I’ve been tracking the twitter conversations about the PAS on Storify(with thanks to Jo Brodie for that recommendation), and it was interesting to see how people reacted to the findings – for some, their focus was on the issue of people feeling uninformed, for others, the focus was on the relatively positive attitudes that people have towards sciences and scientists.   Others pointed to the hierarchy of trust in scientists (with business and government scientists again scoring badly).   One thing which didn’t really get a mention was the cluster analysis that produced our six attitudinal groupings.  Some of those were a little surprising in themselves, and it’s a concern that so many people are still classed as disinterested or indifferent to the science that is around them. 

Last week, Sarah and Jayesh from Ipsos MORI, and I, hosted a session on our results at the British Science Association’s annual Science Communication Conference, with a main focus on the segments.  The session was very useful, and it was interesting to note that many of the points raised were also issues that had been raised by our steering group throughout the study (e.g. the value/concerns around labelling people, not making value-judgements on the data etc).  Our presentation is here.

On a technical note, one of the questions we got asked, which we missed the chance to answer, was about how BIS/others would know whether engagement activities were having any effect on these segments over time.  The straightforward answer would be for BIS or another organisation to rerun this segmentation in the future on a different dataset (that had been asked the same statement questions) and measure how the segments had changed, if at all.  This is perhaps worth considering for the next survey – it is also open to anyone with the technical knowledge to carry out, since we have made the SPSS dataset available. 

We asked participants to reflect on what the segments would mean for them in their everyday science communication interactions with their publics.  We also asked for reflections on what people might be meaning when they say they’re uninformed, and whether 

There were some interesting questions raised – such as whether we (BIS and Ipsos MORI) were suggesting that people should be moved from their groups – we weren’t, and I personally had never contemplated that as an aim; whether we would consider a parallel scientists’ attitudes study; whether we were making too many assumptions about what “good” or favourable attitudes looked like; and even a few concerns that we were simply labelling the public in a pejorative fashion.    You can get a good feel for the session from its storified tweets. 

We asked those at the session to feed back on postcards about what they’d taken away from the session and there were some interesting comments, which I won’t replicate here verbatim, but issues raised were: 

•  caution around labelling individuals;
• The attitude segments were potentially valuable to remind people  that there’s not a one-size-fits-all approach to science communication and public engagement;
• That said, there are potential difficulties in identifying people within the six groups in the first place;
• People are most appropriately engaged in ways that are both relevant and fun for them;
• The need to move beyond engaging the usual suspects in terms of people (ie confident engagers).

 I don’t think that any concrete answers were uncovered – but then the session wasn’t  intended for that. Hopefully, though, as a short introduction to the survey results, it provided food for thought for the audience; it definitely did for those of us who were involved in the study.

To help us shape our session further, we’d be interested to know what those of you going to the conference would like to explore. 

RCUK held a really inspiring session following publication of the 2008 study – that focused on the five attitudinal groups identified within that research, and explored the best ways to engage with them.

This year, we’ve again identified a number of attitudinal groups using cluster analysis, and we’ve looked at  a range of other issues including:

• Science in the economy
• Attitudes to science careers
• The appetite for public involvement in scientific decision making
• Knowledge of research processes
• How people engage with, and access information on, the sciences.

Once you see the final publications (plural as there’s a short report, and a more detailed one), you’ll obviously be in a better position to respond.  But, I thought I’d get the ball rolling by asking you to get your thinking caps on so that we can make this a really productive and useful session.

This wasn’t a direct replica of the main PAS, but we took the opportunity to test the views of 500 14-16 year olds enrolled on the online YLPA Learner Panel.  This was a much shorter version quantitative survey only, and administered online instead of face to face.  Even though it wasn’t a representative sample, there were some useful insights, which broadly back up what we’ve found in previous studies.

It looks as if those surveyed had a healthy degree of interest in the sciences.  

• 81% of respondents were amazed by the achievements of science, and 65% feel that it is important to know about science in their daily lives.

• Dispelling some of the myths that seem to persist, Science was actually the most popular subject (16% favoring it), and the one that was cited as the most popular subject choice for those planning to do post-GCSE study.

