Modules used: A1, B2, C1 – Science Event 2012

This is a standardized version of the original case analysis number 3. Specific names and locations have been substituted from the original document number 3 with generic references in order to preserve the anonymity of every participant. In case you would like to read the original document, please contact occ@upf.edu.

Abstract

The science event, organized in different towns, is selected as a case study. Our research questions refer to the motives of lay people and of main actors to participate in the event and to the personal and social impact of the event on visitors and on the actors involved in it.

Two ways of gathering information are used: A) Document analysis (Module B2); B) semi-structured interviews with visitors and relevant actors (Module A1, Module C1). All together 28 interviews were carried out.

The main results are:

• For the visitors the main motives to participate are the possibility and desire to learn new things, whereas for the organizers they relate to necessity of creating a more adequate image of science and scientists.
• For visitors the event has both emotional and cognitive impact –they not only learn new things but experience satisfaction and enjoyment.
• All individual actors, involved in the organization of the event, acknowledge that it help them improve their communication skills for reporting science.
• The event has also an additional specific effect on the representatives of the different institutions.
• The social impact of the event on the institutions which participated in its organization includes:
  • Increasing visibility and public image
  • Raising competitiveness of the institution
  • Networking

Two groups of recommendations are formulated. The first group refers to carrying out the event in the future and the second, to the more general issue of popularizing science and the relations “science-lay community”.

Introduction

Science communication – an emerging field

In this country science communication studies are still in the stage of emerging. Although during different historical periods there were practices and initiatives for popularizing science we still lack both systematic and well focused policy in this field and professional discussion on the specificity of science communication.

Empirical studies we have carried out during the last decades clearly show that citizens do not have an adequate idea about the scientists and the essence of scientific endeavour. On the basis of the results obtained in previous studies of us on the issues of public understanding of science, social representations of the scientist, and science communication all of them carried out in a comparative perspective we have come to the following conclusions.

• People in general and our citizens in particular have an idealized positive image about the scientist (reference 5);
• Compared to the other nations, our citizens have a very vague idea about what scientists actually do (reference 1)
• Countries in Europe do not encourage the presentation of a varied picture of science on their TV channels (reference 4).

At the background of these results the necessity of continuing this type of studies looms large. This is the main way through which we can trace the tendencies in the public perception of science as well as assess the impact of the policies and initiatives in this respect. That is why our participation in the PLACES project is extremely useful both from professional and from practical and policy point of view.

Research questions

Our main research questions are:

• What are the motives of lay people and of main actors to visit and participate in the event?
• What is the personal and social impact of this event as a specific science event on the public (citizens)?
• What is the personal and social impact of this event as a specific science event on the actors involved in the event (individual scientists, scientific institutions, media representatives, representatives of the third sector and business)?

The main research questions are specified in the following specific research questions which refer to concrete areas of impact of this science event on the public and the actors involved in the event:

• What is the impact of this event as a specific science event on competitiveness, public image and future institutional development of the scientific institutions involved in it?
• What is the impact of this event as a specific science event on public image and future institutional development of the NGOs and business organizations involved in it?
• What is the impact of this event as a specific science event on engagement of media with scientific topics and science communication?
• Does this science event enhance networking and collaboration between different actors interested in science communication?
• Does this science event influence scientists’ career plans and development?
• Does the involvement of scientists in this science event influence their engagement with science communication?
• What are the learning effects of this science event on individual scientists involved in it in terms of acquisition of knowledge, understanding of science audience, development of skills?
• Does this science event influence people’s attitudes towards science and scientists and their interests and trust in them?
• What are the learning effects of this science event on citizens involved in it in terms of acquisition of knowledge, understanding of science, development of skills?
• What is the emotional impact of this science event on citizens and individual actors involved in it?

The rationale for case selection

This science event was selected as a case study due to the following reasons:

• It could be defined as a truly scientific event as far as it:
  • Included a group of diverse activities –several competitions, press conferences, Innovations fair, media coverage–.
  • Aims at raising public awareness of science, promoting dialogue between science and society and encouraging young people to engage with science (reference 2, p. 16-17).
• This science event has been taking place in this country for 8 years now. It is part of a European initiative which has been supported by the European commission.

