Transcript
RICHARD HOLLIMAN
Hi. My name is Richard Holliman and I’m one of the Block 1 authors on S350 Evaluating contemporary science.
I’m here today with Vic Pearson, who works in the School of Physical Sciences at The Open University.
We’re here to discuss Vic’s involvement in science communication and engagement as a research scientist.
Vic, in what ways do you communicate science and of these, which do you consider to be the most important and why?
VIC PEARSON
I think the most important way that scientists communicate with other scientists is through the academic journal article.
So, publishing in journals in their own discipline, or in the all-important publishing in Science or Nature if you can achieve that.
But there’s other ways that we communicate too. So, I’ve also written technical reports that are seen by scientists and people in industry, based on work that we’ve done.
And we spend a lot of our time going to conferences where you’ll either present a presentation, or present a poster.
And I have to say I find a poster to be a more beneficial way of presenting science, because it means that you can actually talk to people on a one-to-one basis, and have a much longer discussion.
RICHARD HOLLIMAN
It’s much more interactive…
VIC PEARSON
It’s much more interactive yeah. So a talk, you’re more likely to stand up and get somebody questioning you after your ten minutes who largely just wants to publicise what they’ve done in the field, rather than contribute to your research.
RICHARD HOLLIMAN
You mentioned two journals there, and alluded to the fact that they may have been the pinnacle, if you like – Science and Nature – everybody wants to publish in Science and Nature.
So, there’s a kind of issue there about quality of research, so I’m kind of interested in how do you evaluate the quality of scientific research in your discipline?
VIC PEARSON
I think the first thing you look at is which journal is it published in, and I must admit that, if you work in a particular discipline, Science and Nature are the pinnacle.
But most papers are published in other journals, and which are not necessarily easier to publish in, but they publish more papers that are relevant to your own discipline.
So the first thing you’d look at is, ‘Where are they from?’ And then if I’m evaluating evidence in a paper I’d first look at the methodology. So, does their methodology meet the research question that they want to ask?
And then I start to drill down into the methods. Have they used the right instruments? Have they got the right approach? Have they got the right number of samples? So looking largely at experimental design.
And then from that do they actually have results that are reliable? Are they accurate? Are they reproducible? And then, do they actually answer the research question?
And, I think once you’ve got the handle on how reliable the data might be, then you start to look at whether or not they’re using information from other sources to support their conclusions.
You can’t really make a conclusion just based on the data in one paper. Nobody would do that. It’s got to have results brought in from elsewhere to support their conclusions. So, I think that’s broadly how I’d review it.
RICHARD HOLLIMAN
So you’ve given us some lovely examples of how you work as a reviewer to evaluate contemporary science, and noted the importance of publication in science as a way of furthering science.
I’m interested now in how you communicate and engage with different audiences, so different stakeholders and members of the public. Could you give us some examples of that?
VIC PEARSON
I have spent quite a lot of time talking to school children, and members of the general public, and I feel quite passionate about that.
So that can be anything from delivering a lecture or a talk to a class of school children, or I’ve been into primary schools where we do hands on, very fun activities to engage them with the science, not necessarily with them even realising it.
We’ve also got activities to talk to A-Level students where they’ve already made a choice about their career, and it’s more about enrichment and giving them an additional dimension to what they’re studying.
But I think one important part is also communicating with teachers. Communicating with students is great because it’s depending on which level they’re at. It’s about inspiring them, or it’s about encouraging them to a scientific career, or just about ensuring that they understand what science is, and what science is about. But teachers also need to be able to keep their teaching materials up to date.
So, I think it’s important that they have exposure to some of the contemporary science that’s going on today.
RICHARD HOLLIMAN
So, if you like, it’s helping them with both content and skills development, and making sense of what science and how it’s changing.
VIC PEARSON
Yes, absolutely, because they will not necessarily have the time. Like the rest of us, they’re under pressure in terms of time, and so it’s a great opportunity, if somebody like me, or you, or anyone else in the faculty is able to go in and talk to their kids, they’ll pick something up at the same time.
RICHARD HOLLIMAN
You’ve given us a kind of overview of the work you do to communicate with academic scientists, and a brief overview of some of the work in working with members of the public and different stakeholders.
So I’m kind of curious about what you see as some of the benefits and drawbacks of this, kind of, pretty comprehensive set of activities.
VIC PEARSON
So, I think the huge benefit to me is I really enjoy doing it. It’s really enjoyable. Yeah, we could spend all of our time at university in the lab or at our desk or in meetings, but actually going out and talking to people and telling them how passionate you are about your science is the best part of the job, I think. It also helps to raise the profile of your work.
RICHARD HOLLIMAN
Okay. So, are there any drawbacks?
VIC PEARSON
Yeah, it takes a lot of time. It can be really time consuming, because it’s not just going into a school for an hour to do an activity. It’s the planning that you do before hand, and that’s on top of teaching and research commitments and other commitments that you might have at work.
It’s also quite difficult to persuade people when it doesn’t bring in cash, that it’s a good thing to do. So, we’re always looking at where to get more finances from.
There are public engagement grants that can support going into schools, or work with the general public, or other particular groups, which is one way of doing that.
But I suppose an altruistic way of looking at it is that we should just do it.
I guess another disadvantage, or drawback, is that some people do it who aren’t good at doing it. So, there’s swings and roundabouts. And I guess in some respects it’s self-selecting.
RICHARD HOLLIMAN
I mean, I certainly feel part of the agenda in this is sorting the wheat from the chaff if you like, saying, ‘You do this really well’, and supporting them effectively. But maybe that’s a conversation for another day.
So, I’ll say thanks Vic.
VIC PEARSON
You’re welcome.