• 25% of children want to go into a career which could require some form of STEM subject.  Medical and health careers were most popular at 12%.

However, only 4% said they were interested in becoming engineers.

Some of these issues were also probed in the main “adult” study, and I’m looking forward to telling you more about those results soon.

Marilyn, BIS Science & Society

It is now widely acknowledged that parents are key influencers of how children relate to studying science at school and on the career choices they take later in life.  The two are strongly related as the choice of what subjects to study at GCSE, and then the choice of subjects and qualifications post 16, will have a huge impact on your career opportunities.  As the UK is facing very significant skills shortages in the next 10 to 20 years – with some surveys suggesting we will need 60,000 technically qualified people every year to 2024 – we will need to create a population that is both aware and engaged in science as well as keener to pursue a career in science and technology.  Understanding what shapes public attitudes to science is one of the building blocks of this task.

I chair the Science for Careers Expert Group that has been exploring what we need to do to raise the awareness of young people and those who influence them about this projected demand for science and technology skills and the range of science based career opportunities that will be available.  Gaining a better understanding of the attitudes of parents and other influencers towards science will help us develop the right communications and messages to encourage increased take up of science post 16.  For me therefore the Public Attitudes Survey is a key source of this background data for our careers work.  The previous survey showed that 79% of people recognised that “science is such a big part of our lives we should take an interest” and many more (95%) thought that young people should take a greater interest in science.   The 2008 survey also showed us that few people overall are ‘indifferent’ about science which is very positive, although I have a particular concern that those with younger children and those from lower income groups were more likely to have little or no understanding of science.  

I am looking forward to seeing the results of the new strand of work being undertaken by BIS (in tandem with the adults survey and qualitative research Ipsos MORI is conducting) that will look at the 14-16 age group in particular and seeing the results around gender differences.  This should complement the work Science Council has already undertaken on young people’s perceptions of science and a career as a scientist, as well as the outputs from the ESRC’s Targeted Research Initiative on Science and Mathematics Education (TISME)[1]and the Wellcome Trust Monitor.   Consistent across these studies is the finding that young people quite enjoy science at school and think it is important.  They know that their parents think it is important.  But we have failed to translate this favourable response into aspirations to be a scientist.[2]  We have also learned that there is a difference in perception about laboratory based experimental science and ‘using’ science in a future career as well as ‘doing’ science and ‘being’ a scientist.[3]  TISME is focussed on the critical age period of 10-14 years:  the survey identifies that 74% think the science they learn is interesting and that over 70% of children think that their parents believe it’s important to study science.  The Wellcome Trust Monitor[4]research showed that 81% of 14-18 year olds found their science lessons interesting but also showed that girls had a less favourable attitude towards science.   It also identified the key importance of parental attitudes on career choice.  However, the TISME research identifies that a majority of the younger age the majority of children (83%) have already rejected the idea of being a scientist.  The good news is that more young people would be interested in working ‘with’ science than being a ‘scientist’ which suggests there might be a more positive attitude towards the application of science.   The next step must be to work out why we have not yet managed to convert the general interest in science and doing science into a decision to pursue science as a career. 

In taking forward both the Science for Careers Expert Group Action Plan and the Science Council’s Future Morph project we are now focussing on understanding better why there is this reluctance to be a scientist and how we can build on the more positive feeling about working ‘with’ science.   In doing so we are focussing careers awareness communications not on the concept of science, but on ‘scientists’ themselves, aiming to enable young people, and parents, to identify with and relate to real people who work as scientists.   Sarah Elton’s post on this blog describes the problem well when she says people laughed when she suggested scientists worked amongst them!  When I give careers talks I always asked whether anyone knows a scientist and very few will ever put their hands up.  So we really do need to address the reality that most of the population don’t feel a connection to scientists in their daily lives.

One of the pilot projects arising from the Science for Careers Action Plan is going to try to address this.  The Hidden Science Map of the UK will launch next month.  It will be a Google based interactive map that will illustrate just how close by and every-day science, and science jobs , can be.  Some will say this makes science too ‘ordinary’ but the Science for Careers Expert Group agreed that this was a step worth taking if we were really going to face the challenge of reaching difference communities and creating a more diverse science workforce.  Many people identify ‘scientist’ with being an academic or a research, wearing a white coat and working in a laboratory: the map will include these examples but will also show people working with science in all sorts of different and more ordinary environments such as the settings such as the high street, villages and countryside and the city centre.  Scientists, employers, and those working with science will be invited to add themselves to the map in a variety of ways to show that science, and scientists, are very much part of the society everyone lives in.