The aim is to focus public attention on researchers and science in general and reveal their role for our everyday life, economic development, social welfare, and the further integration in our common European home. Another objective of the event is to encourage young Europeans pursue a scientific career and make Europe leader of scientific research.

In this country, the science event of the 2012 project was undertaken by a consortium of participants: an innovation centre at an academy of sciences (coordinator), a technical university, a club of young talents, three renowned universities from the three cities (City 1, City 2 and City 3), with the partnership of a union of scientists in the country, a union of physicists, a journal, an art hall and other organizations.

Methods

In this study the level of analysis was a scientific event. We investigated the impact of this science event on two main dimensions –the general public and the main actors.

For the general public, we aimed at revealing both the immediate impact of the event on visitors who attended it for the first time and the long term effect on visitors who had attended it in previous years.

In accordance with the research questions outlined in the Introduction, we aimed to reveal the impact of the event on the motivation of visitors and participants, on career development, learning enhancement, on public image of participants in the event (scientists, scientific institutions, NGOs, business organizations), on development of communication skills, on networking among actors.

Two ways of gathering information were used for the achievement of these objectives:

• Document analysis (following the instructions of Module B2) –we analyzed the website of this science event, advertising materials, program of the event, logos of the event, leaflets, book of poetry written by native scientists, which was publish for the event, a book of aphorisms about scientists also published for the event, impact assessment of the previous event in 2011 based on quantitative analysis (mainly percentage distribution) carried out by the organizers themselves (See Annex 2). We decided to use document analysis, in order to understand through which channels the information about the event reached the public and to assess the attractiveness of these channels. It was also important for us to distinguish the main messages the organizers of the event aimed to convey to the public regarding science and the scientists. We also wanted to see whether the organizers themselves monitored their activities in order to trace their shortcomings and achievements.
• Semi-structured interviews with visitors and relevant actors. We decided to apply this instrument for collecting data due to the fact that this science event is an event where everything happens on the spot and it is hard to trace respondents at a later moment. And also, semi-structured interviews allow respondents to share their opinion about issues related to the event which we might have missed to mention.

That is why from the toolkit we used Module A1 –semi-structured interview for visitors (including module for repeated visitors); Module C1 semi-structured interview with relevant actors. Thus seven interviews designed to reveal the impact of the event on visitors and relevant actors were translated into citizens. Part of the questions in the semi-structured interviews was similar for all respondents which allowed comparisons and part of them were specific for the concrete type of actor. (See Annex 1)

Sample

The sample comprised n ≥ 6 people for each type of actors. Thus, altogether 28 interviews were carried out (12 with visitors, 6 first time and 6 more than once); 6 with scientists and 10 with representatives of different institutions involved in the organization of the event). An interview lasted between 30 minutes and an hour.

Apart from the general public, the relevant actors whom we approached were: individual scientists from different scientific institutions; representatives of science institutions, involved in the organization of this science event journalists (editors of popular science journals); representatives of supporting business organizations and representatives of NGOs.

The interviewers were 4 experienced sociologists from the network of an institute for the study of societies and knowledge at an academy of sciences. They were gathered for a short briefing at the institute. It was explained that their task was to encourage the interviewee to share honestly his/her impressions, experiences, attitudes and beliefs. At the same time, it was emphasized that the interviewer needed to keep the conversation within the framework of the issues studied avoiding discussions on irrelevant themes. The interviewers were also told that they should try not to use terms like “impact”, “effect”, etc. but rather use everyday expressions, so that the conversation did not sound as a formal interrogation. Each interviewer was given a digital recorder of good quality (the audio records are stored at the institute). The interviewees were asked in due time to provide a written copy of the audio interview. They were also asked to write a brief informative text about their own impression of the event. At the briefing for each type of interview was designed a short introduction. The interviewer was supposed to start the conversation with these opening words. With slight variations, the introduction was the following:

“I would ask you to answer a few questions related to your participation in the science event. In this way you will help realize the project PLACES which is part of the program of the European commission “science and society”. The main objective of the project is create opportunity for institutions and individuals related to the popularization of science as knowledge and as profession to exchange their experience and structure their activities at a regional and national level. Your answers will be summarized together with the answers of other participants with no reference to the individual interviewees. The results of the study will be available for the general public at the end of 2013.”

