Why people attend science festivals: Interests,motivations and self-reported benefits of public engagement with research

1. Introduction

In response to government and professional commitments to communicating science to lay publics (Holliman and Jensen, 2009; Jensen and Wagoner, 2009), the UK has seen the proliferation of a diversity of ‘science engagement’ activities that are not linked directly to government policy. Amongst these activities, science festivals have become a key site for engaging publics with contemporary scientific research. It remains relatively unclear, however, why publics attend such science engagement events and what they believe they are gaining from them. This study evaluates visitors’ science engagement interests, motivations and self-reported impacts within the context of a large regional university-led UK science festival. To gain these insights, this study draws upon mixed methods data from on-site surveys (n = 957), a web-based follow-up survey (n = 73) and focus groups (n = 13).

2. Public engagement with science

Calls for expanded public engagement with the sciences have gained widespread support in UK science policy discourse in recent years (House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, 2000; Irwin, 2009). Indeed, “public engagement has become the new mantra (at least in UK and EU science policy)” (MacNaghten, Kearnes and Wynne, 2005: 281). In calling for sustained engagement between the sciences and publics, the House of Lords (2000), Royal Society and other think tanks and stakeholders (e.g. Stilgoe, Irwin and Jones, 2006) have argued that the sciences should go well beyond traditional, formal contexts for science communication to engage publics through activities in informal settings, such as science cafes, public lectures and science festivals (Holliman et al., 2009).

‘Public engagement’ can be seen as an umbrella term within which ‘public communication’, ‘public consultation’ and ‘public participation’ all fall (Rowe and Frewer, 2005). However, Rowe and Frewer (2005: 254) distinguish between public participation exercises, where “information of some sort flows from the public to the exercise sponsors”, and communication exercises, where information flows “solely from ‘sponsors’ to the public”. The House of Lords Science and Technology report of 2000 articulated the call for a shift away from didactic modes of science communication and towards two-way or dialogic forms of public engagement (House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, 2000).

Scholarship on public participation exercises has been well-developed in journals such as Public Understanding of Science. Yet, there is a relative paucity of rigorous empirical and conceptual scholarship addressing how informal (i.e. non-policy linked) public engagement events like science festivals, or ‘communication’-oriented engagement activities more generally, are viewed by publics. Drawing upon public feedback to investigate visitors’ experience of attending a science festival, this study contributes to ongoing theoretical, policy and practical debates about how an informal public engagement infrastructure should best be developed to serve the needs of publics and scientific institutions in contemporary societies.

3. Science festivals – background and context

In key UK government documents defining public engagement, festivals top the list of activities in which researchers can engage publics on a volunteer basis (National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement, 2011; Research Councils UK, 2010). Indeed, while a recent European Science Events Association (EUSCEA) survey described science festivals as a ‘relatively new’ phenomenon (EUSCEA, 2005: 5), science festivals are increasingly prevalent within the broader spectrum of informal science engagement events internationally. For example, a worldwide survey of 94 science festivals in 2008 found that about half of the science festivals in the survey had started between 2006 and 2008, with only five starting prior to 1995 (Bultitude, McDonald and Custead, 2011). The UK currently has a comparatively ‘vibrant’ science festival schedule (Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, 2008), with 11 large science festivals taking place each year (Wellcome Trust, 2010). These events are attended by a small but notable minority of the UK population. Specifically, an Ipsos MORI (2011) UK public opinion survey found that 3% of those surveyed said they had visited a science festival in the last year.

The history of UK science festivals can be traced back to the British Association for the Advancement of Science’s annual conference, founded in 1831 to encourage discussion between scientists and other learned men in order to promote scientific progress (British Science Association, 2009b). The annual conference was renamed a Festival of Science in the 1980s and is now the British Science Festival. Contemporary science festivals tend to bring together temporary exhibits, museum activities, scientists, arts organisations, school pupils and publics to create time-limited special events. Science festivals may be managed by different types of organisations, including science museums and centres, universities, independent charities, research councils, local government or government-funded agencies (Buckley and Hordijenko, 2011; EUSCEA, 2005: 13). The larger UK science festivals attract visitor numbers ranging from 6,000 to 50,000+ (Technopolis Group, 2008: 57).