[2] BERA 2010 Paper: 1st-4th September 2010, University of Warwick ‘Science is not for me?’: exploring children’s and families’ engagement with science through the lens of identity

[3]http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://tisme-scienceandmaths.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Archer-et-al-Science-Education-2010.pdf

[4]Wellcome Trust Monitor 1 http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/About-us/Publications/Reports/Public-engagement/WTX058859.htm

Is it a good or bad thing if people say they feel informed about science and scientific research and developments? Do people’s spontaneous responses about science give the full picture of what they think about it? These are the kinds of issues Ipsos MORI is currently trying to untangle, now that we’re into the thick of reporting for PAS 2011. Bear those questions in mind – I’ll return to them later.

Before I do that, it’s worth pointing out what we’ve achieved up to this point. As Marilyn noted in the December Progress Update, we completed a UK-wide survey and four sets of deliberative workshops just before Christmas – a mammoth task.

However, the fieldwork and analysis are not done and dusted. We are currently conducting a statistical analysis of the survey data, called a cluster analysis. This will segment the UK population into groups, known as clusters, who each have similar attitudes to science (based on answers to the survey). It will be a useful resource to scientists and science communicators – many of you probably already know that some people like to be engaged in science in different ways than others, and the cluster analysis should help identify the best ways to engage different groups.

The cluster analyses have been conducted in all the previous PAS studies, but this time we’re hoping to do something a bit different to enhance the statistical data. We’re going to hold four further discussion groups, each with people who fit into a particular cluster, so we can dig further into the survey answers and maybe find out why these clusters think the way they do. This is something I am particularly excited about, since it’s all too rare that you get to actually meet the people being described in a statistical analysis!

I gather some of you reading this will want to know what exactly we have been looking at using the above methods. After all, “public attitudes to science” is a catch-all for a range of topics. As with the previous PAS studies, we will be looking at people’s hopes and concerns about science, how informed people feel and trust in science. That’s in no way an exhaustive list, and there are some interesting new areas we are looking at that have not been covered in detail in the previous studies, including how science relates to culture and how science impacts on the economy.

Of course, reporting on all these areas raises a considerable challenge, bringing me neatly back to those questions I asked above. Is it a good thing if people say they feel informed about science? What if they say they’re informed, but then deny that climate change is man-made – is this a good thing? This highlights the need to look at the data neutrally, without making immediate value judgements on whether something is good or bad. This is also why it has been so useful to conduct qualitative as well as quantitative research, which allows us to probe further into people’s spontaneous responses in the survey and see whether these give the whole story.

We are also aware that the data need context to be meaningful. We can discuss how informed people feel about science, but in this discussion it would be useful to know that the BBC held its Year of Science in 2010, during survey fieldwork. 

I look forward to National Science and Engineering Week, which is when we will publish the results of PAS 2011. I hope that it will provide a useful resource to scientists and indeed anyone in the general public interested in science issues.

I have always been interested in what the Public Attitude Surveys tell us, and not least to use the results to challenge those who still persist in claiming that the UK public is ‘anti-science’ when it is clearly nothing of the sort.

This time round I developed a particular interest in the concept of science and culture, leading out of the work we did on the Science for All Group (http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/all/). In our Report and Action Plan we identified a number of actions to encourage UK cultural institutions to take a strategic approach to the sciences in culture, and we recommended that public perceptions of science and culture should be explored in this upcoming Survey.

It has always irked me that the arts community in the UK seems to have purloined the words ‘culture’ and ‘creativity’ as if they are synonymous with the ‘arts’. For example, the European Capital of Culture bidding process, and that of the UK City of Culture, have no requirement for a science-based cultural programme (though the use of digital technologies is graciously and instrumentally encouraged in the latter to ‘maximise participation and access’).  Not that I have anything against the arts, but my concept of culture and of creativity certainly includes the sciences, and they are implicitly excluded in the way these bidding documents are written and interpreted.