Three towns were visited by the interviewers during this science event. The interviewers went at least to three sites of the event within each of the towns.

Results

Organization of the event

Applying document analysis we posed the following three questions:

What type of media do the organizers use to inform the public about the coming event and attract people to visit it?

To approach the potential audience of the coming event the organizers of this science event used diverse channels and forms of information. Among them –the Web page of the event, the logos of the event and the press conferences they held. The Web page of the event was created early enough and comprised interesting and diverse rubrics. There was sufficient information about the science events which had taken place in previous years. The announced competitions were attractive, as well the rubric “gallery’ which showed pictures and clips from previous events. However some of the interesting rubrics were empty as late as two weeks before the event. Our assessment is that the decisions of the organizers to give two press conferences one ahead of the event –on 18 July– and one immediately before the event –on 26 September– were adequate.

The following two initiatives can be viewed as an important way to attract public:

• Organization of three competitions: “Young and Energetic Scientists” (YES), “Zoom in Science” and “Be Bio”
• The publication of two books –a book of poetry written by native scientists and a book of aphorisms about scientists

It should be noted however that there was no information about the event at the most popular media –the newspapers with the highest circulation and popular TV channels. We consider this to be the best way to reach diverse audiences. What is more, the organizers should not rely only on ‘one shot’ information about the event –the information about the event with its logo needs to be published on the front pages of the newspapers with highest circulation and in the prime time of the popular TV channels.

What are the main messages regarding science and researchers that the used information materials convey?

The advertising and information materials conveyed two main messages:

• Science is not a dull and abstract activity. It is rather interesting and useful pursuit which can be enjoyable and can bring satisfaction not only to the researchers but to the lay people too.
• Researchers are not ET, “extra terrestrial” –they are, as all, people who deal with everyday life, dream, and laugh. These messages are well chosen and perfectly applied for the public in this country because they try to “break up” the idealised positive representations of science and the scientist as incomprehensible abstract study which can be practiced only by a few (reference 5).

Do the organizers show self reflex ion on their experience and do they rely on the feedback of the public?

The organizers are definitely not indifferent to the feedback from the public. For a couple of years now, they themselves have carried out surveys during the event in order to see what was successful and what not. As part of the science event in 2010 and in 2011 a club of young scientists conducted two surveys. In each city where the event took place, there were interviewed about 10% of the visitors. According to the data in 2010, the event was attended by more than 5.000 people. The data showed that this science event had fans and regular visitors already. In all cities majority of the respondents (around 44% of every town) did not come for the first time. Definitive answers in all towns that visitors surely will come again next year, show the success of the event in 2010. In 2011 the majority of the visitors in every town were mostly students and researchers. Most of the people came to the event for a first time. One city was an exception, where 52% of attendees had been to the event in previous years. Positive attitude towards this event shows also the willingness of respondents to visit the event the next year. In all towns the visitors answer that they surely will come again next year. In a chemistry faculty these were 91% of the people, in an academy of science 74%, a technical university 66%, another university-31%, one city 46% and another city 79%. This is a clear sign that shows the success of the event in 2011.

The main problem according to both surveys relates to advertising. The poor advertising of the event is illustrated by the fact that most visitors in 2011 knew about it “from friends, colleges” –47% in an academy of science, 39% from a university and 28% in a technical university. At the same time, only 5%-7% of the people of these same locations understood about it by media advertising. Obviously, this lack of promotion remained weak point in the organization and it even seemed to have become worse than the previous years. In comparison to 2010, the percentages of people from the three cities who understood by media advertising were insignificant. In 2011, emerged a new group of visitors who learned about this science event through Facebook.

Unfortunately, our own analysis of the 2012 information campaign does not differ from the conclusions drawn by the club of young scientists in previous years. Clearly what are needed are radical changes which should affect both the information channels which the organizers use and the way and the frequency of the publication of the information.

Personal and social impact of this science event

Interviews were analyzed in the following way: The transcribed interviews were randomly distributed among 4 independent experts (judges) –two of the judges were sociologists, one was a scientist-physicist, and one a journalist. Each one of them read all transcribed interviews. They were asked to list:

• The most-frequently mentioned motives for participation in the event
• How visitors and participants in the event assess its benefits and what effect the event had on themselves and on the their organizations

Below we present those categories/results which were listed by at least two judges. The analysis showed that both the motives for participation in the event and its effects fall in two main groups –motives and effects of the visitors and motives and effects of the participants. For each of the categories we give quotations from the interviews.

