Written evidence submitted by the University of Southampton (COM0040)

1. The University of Southampton is a research-intensive university with over 23,000 students and 6,000 staff covering the full range of disciplines from science, engineering, social sciences, arts and humanities. It has a long track record and substantive expertise in engaging the public in science, and welcomes this opportunity to comment to the Committee on the issue of science communication.

Key Points

• There is an active and growing public appetite to engage with science, and a similar desire of researchers to engage with the public
• Engaging new audiences is more expensive and time-consuming than engaging those who are already interested.
• Three key strategies are proposed for encouraging young people to study STEM subjects:
• Talking to primary school children about what engineering (and STEM) is
• Encouraging underrepresented groups (particularly girls) into STEM
• Using social media as a multiplier
• Some Public Dialogue activities have helped shape Government policy, but specialist support is needed and continuing support for the Sciencewise Expert Resource Centre (or a similar body) would be beneficial
• The National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement plays a key role nationally and should continue to be supported.

Trends in attitudes to science and public engagement in science

2. It is clear that there is a public appetite to engage with science research at the University of Southampton. The evidence for this includes:

• We have some well-established on-campus science showcase events which have seen attendances increase over the years, with many people coming back on subsequent years. These include Stargazing Live, and our annual Science and Engineering Day, which in 2016 had a record attendance of 6000).
• We have seen positive interest and engagement in science when we have taken our research out into the community, not just to science events (such as the Cheltenham Science Festival) but also to unexpected places. This has included discussing astronomy with passengers at Southampton Airport, marine engineering with travellers on the Isle of Wight Ferry, and the science roadshow which has visited large public events such as music festivals and the Farnborough Air Show.
• We have seen local versions of national events such as Pint of Science and Bright Club sell-out rapidly
• Large numbers of people from the UK (and across the world) have signed up for science-based MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) delivered by the University of Southampton.

3. In terms of the drive of our own staff to engage with the public on science and research, the University of Southampton as an institution is broadly in line with the findings of the “Exploring barriers to public engagement by UK researchers” national survey http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/About-us/Publications/Reports/Public-engagement/WTP060031.htm. Specifically:

• More staff are enrolling for training in public engagement
• Many researchers report that they are motivated to engage by a desire to maintain public support for research in general
• Science researchers in 2015 feel ‘better equipped to do public engagement than in 2006’ [date of last survey]
• Formal embedding of a culture of public engagement is a work-in-progress
• Despite increased motivation and opportunities, barriers to increased public engagement include time, recognition and resource/funding

Balance of effort

4. The Committee has asked about the balance of effort needed to increase public engagement in science by 'new audiences' and by the 'already interested'. We believe this is an area in need of further discussion nationally. Our experience shows that these audiences require different approaches and partnerships. In general, we would note that the effort (time, expense) to engage new audiences can be several times more that involved with engaging the ‘already interested’. Existing programmes working with this balance need to be evaluated (e.g. British Science Association/Royal Society of Chemistry “Science in town centres” programme).

Communication strategies to encourage young people to study STEM subjects

5. Research and experience at the University of Southampton has identified three key communication strategies to encourage young people to study STEM subjects in higher and further education.

A: Talk to primary school children about what engineering (and STEM) is:

6. Universities should work with local communities, schools and teachers to talk about what engineering is. It’s important to start working with schools as early as possible – leaving it to secondary school level is actually too late. At the moment in primary schools, engineering only comes in during history lessons. If you explain to children, for example, that all this equipment in hospitals, where you have an x-ray or any procedure, would of had an engineer involved to develop the machine that has helped cure patients, it gives a broader impression early on to children of the wide possibility of this career.

7. When you view engineering as a narrow discipline, the chances are that it is not communicated in the most exciting way to students either. Some universities are offering narrow degrees – this inevitably means they are restricting their pool of applicants to a narrow remit.

What is the University of Southampton doing?

8. The University of Southampton organises a number of outreach events inside Primary Schools. These include planetarium shows via its mobile planetarium, the Lightwave! project with experiments using light, and “Science is all around us” events involving demonstrations, hands-on experiments and interactive talks.