So, it is good to see the Public Attitudes Survey 2011 seeking to test out how the public views science and culture. The first indications are that the term ‘culture’ lacks a clear definition for people, but that they do see science enriching and extending our culture. They see economic benefits, informed public debate, leisure opportunities through e.g. science centres and museums, popular books and television, and enhancement, because of the science content, in entertainment programmes like Grand Designs.

It is time to recapture culture and creativity from the exclusive grip of the artists, and to claim them squarely for the sciences too.

On a lighter note, I’ve been pleased that the British Science Association has been able to work closely with Ipsos MORI on this project.  We sourced the scientists who appeared at the deliberative workshops held last year, and so it was interesting and inspiring to read of the experiences of Sarah and Kate in two of the previous posts. I hope it’s been a useful learning experience for them, as well as adding a different dimension to BIS’s research.  It’s apt then that BIS are planning to launch the results of the study during National Science and Engineering Week in March which this year has a theme of communication.

Kate Mandeville, a scientist at the London deliberative workshops, offers her perspective on her day with participants.

It was an email out of the blue from Ipsos MORI and the British Science Association. Would I like to be the scientist at a workshop on behalf of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills about public attitudes on science?

I was intrigued from the start. After all, I spend a lot of my time with people who are committed to the scientific process: I’m about to start a PhD, I’m married to a neuroscientist, and I’m on a specialist training pathway for doctors who want to be academics. So this workshop would allow me to hear the views of people outside the scientific world as to how it impacts on and shapes their lives. Would they think that what I and my colleagues do is worthwhile? Do we provide value for money? And in the light of all the controversy surrounding climate change research, would they still think scientific research is credible?

The organisers also asked me to prepare a short presentation on my current research. This presented me with a small dilemma about which area of my research I should talk about. Like many scientists, I have quite a disparate range of research interests, with lots of different things on the go at the same time. I knew I wanted the topic to be interesting to most people, whilst still illustrating the basics of the scientific process such as forming a hypothesis through to statistical analysis. In the end, I decided on some work I was doing on risk communication during the swine flu pandemic.

On the day, I arrived at the venue and was allocated a table where ten workshop participants and a facilitator would sit. During the day, the facilitator would guide the discussion and I would act as a scientific reference point – i.e. if a factual question came up about science or the scientific process, I would help to answer it.  As the participants started trickling in, I suddenly felt a little nervous. How would they act towards me once they knew I was a scientist? If they had a negative view of science and scientists, would they feel comfortable about expressing their views with one sitting right next to them?

I shouldn’t have worried though: everyone was very relaxed about my being there and the facilitator soon kicked off the first topic.  The ensuing discussions were absolutely fascinating. In fact, I had to keep remembering that I was supposed to be a detached scientist and not join in the heated debates! What struck me is the value and respect many people have for science and its place in our society. When I gave my presentation on swine flu, most participants agreed that there was a need for this kind of research. Perhaps this is because most people have suffered from flu themselves and there has been so much media coverage of swine flu pandemic.  Certainly, I felt I had an easier time explaining the ideas behind my research than the other scientist there who works in astrobiology – the study of whether life exists in other places in the universe.

However, although the results of scientific discovery were well-known by participants, the methodical ways of working and the mechanisms that scientists use to ensure their work is of sufficient rigour were less so. For example, during my presentation, I found that not many participants knew about the role of peer review. Whenever scientists submit their results for publication in a scientific journal, the journal editor asks other scientists in the field to assess if the research was conducted to a high enough standard. Although this process has its flaws, it ensures new results stand up to the scrutiny of “peers” before being published as valid research. Scientists try to make sure their work is of high quality, otherwise it may not be accepted for publication.

All in all, this was a hugely enjoyable and insightful experience. The results of this survey on public attitudes to science will be fascinating, and hopefully will confirm my impression that the UK public value the place of science in our society. However, scientists shouldn’t be complacent – we need to “sell” our profession and our ways of making it credible to maintain this status.

The quantitative part of the work has now been completed; more than 2000 people across the country have been reached by Ipsos MORI’s team. This is quite a logistical feat in itself, and we’re grateful to those interviewers who have braved the recent snow in Scotland and the North East.