Motivation (reasons) for participation

Although there are common motives among participants, organizers and visitors, we can clearly distinguish the leading motives of the two groups –visitors vs. organizers.

Visitors

For the visitors, the main motives to participate are curiosity and the possibility and desire to learn new things:

This being my first year it was curiosity and I decided to see what was going on (City 1)

For the university, because we love science (City1)

Because I enjoy visiting such cultural initiative, where one can learn something new to enrich his/her knowledge (City 2)

Our Maths teacher. She suggested it but we had already chosen… Mutual interest (City 3)

Actors involved in the organization of the event

The main motives of the organizers are related to necessity of creating a more adequate image of science and scientists among the lay community and raising prestige of science and scientists:

Desire to present science in the most attractive way in order to make young people commit to the pursuit of knowledge (Scientist)

To show the ‘human face of the scientist’…’because if the scientist is viewed only from purely professional point of view, works only with his students, caries out experiments, he stays anonymous which leads to misunderstanding in society and people start to ask themselves whether what scientists do is something really important… and ultimately, aren’t scientists strange, idiosyncratic people?’ (Scientist)

I back any initiative which popularizes mathematics as a source of wit, logic and beauty (Scientist)

(Nowadays) there is no science –society platform, citizens and young people have almost no information about what scientists do. The image of the scientist among the public is outdated. We wanted to make a breakthrough, to change the stereotype of the scientist. Personally I also wanted to give the chance to young talented scientists to show what they can do at this science event (Representative of a scientific institution)

I was proud to be invited to participate among 1.200 who work at the university, this is recognition. I work at a scientific institution, I have a position in the community, at the event there were other Deans, Rectors, to have presentation and to be part of the organization of the event was very important, you can make visible the people you work with…’ (Representative of a scientific institution)

Science and the scientists need to be advertised, they need PR. The stereotypes about the scientist need to be changed, we need to show his/her ‘human’ face (Media representative)

Prejudices and over-expectations towards science can be changed only if science does not stay isolated in laboratories, institutes and cabinets (Media representative)

I like the idea of popularizing science in society. I believe that most of the people do not understand the meaning of science. No doubt to a great extend this is due to the social and economic problems but I am sure that the development of society which is aware of the meaning of scientific and technological progress can be also supported by the organization of events like this science event (Media representative) 

Social and personal impact

Impact on visitors

We start with presenting the immediate impact this science event had on the people who came to the event for the first time as well as the long term impact it had on the people who had been to this event in previous years.

The analysis shows that for the people who visit this science event for the first time the event has both emotional and cognitive impact –visitors not only learn new things and better comprehend the meaning of scientific research, in addition they feel more confident in using science in their everyday life and experience satisfaction and enjoyment:

Science is not only in the books. When one hears about it from the ‘insiders’, you comprehend the material much better and I think this is very useful. What I learned this evening I will use in the future. (City 1)

Yes I do (feel more confident) in the sense that one sees what is being done at universities and research institutes. Because in the hurry of everyday life people spare almost no time to learn something beyond their direct humdrum interests.

Definitely it has (personal relevance) because all that is shown here to a great extend is related to the everyday life of people, it is the result of human activity and in such night one can get a lot of information for different fields of knowledge (City 2)

I enjoyed a lot the dinosaurs exhibition which was placed in the building of the regional library… one can learn a lot (City 2)

I am satisfied that more and more young people start coming to such events. Maybe events such as the night of the Museums, this event and others should be held at the same time, might be more interesting (City 2)

Most of all I enjoyed the answers to the questions the three teams were asked… they were very interesting. And also the presentation of the third team on physical health –the movie was fascinating (City 1)

Such event when things are presented professionally with high quality, not as they are in the textbooks, things breaking the stereotype, this is so nice, it should happen more often (City 1)

People clearly see the ‘two faces’ of science –on the one hand deeply changing the world and enhancing welfare, and on the other harming nature:

This is not a question which can be answered with a single word –just saying ‘great’. The reason is that everything that surrounds us now, the achievements, facilities; everything is a product, a direct consequence of scientific endeavor –of the work of research teams (City 2)

Man tries to play God, to interfere in things he/she does not understand and this might cause great trouble and cataclysms. The development of industry leads to the destruction of the ozone layer… there should be limits not to be trespassed (City 2)

The long term impact of the event on people who have visited it before is that they become “addicted to science” and start regularly to follow scientific news and achievements. They are also more prone to see the more general cultural impact of such type of events which pertain to the community and the town where they are organized.

