social sciences in one of the speed networking rounds I was in, but this is still definitely a minority sport.
The public are so segmented that representing them as a single entity is both foolish and counter-productive. In fact, publics are so segmented that identifying appropriate audiences in science communication is a key task: are we talking expert to expert (eg. journal articles, scientific conferences), expert to non-expert (eg. museums, schools, Cafe Scientifique), non-expert to expert (eg. consultation, public engagement) or non-expert to non-expert (eg. conversations in the pub, peer-support within the health sector). Even given four combinations of expert and non-expert, each of those groups will fall into sub-grops. ‘Climate sceptics’ are often expert, but a climate scientist would probably frame their messages differently than if they were talking to another climate scientist. This complexity, as well as the diversity of interest, attitudes and skills within each of those sub-groups, is why science communication courses often refer to publics rather than the singular public. I was surprised that the singular was used throughout the conference, as was the term ‘public engagement’.
Public engagement is interesting because it tends to be used as a catch-all term, anything in which scientists descend from the ivory tower and engage with hoi polloi. This could be anything merely informing publics of their research (is Wakefield an example of public engagement?) to engaging with publics to debate complex issues from different perspectives (nanotechnology or genetically modified organisms). However, true engagement is iterative and is more complex than any single event, as Simon Burall (@sburall) illustrated neatly in his Rookie Session at the conference.
Given that the theme of the conference was “Online Engagement”, I guess perhaps these are all assumptions which are expected to underpin everyone’s practice within the context of science communication. However, anecdotally, lots of people came to the conference having little or no experience of the world of science communication. It’s dangerous for natural science, technology, engineering, mathematics, medicine and social sciences if people go away thinking that the language used is the be-all and end-all of engaging with the public.
I, for one, want to see a society in which public engagement is a democratic right and responsibility and involves citizens and scientists to extent it is useful or interesting to them. Unless we ensure that attendees have a good understanding of publics, all the knowledge in the world about novel and engaging techniques is wasted. The public do seem to understand and want to engage with the sciences and allied disciplines; the question is whether we, as communication facilitators, can ensure that the scientists understand and want to engage with our diverse range of publics.
I’d love to know what other things you can see in the Wordles which surprise you, confirm expectations or concern you when they’re missing. Let me know in the comments!
Social media is here to stay, and whilst people have become very good at selling on the Internet, actually engaging with publics, developing the brand and establishing credibility is very different; so Vicky Reeves (@vickyreeves) opened this plenary session on the second day of the conference. Reeves predicts that the future will be focussing on engaging with diverse audiences, be that social minority groups, different age groups or going international.
Shane McCracken (@shanemcc) focussed instead on trends in government and civil society. The Martha Lane Fox Report proposed a single domain for government so that citizens can find what they’re looking for. Alpha.gov.uk is the result of intensive development project (see their blog), focussing not only on information findability, but also on exposing data so that it can be consumed in mash-ups and other applications.
For example, local government have to publish details of any spend over £500, and the progressive councils are using XML (a format computers can use to convey data to other computers) to expose the information. This is being exploited by Openly Local to hold councils to account for their spending.
Remember that if you want to engage with the public, then you can’t control the discussions, but if you want to hold people to account, ensure they have to register using their real name. This helps to ensure that timewasters are weeded out. The recent outing of Ryan Giggs as a superinjunction beneficiary on Twitter is an example of mass civil disobedience facilitated by social media.
There are questions on the future of search; Google and Facebook are engaged in a face-off because of hidden content on Facebook which you can only access if you are member (and which is therefore invisible to the Google search engine). Google have introduced Plus One to capture the social dynamic of the Facebook Like button. It’s vital to ensure that your information is findable, and if you want to publish data then publish it: the BBC’s blog syndication (RSS) feeds only include the first paragraph of stories, which will limit the amount of people who will read the full content.
The main error people make when moving into social media is to jump in with both feet, starting with the premise “we need to do some online engagement”, but without identifying objectives or understanding their audience. For example, Barnado’s advert in 2009 caused some controversy by people who were upset at seeing the effects of child abuse. However, instead of wading in and defending the advert to all and sundry, Barnado’s held back, listened to the contributions from different people and were able to post an appropriate response from an individual within the organisation. In contrast, the BBC’s online editor lost thousands of hits by responding in a way that appeared to alienate the audience.
