Science and the Public Conference19th May 2007

Public engagement as a

socio-cultural learning

process science communication

research using drama and

discussion as meaning makingEmily Dawson, John Barlow , Anne Hill and Emma Weitkamp

Introduction• UK Science Communication agenda• Dialogue, discussion and debate• Need for research on ‘what’ people

think and ‘how’ they have thought it • ‘how’ 16-19 year old students made

meaning in a drama/discussion workshop on the social issues of genetic testing

Research aims and objectives

• To develop & run a series of science communication workshops using drama and discussion to engage with science issues

• To investigate how students between 16-19 years of age made meaning within the workshops

Methodology

• Social-constructivism

• Phenomena: workshop situation specifically constructed for research in formal education setting

• Parallels with a grounded theory approach for this aspect of the research

• Data supports socio-cultural learning theories

Methods: the workshop• Science: pre-testing with 16-19 year olds

selected genetic testing for Early Onset Alzheimer’s disease.

• Drama: a two scene, open ended performance based on a family where the granddad has Early Onset Alzheimer’s Disease and the question of genetic testing for his grandson.

• Discussion: facilitated small group discussions designed to start students talking about the questions posed in the drama.

Methods: the researchMethods • Mixed method approach with emphasis on the

qualitative elements of the research• Recorded discussions: qualitative approach

used as most suited to research aims

Sample• 7 workshops, 240 students, 140 female, 99 male

Analysis• Preliminary analysis of transcripts has followed a

reflexive approach to thematic analysis

Results• Found meaning making in this group to

have socio-cultural dimension• Students ‘made meaning’ together by…

• Personalising• Scaffolding• Vernacular science language for

communication

• Building a sophisticated understanding of social issues surrounding genetic testing as a group

Personalising“S1: my uncle, when he was born, he was born with a weak

heart and he was told that he wouldn’t see his 20th birthday, but my grandparents decided not to tell him…my uncle is now 40 and he’s still alive, so they reckon it was the fact that they didn’t tell him, basically put no pressure on his mind or body, so that’s why I’m saying no, I think it would risk the rest of his life… and he wouldn’t be able to live it in full…

S2: but then at the same time, my mum suffers from multiple sclerosis and she got diagnosed at 36 and her brother that she hasn’t seen since she was 7, he lives in New York, and now she’d never going to get round to doing it, cos she hasn’t got the strength to do it, and if she’d of known that she was going to have it, ten years ago she would have gone” (Group 2, TVU)

Scafffolding“A1: would you tell your doctor?A2: yeah yeah, definitelyA3: yeah but wouldn’t they know? It’s be on thereA2: yeah but if you changed doctors, it might not beA1: basically it’s health people init, you might need to tell a

counsellor as well, if it affects you mental health as well, before you get it, you might need to speak to a counsellor about it so they can help you

A2: yeah a counsellor A3: so a counsellor might be able to help you with itA2: just help you mentally cope with itA1: cos that’s the place where you’re weakestA3: true” (Group 4, FF)

Vernacular science language

“D1: um, […] does she come from the same blood line” (Group 1, Denefield 1)

“F1: it’s more likely that she will get it if Josh has got the disease as well in his blood stream then it’s […] and her father has got it

F1: well yeah it’s going to be passed down but it can skip generations

F2: yeah exactly […]F3: […] genesF1: […] going to get the disease, but it can, if you do have, you

know it can skip so it might make her think ‘oh I'm getting it’ and then she might think she's getting symptoms and then” (Group 3, SSU)

From black and white to grey“G1: cos she's the mother and I'm a mother, I know…so I would

want to knowG2: without his permissionG1: yeah, yes, I wouldn’t need permission from my son toG2: yeah but this guy seems to be over 18, […]G1: then again that's down to Josh to tell me, I mean if I'm going

with him [if I know ] the problem if I [pick] up the symptoms and I probably would [have gone] with him and I would be worrying about him and then he would talk to me if we are close enough but then again we might not be close enough and he might […]

G2: depends on what sort of situation you're in, because like to me if he didn’t want his mum to know, if he didn’t want her to know so it doesn’t make his mum worried but then no, but then again if you’re saying that, if she actually went with him and someone that actually knows about the problem and he's asking her help then I think yeah,” (Group 6, TVU)

Developing a sophisticated understanding“E1:yeah but people don’t take that attitude do

they, you’ve got to, it’s got to depend on the individual when deciding these things, you can’t decide en masse can you

E2:en masse […]E3:no […]E1: you can’t decide for the whole of society […]E2:everyone has their different outlooksE4:yeah people deal with problems differently”

(Group 4, SSU)

Conclusions

• The socio-cultural components of meaning making were utilised by students in the research workshops.

• Science communication can work with socio-cultural learning theory to develop engagements based on these principles.

• The discussions in this research were prescriptive and more flexibility may yield more interesting results.

Suggestions

• More research into ‘how’ engagement works is necessary:-

1)Longitudinal research on impact and views

2) Perhaps by building on ‘how’ people construct knowledge, more effective public engagement can be developed