In our last entry, you heard from Sarah, who took part in one of our deliberative workshops in Yorkshire. She certainly seems to have found this a useful and enjoyable experience. In total, we’ve now completed our 4 sets of paired deliberative workshops, with people giving up two Saturdays in Beverley, Cardiff, London and Birmingham.

Looking forward to 2011, we’ll be doing some work with the BIS Learner Panel and their cohort of 14-16 year olds.   We’ll also have our next steering group meeting and January will  mark the start of the really detailed analysis – all in time for our publication date during National Science and Engineering Week.

I was promised lunch and an interesting day out in East Yorkshire. In return, I had to give a talk about monkeys and tell people what it is like to be a scientist. My brief was to be a ‘science expert’ at a weekend workshop, part of a series run by Ipsos MORI on behalf of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to find out what the public think of science. I had no idea what to expect – I thought Ipsos MORI did opinion polls for elections. I was also a bit apprehensive: could I give a short talk without that ultimate prop, a set of PowerPoint slides? And would I meet their expectations as a scientist?

Things are never as bad as you imagine. In fact, when my turn came I was relieved to be able to talk. To allow the participants to discuss things freely and not interfere with their spontaneous responses, I had been asked not to speak too much in the morning workshops. For someone who is used to chattering away in meetings and seminars, it took a huge amount of effort before lunch not to say anything. Luckily, I was sitting next to the bacon sandwiches, and as I was brought up never to speak with my mouth full they helped me to stay quiet.

My talk went well – I think – and I didn’t need monkey pictures on screen to distract my audience. Instead, I drew a very dodgy picture of Africa on a flipchart and explained how my research required me to measure monkeys and investigate how their body shapes differ from one region of Africa to another. This isn’t as odd as it sounds. By doing this, we can work out how different groups vary, which helps the conservation biologists identify animals needing urgent protection, as well as revealing some of the factors that influence how mammals – including humans – grow and evolve.   

I work in a medical school, but started my career as a monkey measurer by doing a degree in Archaeology and Anthropology. Anthropology – the study of people and our closest relatives, the primates – is a subject that is part science, part humanities. I was admitted despite having no science A levels: we were taught the science we needed (human biology, zoology, anatomy, physiology and biochemistry) as part of our university course. I then continued my studies to postgraduate level by doing a PhD on fossil primates, specialising in African monkeys.

I’m often asked how a monkey-loving anthropologist got a job in a medical school. It’s simple. I teach anatomy, which forms the basis for my research. In fact, I’m not unusual, and people studying primate fossils often work in medical schools. When Victorian and Edwardian fossil collectors began unearthing ancient primates – including human ancestors – it was the anatomists in medical schools they turned to for help describing and reconstructing their finds.  

Knowing that I am continuing a long tradition didn’t prevent me from feeling a bit worried when one of the workshop facilitators asked the group whether someone with no science A levels should be training future doctors. He also asked whether their views on this topic had been shaped by meeting and talking to me. I was most relieved when the group pronounced me fit to practice, and it led to a short discussion of how scientific knowledge can be acquired throughout life.

I was really surprised by some of the participants’ lack of knowledge of science and the scientific process. I view myself as an enthusiastic science communicator but saw very quickly that arranging events at the British Science Festival and talking to school children reaches only a small part of the population, often those who are interested in and knowledgeable about science in the first place. At the workshop, I met people who were – for the most part – keen to learn about science and discuss it, but who had no day-to-day contact with scientists and didn’t feel involved in science.

To be honest, I felt a bit ashamed. The group laughed when I said “we scientists live among you” – I live on the edge of a council estate in York, and although some of my neighbours work in science, many do not – and suggested that people shouldn’t be afraid to talk to us. However, I (and indeed most other academics and researchers) could do much more to promote our work outside schools and science festivals. Those outlets are undoubtedly important, but reach only a fraction of the population. So, my New Year’s resolution is to ask the local free paper whether they want a column on hot topics in science and to donate some time to the local community radio station. It’s not much, but it’s a start. And if Ipsos MORI asks me to attend another workshop I will leap at the chance, lunch or no lunch.