By ensuring you have a clear set of objectives, you can focus on the message you are intending to convey and the audience you want to hear it.
Daniel Glaser (@bnglaser) outlined some of the work being done by Wellcome Trust in the online world. All papers produced as a result of Wellcome grants now have to be placed into a public access repository so anyone can access the information generated. They’re looking at how to ensure accreditation of work by using ORCID, a system which manages the identities of researchers, even where there are name collisions, as Daniel noted, “there’s a lot of Wangs in China.”
Wellcome Trust also found it difficult to write the blog post in which they celebrated 10 years of the Human Genome Project (HGP). There was plenty to write about, but the outcome and benefits of the HGP are still unrealised, the genome being more complex than originally thought. Glaser also highlighted the decision taken by Cancer Research UK (CRUK) which showed that one of the first places that people go for information about cancer is Wikipedia. CRUK therefore decided to commit resource time to maintaining the accuracy of relevant Wikipedia pages.
Wellcome aren’t sure if the time investment needed to maintain personal profiles on all of the available network has a good return on investment, and they’re not sure how to exploit the existing networks to their maximum potential, or whether they should build their own. Reeves pointed out that 5 years ago she’d probably have advised developing their own network, but now expectations for social networks are so high that the investment isn’t worth it. She recommended that people engage with people where they are (ie. Facebook), and that this is part of the “never leave Facebook” strategy.
In addition, Reeves said there was talk of developing a single sign-on identity which would allow a single profile to be managed across multiple social networks simultaneously.
Sue Nelson (@supersue), chairing the session, told how she had found that Facebook, and in particular photos, add real value to the podcasts, adding a new dimension to the listener experience.
Fiona Fox (see Fiona’s blog), from the Science Media Centre, said she felt like a rabbit in the headlights, that she must tweet, that she would be no-one if she wasn’t tweeting. She likened this to the Today programme’s message boards: they were excited when they started, but soon nobody had the time and it rapidly became an echo chamber for one or two contributors. She asked “What two things should we do before diving in?” Reeves stressed the importance of firstly identifying why you’re doing it, and secondly how you’re going to measure its success.
Reeves also stressed the importance of ensuring that if it’s someone’s job to manage online media that they are given the time to do the job; just because the tool is free doesn’t mean there are no time implications. An alternative to being on Twitter all day is to schedule tweets at the beginning of the day to go out periodically, and then to monitor Twitter to engage in conversations. And whilst Twitter may run its course (cf. MySpace and Friend Reunited), social media as a concept will continue, whatever its new format is.
McCracken summed this up as “listen first, talk second”.
The Research Information Network highlighted the availability of their report on using social media effectively, and asked about the idea and benefits of sharing data using an open access model, particularly when raw data is not usable, so it would have to be published as a translation or interpretation. They also asked about trust and attribution issues around such sharing. McCracken pointed out that trust increases with openness, and that a Creative Commons licence requires attribution if the data is reused.
In summary, the future of online is the future of people interacting using social media, and communicators using the appropriate tools for engaging with them.
After posting my initial post on the Bright Club, Dr Martin Austwick (@sociablephysics) and I had a conversation on Twitter in response to my post. I’ve got his permission to post a transcript of the conversation as I think it allows both “sides” to explore what the other “side” intended. As you can see, it turns out there wasn’t a huge amount of disagreement, and the discussion allowed us to see the position of others.
The transcript is not direct as that would be impossible to read; Twitter conversations can often evolve into what is effectively a multi-stream oral discussion where points are not picked up in order and are addressed separately. I have arranged it into a coherent stream which should make it comprehensible, correctly misspellings, grammar and a couple of cognitive typos. I don’t believe I have missed any pertinent contributions, and any errors are mine alone.
MA: The two female performers are researchers and not professional comedians and I felt you were being oversensitive about a talk which accused heterosexual men of being “one-dimensional”.
DW: I don’t think heterosexual men are one-dimensional and didn’t intend to convey that (goes to prove the impact of language)
MA: Me neither – but if I had taken offence to that I think I would have had more cause!