B: Encourage underrepresented groups (particularly girls) into STEM

9. When it comes to encouraging women into science, technology and engineering, despite effort over several years, we believe that we just haven’t got the messaging right. Most girls decide that jobs and careers in science are “not for people like me”.

10. In a report for WISE, sponsored by Network Rail, Professor Averil Macdonald sets out why STEM outreach and engagement activities have a limited impact on girls and other young people who are under-represented in the STEM workforce. The report recommends a fresh approach - focusing on the types of people who succeed in science, technology and engineering - using adjectives to describe their personalities and aptitudes, rather than the jobs themselves.

11. Findings from the report include:

• Teachers are the most influential on subject choice while parents are the most influential on career choice.  Mothers tend to be the blockers for girls choosing physics-related careers, due to worry about their happiness.  Parents often do not value physics and engineering careers.  Teachers often advise that chemistry, biology and maths is the best combination to keep your options open.

• At the age of 10, most girls are deciding their self-identity and what it means to be feminine.  In families which have a high science capital, they are more likely to have had exposure to a number of different scientists making it easier to reconcile STEM identity with self-identity.  Where STEM identity is based on outdated stereotypes it is harder for this to occur.

• Enjoyment is not sufficient for girls to continue to A’ level, although it is for boys.

• Approx. 150,000 girls are qualified to do Physics A’ level and of those, only about 7,000 choose to take it.  There is also a significant drop out of girls from AS to A2 physics.  All who take physics A-level go on to a STEM degree, with the most common progression for girls being maths degrees.

• At age 14, the most common aspiration is media and communications (probably as a result of them being ‘Generation Y’).

12. Averil attributes different characteristics to different generations implying that we are ‘selling’ STEM careers in a way which makes sense to our own generation, but not to the next. 

• Baby boomers (born pre 1960): have a ‘make do and mend’ attitude
• Generation X (1960 – 1982): personal freedom is important; this generation started the idea of credit.
• Generation Y (1982-2000): believe they are ‘the centre of the universe’, choice is important, gen X parents that believe that Gen Y children harbour genius and thereafter organise multiple activities to try to find it. This means gen y then can't organise themselves and crave company - and like to live life 'visibly’ which can lead to the desire to be rich and famous.
• Millennial (post 2000): carry the guilt of the world, tend to be anxious and want to save the planet.

13. From these generalisations, we can target activities and our approach according to what is important to each generation:

• Age 12-18 – personal significance and importance
• Age <12 – saving the world, improvements and change.

Male and female language differences

14. If you think of 3 statements to describe yourself to interest someone at a networking event, (Averil suggested speed-dating) men are more likely to use verbs and women more likely to use adjectives; Men will say e.g. ‘I play football’, ‘I study Maths’, and women may use adjectives (e.g. ‘I am outgoing’, ‘I am creative’). 

15. When promoting careers in science and giving job descriptions, we often use verbs to describe the actions involved in the career rather than talking about the characteristics of the person who does the job.

16. Similarly, when thinking about what makes a good day, some people (more often men) will think in terms of outputs (e.g. gave a good lecture, finished a project) where others (more often women) will think in terms of outcomes (e.g. educated some people, helped someone).  Again when talking about jobs and careers we often talk about them in terms of outputs rather than outcomes.

17. The language we use (when focusing on the use of verbs to describe careers and what they entail) can then be said to unconsciously alienate female students and ensure that they think that the career cannot be for someone like them. 

The danger of master classes

18. Universities often hold master classes or events for a small, select few. This reinforces the idea amongst those not selected that STEM is for the elite and not open to others. Contrast this with humanities or arts where school trips are non-discriminatory, inviting the whole year group to the theatre or history visit. Underrepresented groups lacking confidence in their STEM ability, if not part of the elite, chosen group, will conclude that STEM is not for them.

What is the University of Southampton doing?

19. At the University of Southampton, we organise Dragonfly Day – a one day on campus visit for year 9 girls designed to showcase STEM subjects in and hands on and interactive way. These days are open to any student who is interested, not specifically gifted and talented groups.