Yes, I have applied and followed (science ideas and news). I teach biology and I have used things I saw at this science event. Couple of years ago there was laboratory on the street –I did this with my students…this year I liked the debate and also intend to apply it with my students.

I follow science news much more frequently. I am interested and because I work with young people.

Of course my visit to the event made me think more about science and seek things related to it (City 1)

For the city it is important –people get together, communicate, the positive attitude they showed, the team work (City 1)

Social impact on institutions involved in the organization of the event

The social impact of the event on the institutions which participated in its organization is in three main directions:

• Increasing visibility and public image
• Raising competitiveness of the institution
• Networking

Increased visibility and public image

All institutions which took part in the preparation of the event share the opinion that for them this event is a way to advertise their organization among a wide audience.

Visibility gained not only the university, which has its place in the town, but most importantly the personalities working at it, the scientists, who revealed a different appearance. (Representative of a university)

At an institutional level (the benefit) is mainly positive PR. Personally –I always learn new things, enjoy the skills, knowledge and talent of young citizens… get acquainted with new people. (Representative of a scientific organization)

We are a small company and participation of such a large scale initiative is a positive advertisement for us. (Representative of a business organization)

My journal became more visible in society. The number of papers related to the issue of science and society increased (Media representative)

Our media became part of novel ideas and practices in the realm of science and technology (Media representative, radio)

Raising competitiveness of the institution

For the organizers the event provides better opportunities for their institution to promote its mission and activities through competition with other similar organizations.

Attracting new researchers –Maybe; recruiting students– Yes, definitely; Economic advantages –Yes, we find new business partners and donors
(Representative of a university)

Young people, school boys and girls see where they can continue their education and what is more they find an answer to the most difficult question –‘why’ should I continue studying. Their parents see for themselves that they entrust their children in good hands, and they will graduate as competitive engineers. The evidence is that the next year some of the visitors become students at the university (Representative of a university)

First and foremost recruitment of students (Representative of a university)

For our union as an NGO the participation in this science event is extremely important because it is related to the popularization of what scientists actually do (Representative of the third sector)

Networking

Participation in the event is definitely a way for establishing new contacts among institutions and for enhancing previous collaboration.

(Not that much research) rather ideas for new contacts and relations with business organizations and social institutions (Representative of a university)

1. Joining a pan European event; 2. Partnership with the best universities in the country; 3. Presenting scientists not in their traditional surrounding but in an unconventional ambiance; 4. Pursuing a long term mission of the university; 5. Eenjoyment for the people working at the university; 6. Entertainment for the people of the town of the city 1 (Representative of a university)

We started collaboration with new partners in projects related to science communication an activity assessments’ (Representative of the third sector)

Impact on individual actors involved in the organization of the event

The individual actors involved in its organization of the event include: scientists and representatives of different institutions –universities, scientific organizations, media, and the third sector. The analysis shows that there is one sphere in which the event influences all individual actors. All individual actors acknowledge that participation in the event help them: to acquire knowledge about different science audiences and improve their communication skills for reporting science. However, the results also show that the event has a specific effect on the representatives of the different institutions. Thus, for example for the representatives on non-academic institutions their participation in this science event provides opportunity for enhancing career and job to perspectives and establishing new contacts. As to the scientists they experience the event as a “mirror” in which they can “look themselves” and “see and assess” their work through the prism of the lay people, which might even lead to change in their self-perception.