DW: That’s a really good point which I am guilty of missing; such stereotypes also harm straight men by being over-simplistic
MA: I felt that any overgeneralizations were simply the result of inexperienced performers trying to find their comedic voice and we should have cut them some slack!
DW: That’s a fair enough point, I think. But if true, does it not raise questions about appropriateness as a method of public engagement?
MA: comedy is specific because people have different senses of humour and appropriateness.
DW: *nods* But that raises interesting points about humour and comedic boundaries
MA: But everything offends *someone*. I don’t want to see young researchers put off communication by fear of failure, even offence.
DW: I completely agree. My point is they could have been *more* successful by considering use of language
MA: Is it necessary for every form of public engagement to connect with everyone? (Which is different from the question “Should public engagement as a whole attempt to connect with everyone?”)
DW: no, completely not, and I’m fine with not being in any particular target group. But the venue surely influences them [the performers]
MA: I should say that I don’t agree that they were particularly insensitive and I thought that your reaction was quite strong
DW: as to personal sensitivity, I was quite worried I was “over-reacting” and ran it past a few people first, but the broad consensus was that as a broad issues (not just about Bright Club, but about public engagement) is that it’s a legitimate issue. In addition, my background includes outreach work with young LGBT people, so I’d guess my personal experience has influenced my sensitivity.
MA: Well, accusing someone of having no sense of humour if they are offended by something is an easy reply .. 🙂
DW: Indeed, and a reply someone has already made. And saying I’m less intelligent than the rest of the audience 😉
MA: I did see that, yep. From a gay man who didn’t feel excluded, and I think you both make the point that yours is an individual and not monolithic [ie. attempting to represent the entire gay community’s] viewpoint.
DW: Completely and utterly agree. I also think the conference was actually very good, and said so in the piece 😀
MA: This is the nature of performance art and the fact that it’s public engagement is not the issue but, even if they did get it a bit wrong, they should have the freedom to experiment, fail and improve.
DW: That it’s *also* public engagement should also bring other expectations to bear. Performance art is notorious for challenging boundaries
I don’t think “fail” is the right word, and I would love to see an evolved iteration of those acts.
MA: I should also say that I do Bright Club podcast so have a bias. Which is why I hadn’t commented before…
DW: I wouldn’t have known that if you hadn’t said. I think we’re broadly in agreement, though. I don’t think what I said was particularly controversial. I’d just like science communicators to be self-reflective to improve what they do, regardless of medium. If a performer was told they’d upset someone and replied “yes, I intended to insult group X” that wouldn’t be an acceptable outcome; reflexivity is a way to avoid that ever becoming an issue, and to improve if it does.
MA: Agreed. Perhaps I read your blog as more negative than it was intended. I am keen to see researchers step outside their comfort zone and do scary things like science stand-up. It’s important that the criticism doesn’t destroy their self-confidence
DW: I would hope it didn’t. I thought the 4th dimension thing was clever, and a minor tweak would resolve my observation. The initial bit was clearly getting into the patter at the beginning of the show (and anyone who lectures can say that is the most difficult part of any performance).
By the way, I have had to review my presentations in the light of subsequent comments on a session I taught once, and I apologised and improved the session plan as a result.
MA: Also, Bright Club is generally a more diverse night. You saw 2 acts and a compere. There have been dozens of performers at the regular night, which starts to represent a more diverse community.
DW: Of course.
MA: Thanks for chatting, sorry I didn’t engage directly to begin with, but felt I was too partisan 🙂
DW: Partisanship is only an issue when you don’t acknowledge it’s influencing your perspective. Thanks for constructive contribution.
I’m starting my blogging about the British Science Association’s Science Communication Conference 2011 at the very end but because of that I want to start with a quick summary of my overall impressions. Firstly, I declare an interest in that I received a bursary to attend, and I am grateful to the BSA for funding my attendance, accommodation and travel expenses. I also need to mention that I’m gay (my reason for mentioning that will become clear).
This was a great conference, aimed at practitioners, and full of ideas for practitioners about how to engage with publics in different ways. The theme of the conference was Online Engagement, and there was a great range of many and varied sessions on different aspects of this issues, which is central to much of the fantastic work being done. There were some fantastic opportunities to network, and I would go so far as to say this was the most friendly conferences I have ever attended.