20. During these days, we organise “People like me” workshops using material from WISE. We also include continual professional development for teachers in a number of our visits to give teachers an insight into the STEM teaching and research that takes place at the University of Southampton and how this relates to their classes.

C: Use social media as a multiplier

21. While some media may present a barrier to the proliferation of the STEM message, social media present a major opportunity. Direct channels connect young people with the wider world and engineers can use them to deliver positive messages. Via You Tube, for example, a school visit for 20 students  can turn into 1,000 views. The Your Life You Tube channel (https://www.youtube.com/user/YourLifeTeam/featured?nohtml5=False) is a great example of what can be done.

What is the University of Southampton doing?

22. Using social media in encouraging young people to study STEM is something that the University of Southampton is working towards implementing as a strategy. Many of our outreach visits are tweeted about and information put on social media sights, however more could be done to draw an audience in via this route, especially pre-event.

23. The possibility of putting outreach visits and short ‘Why STEM’ videos on YouTube is something that we are thinking about, including collaboration with faculty based outreach events.

Improving quality, accessibility and balance of science coverage in the media

24. Universities have become much more professional over the last couple of decades in providing information to the media about the science and research which they carry out. Often this is short term and focussed around specific discoveries or results, but there are also good examples of universities working with the media over an extended period to provide a deeper understanding of an area of science.

25. The University of Southampton, for example, has worked in a co-ordinated way over several years on pubic engagement activities focussed on deep-ocean research[1]. The University has combined its working with the media with face-to-face and online engagement. This sustained, co-ordinated approach, built up over time and fully supported by the academic community in Southampton, has made a significant difference to the quality and quantity of coverage of this area of research.

Use of public dialogue in science and technology policy making

26. The Government and its agencies have explored a number of initiatives in this area over the years, having been brought into sharp focus at the time of the public outcry over genetic modification of crops.

27. Certain institutions have an excellent track record of both explaining the science and enabling the debate on the wider ethical, emotional and cultural aspects of issues, moving the issue forward in a transparent fashion and coming to a decision which visibly takes all the factors into account, even when they cannot all be accommodated. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, for example, has brought about significant changes in policy on embryo research over several years in this inclusive approach.

28. However, more widely across Government, the use of public dialogue in science-related policy-making has been mixed. Surveys have shown that there is a greater desire from the public for more public involvement in decision-making, and that the Government should act in line with concerns on science. However, most policy decisions involving science are made with traditional mechanisms of public consultation but without public dialogue.

29. A key initiative in recent years has been Sciencewise, operated by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. This has worked across Government to develop public dialogue activity in several policy areas, for example to help create the Department of Energy and Climate Change’s Energy 2050 Pathways document. The future funding of the Sciencewise Expert Resource Centre is currently under review. The Centre provides specialist expertise to Government Departments which needs to continue in some form.

Strategies and actions taken by Government to foster public engagement

30. Researchers are encouraged by the Research Councils (RCUK) and other funders of research to cost public engagement in their funding proposals (e.g. via Pathways to Impact for RCUK grants). We would support the Research Councils’ efforts towards culture change in HEIs and the University of Southampton is in receipt of a small Catalyst Seed Fund grant to that end.

31. The National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement www.publicengagement.ac.uk provides excellent networks and resources to support universities in engaging with the public. Continued Government support for this important resource is essential.

32. The Wellcome Trust, has a broad, collaborative and inclusive system of supporting science engagement. It is currently conducting a review of its engagement activities, which we believe could have important lessons for Government support for these activities through the Research Councils.

33. The Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2014 included, for the first time, the assessment of impact arising from research. This focussed on benefits to the economy, society, policy and so on. Pleasingly the exercise generated many case studies showing impact through public engagement. However the feeling in universities was that it was easier to make the case for impact through business and policy engagement than through public engagement. REF is an important driver of behaviour in universities. Given the current Stern review, there is now an opportunity to consider the role of REF in enhancing public engagement.

April 2016