Acquiring knowledge about different science audiences and improving communication skills for reporting science

All individual actors in the event underline that it helps them get acquainted with the different audiences of science and share the opinion that popularization of science is a challenging activity which requires special competencies. This is particularly experienced by the scientists:

I developed my communication and organization skills. I learned to write scenarios, to be a moderator at an event for entertainment. I received the recognition of my colleagues (Media representative)

Enhanced my skills to bring science closer to people (Media representative)

I was impressed with the event. Now I have better idea about the attitude of society towards science and higher education, and see better the problems in these spheres. On the other hand I myself had the chance to communicate with intelligent people, young and elderly, scientists who have devoted their life for the welfare of society. I think that at everybody at the university appreciate the event, which is an indicator that it is developing in the right direction (Representative of a university)

It is always a pleasure to see young people committed to science. You learn from them and from the senior scientists. Thus you acquire experience
(Representative of a university)

A positive sign for the future of the mission of bringing science closer to the public is the fact that scientists themselves discern advantages in their participation in such events. They learn new things about the public; they learn things about themselves get unconventional feedback for their work, develop communication skills (Scientist)

From the questions visitors asked regarding my work (active aging) I learned that they are not interested in these aspects of my research that I consider most important… now I know that young people, students school children need a unconventional ways for getting acquainted with science… something similar to the way science is presented here at this science event (Scientist)

It is indicative that the scientists are aware that in general they lack good communication skills and that in order to promote the image of science among the people it is important that they acquire such skills. They also feel the need of special training to present their work in lay term. I noticed that during the debate some of the colleagues could not avoid using terms that people would never understand, and that created certain tension… talking to people helps you overcome the stereotypes of professional lexicon, which is a great challenge (Scientist)

You need to visualize the message you want to convey, to be more artistic. Most of the colleagues do not break out of the standard way of presentation being afraid that they will lose the respect society cherishes for them… we don’t need to take ourselves too seriously. To find the adequate metaphor with which to present a scientific idea, without using technical terms, is a very special skill to explain your research to a 6-yers old child, or to an elderly violist. (Scientist)

Scientists need to be trained in presentation skills for different audiences. It is a pity I never participated in such courses (Scientist)

Unfortunately in this country there is no system for training scientists in presentation skills… I have tried to convince university authorities to launch a course at least
at the faculty of journalism. But nobody listened to me (Scientist)

I try to teach my students how to explain specific ideas in a language so that people understand. I am proud that they surpassed me with their ideas. V.St. whose project consisted in computer modelling of the “energy landscape” of cellular mechanisms, had several metaphors –a material model of a hilly plane, balls with different potential energy, magnetic discs thrown randomly by the visitors so that they could feel the idea of her model, etc. St.A. was turning in a circle to illustrate the notion of “involution”… I think Rutherford had said once: “If you cannot explain your scientific work to a violinist, you don’t understand it deeply enough” (Scientist)

Enhancing career and job perspectives

(Thanks to my participation in this event) I have been invited as an expert in other events related to Science in society (Media representative)

I was invited by the organizers of this science event to collaborate in other projects too (Representative of the third sector)

Establishing new contacts

For me personally I got acquainted with many interesting people I learned a lot, and last but not least I enjoyed my participation (Representative of the third sector)

I established contacts with interesting people, who have interesting thing to tell, and know how to tell them (Media representative)

For me personally this event helped me get closer to the academic community in this country, to get acquainted with ‘stars’ in their research field’ (Media representative)

(I met) young students PhD students, people for whom science is passion (Representative of the third sector)

Enhancing self-knowledge through “the public mirror”

As we already mentioned, for the scientists participation in an event such as this one, where they meet different audiences, helps them view themselves and their work from a different prism:

(To participate in the event) is doping which charges us all, a great social experiment where I see myself and my colleagues from a different point of view. This evening I was an actress, I read verses, I presented the book of poetry written by scientists. This is an opportunity to see your senior colleagues in a leisure atmosphere, to see the shining eyes of students watching their teachers. I learned about the perspective scientists from other disciplines view the issues I have been working on (Scientist)

Conclusions

On the basis of the analysis of the way this science event was organized in this country and its social and personal impact we can draw the following main conclusions.

Scientific events influence different audiences in different ways

Both the motives for participation in the event and the effects the event has can be distributed in two main groups –motives of and effects on visitors and motives of and effects on organizers. For visitors the main motives to go to the event are curiosity and the possibility and desire to learn new things, whereas for the organizers the motives are related to the necessity of creating a more adequate image of science and scientists among the lay community and raising prestige of science and scientists.