Indeed, one of the messages which I felt was most reinforced and important was the importance of understanding the audience for your work. For example, if you are engaging with people who are, in the parlance of the Public Attitude to Science Survey 2011 (about which more later), “Distrustful Engagers”, you need to approach communicating with them in different way than if communicating with, say “Late Adopters”.
Nobody felt the need to mention the importance of ensuring your message doesn’t have boundaries which exclude minority groups; this is, I would like to hope, because inclusiveness is such a core part of science communication that it proverbially doesn’t need to be said. However, its worth point out that all of the speakers that I saw were white, and all were middle aged, and although there was a good number of women (yay!), it’s hardly representative of wider society. Perhaps what happened next shouldn’t be a surprise.
The final “session” (I think perhaps “let your hair down at the end” might be a better description!) was a mini Bright Club. Bright Club is a stand up comedy session with “science-based” humour. The session we were in featured three comedians, one compering and two featured, and by general consensus of people in Hall Two was Jolly Funny. Now, I love comedy as much as anyone, and frankly the story of two fifteen year olds making napalm in the basement was hilarious (and I’ll bet the victims of napalm warfare would be prepared to admit it’s hilarious too), and also highly educational. If I ever need to cause fire-based mayhem, I now know the ingredients and will be well-prepared to burn pretty much anything (BTW, is this what is meant by science literacy?).
Unfortunately, I didn’t laugh along with everyone else. The reason was that I felt the compere had raised some barriers: subtle little assumptions that meant I felt slightly alienated. The compere (I couldn’t be bothered to remember his name) started by pointing out there was a seat between two very attractive young ladies, and inviting a man (any man) to fill the space. This itself is just cheap humour, trying to settle an audience but carries unspoken assumptions to which I do not subscribe.
- I personally think women should be valued for more than their looks. We were at a conference for science communication professionals. Perhaps a reference to an intellectual attribute might have been more appropriate?
- Not all men want to “sit next to women”. By which I mean, when you have sexualised a scenario, pointing out to a room of 100 or so people that you’d prefer to sit next to, say, two cute men feels uncomfortable.
- Conversely, not all women want to be sat next to by men; perhaps one or both of them would have preferred an attractive woman to sit there?
Now, this just meant that (as a gay man) I felt invisible. This sort of humour is only for men who like women, obviously. And that type of assumption winds me up.
The coup de grace was delivered by the second female comic, who delivered a routine about the utter hilarity of Picasso shagging his friends wives with the rib-busting hook of calling it “the fourth dimension” (and if that’s not comic gold, I don’t know what is). She wrapped it up by saying “Men, go home and find your fourth dimension. The woman in your life will appreciate it.”
First, the “woman” in my life is 6’7″ tall, has a penis and looks rubbish in a dress. Second, as far as I know women are allowed to initiate sexual contact with people people, so perhaps rather than relying on the convenient (hilarious) stereotype of women being passive and gratefully accepting pleasure from the male, it might be a woman wants to find her fourth dimension. Third, perhaps she wants to explore that with another woman, and not a man?
Normally, I’d just let this go over my head; after all we live in a heteronormative androcentric world in which it’s assumed that everyone is straight and that the archetypal human is male. Assumptions which form part of the everyday tapestry of life for myself and every other gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered person, and for every woman. But this was at the end of a conference in which the desire to reach and engage with as many people as possible was espouse, dissected, rebuilt and promoted, and rightly so.
If Brightclub is intended to be a fun way of engaging with publics to inform them about science, and I can see that it could be a great informal way of bringing vaguely sciencey topics to a broad audience, it’s probably best not assume that everyone in the audience is heterosexual and subscribes to tired, old, inaccurate and ultimately demeaning stereotypes about normative behaviours. Again, this wasn’t intentional, but this failure to realise language can exclude people unintentionally is all too common. Where do gayers and women go for their dose of science humour when a careless word alienates them?
In the morning session, someone said “Identify the people who won’t like what you have to say: they’re not your audience.” The problem is, I am the sort of audience that shouldn’t be hard to reach, and I didn’t like what was said.
[edit: I put the points into the ordered list they were meant to be in and added an excerpt]
[edit 2: corrected Bright Club]