The event has both common and differentiated effect on the individual actors, committed to its organization. All individual actors acknowledge that participation in the event help them improve their communication skills for reporting science. However, the results also show that the event has a specific impact on the representatives of the different institutions. Thus, for example, for the representatives of non-academic institutions participation in this science event provides opportunity for enhancing career and job perspectives and establishing new contacts, whereas for the scientists the event helps them get acquainted with the different science audiences. The social impact of the event on the institutions which participated in its organization is in three main directions:

• Increasing visibility and public image
• Raising competitiveness of the institution
• Networking

Scientific event is a learning event

A scientific event functions as a learning event in couple of different ways. First, for all individual actors their participation in the event helps them acquire knowledge about different science audiences. Second, the visitors of the event learn what type of activity science is and what type of people scientists are. Thirdly, scientists experience the event as a “mirror” in which they can “look themselves” and “see and assess” their work through the prism of the lay people, which might even lead to change in their self-perception.

Science is not emotionally neutral: Emotions do matter

A scientific event has a strong emotional connotation –visitors not only learn new things and better comprehend the meaning and the importance of scientific research, they also become more confident in their abilities to use scientific knowledge and experience satisfaction and enjoyment. Scientists also enjoy their participation in the event –it makes them feel proud, happy and satisfied.

There is a need to create culture of science communication

Popularization of science can be successful only in case it does not rely on scattered campaigns but instead gradually develops culture of science communication. This culture is a complex phenomenon comprising elements, such as:

• Developing communication skills among scientists
• Raising sensitivity of the general public towards science
• Active engagement of different public authorities, such as ministries, municipalities, national unions with promoting science culture
• Active involvement in science communication of mass media
• Special attention to school children and promoting science among them

Recommendations

The analysis of the way this science event was organized and carried out allows us to suggest two types of recommendations:

• Recommendations referring to carrying out the event in the future;
• Recommendations referring to the more general issue of popularizing science and the relations “science – lay community”.

Recommendations referring to carrying out the event in the future

• Needed is partnership with media with high circulation –newspaper and/or TV channel. Specialized journals such as that one which was part of the team, are very important but they have limited audience which is already “addicted” to science
• The event needs to be held not only in big cities but also in small towns and villages.
• The event will better take place in more diverse venues. In addition to the traditional spots such as universities and academy of sciences it will be better to held it in spots such as popular parks, malls, streets in a town.
• The event is to be advertised more aggressively during the last month before it’s start
• All rubrics on the web site of the event are to be constantly renewed with interesting information.
• This science event is worth becoming a tradition.

Recommendations referring to the more general issue of popularizing science and the relations “science – lay community”

• Events related to science should be organized in such way that they do not coincide with important political events. As we have found in our previous studies “politics is still the main topic the public is concerned with” (reference 1). This year the first press conference about this science event coincided with the terrorist attack on Israeli tourists in the town of Bourgas and this made it “invisible” for the mass media.
• As far as the different audiences use different information channels science popularization as well as of events related to it need to be advertised in as diverse media as possible –both “traditional” and new.
• In the bachelor and MA programs for journalists need to be introduced modules which provide specialized training for presenting science and events related to it. This is especially important for countries like this country that do not have tradition in reporting science and events related to it.
• Our analysis confirmed the conclusions that training scientists to communicate their research to the public needs to become a common policy of the European commission

References

1. Boyadjeva, P. Tchalakov, I. & Petkova, K. (1994). Science, Life Outside the Laboratory. Sofia: Bulgarian Academy Sciences Publishing House.

2. De Semir et al. (2012) The PLACES toolkit for the impact assessment of scince communication initiatives and policies. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.

3. Miller. S. (Group Lider). European Science Communication Workshop (ESCOnet), project funded under the 6Fp of EC. Project N 516861.

4. Lehmkuhl, M. Karamanidou, C. Mörä, T. Petkova, K. Trench, B, and AVSA Team (2012). Scheduling science on television: A comparative analysis of the representations of science in 11 European countries. Public Understanding of Science, 10.1177/0963662511436070

5. Petkova, K. & Boyadjieva, P. (1994) The Image of the Scientist and its Functions, Public Understanding of Science, 3: 215-224.