Science festivals exemplify the mix of aims and methods that defines contemporary science engagement practice in informal settings (Holliman and Jensen, 2009; Holliman et al., 2009). As a result of organisational models that tend to involve various partners to deliver the festivals, numerous purposes and motivations for engagement can define one festival. In this context, Irwin’s (2008) taxonomy of ‘first’, ‘second’ and ‘third’ order science engagement offers some conceptual clarity.

Irwin defines ‘first order’ science engagement as based on the aims of promoting science learning, ‘awareness’, greater interest in science amongst publics and increased numbers of children ultimately interested in scientific careers. Events framed within a first order public engagement invite publics to learn more about scientific perspectives, but do not require scientists to learn more about publics’ perspectives. Such first order framing predominates in science festivals. For example, in the EUSCEA (2005) survey, the most widely shared objective of science festivals was to ‘raise public awareness of science’.

According to Irwin (2008), ‘second order’ public engagement activities are defined by the goal of achieving a two-way ‘dialogue’ and the exchange of perspectives and knowledge between sciences and publics. Framing a public engagement event in second order terms means that both the experts and non-experts are presumed to have valuable knowledge to offer each other. Second order public engagement is also incorporated (albeit with far less prevalence) in some science festivals. Finally, Irwin (2008) defines ‘third order’ engagement as communication that connects the sciences with a wider social context, wherein techno-scientific development is directed towards social needs. This third order approach involves pluralistic stakeholder perspectives engaging in reflexive, critically-informed discussions and debates about how the sciences can do the most good for society. In this third order frame, the perspectives of sciences and publics become integrated as science is infused with public values. Such third order framing is typically beyond the scope of science festivals; however, instances of third order engagement may emerge organically through informal discussions as well as dialogue-oriented events within science festivals such as science cafes.

Considering science festivals’ aims, it is noteworthy that distinctive science engagement formats are employed in science festivals alongside more conventional methods of science communication that one might encounter in science museums, science centres and scientists’ presentations in schools. The engagement methods found within science festivals include:

A defining characteristic of festivals is their transience: “it would be difficult to induce and sustain the same sense of occasion and excitement if such an event was to be held more frequently” (Derrett, 2004: 33). Indeed, science festivals, such as the present case, tend to differ from activities provided by science museums and centres because of both their temporary nature and their focus on current scientific research. Festivals tend to offer a wide range of potential experiences within the time-limited science festival context. One consequence of this temporality is that investment may be made in a level of activity which would be hard to sustain for a longer period. For example, many science festivals also have high levels of intensive volunteer participation by scientists, university students, technologists and engineers (Jensen and Buckley, 2011). The number and scope of the involvement of this volunteer scientific expertise plays a key role in positive visitor impacts. Indeed, a comparative study of new US science festivals found that: “interaction with science professionals during festival events is the strongest predictor of better outcomes for attendees (attendees reporting an interaction with a science professional were 15%–19% more likely to report positive learning impacts” (Science Festival Alliance, 2012: 24).

4. Prior visitor research on science festivals

Most prior studies of visitor responses at science festivals have been practically-oriented evaluations of outputs and attendance. These studies were carried out by festival organisers or (less frequently) by commissioned external evaluators. Very few studies have focused on visitors’ views and reached the quality threshold (Jensen, 2011) to be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

The few studies on visitor responses at science festivals that can be found in the public domain are often very limited methodologically and focused on specific, individual events, not the full experience of attending the science festival as a whole. For example, 57% of respondents indicated they understood the description on the poster at a ‘radiation fair’ in Osaka, Japan, in 1996, after viewing a display and description of irradiated potatoes (Furuta et al., 1998). This kind of self-reported understanding offers little insight into the impact or value of the session or the science-related fair overall. At the 2003 Cheltenham Science Festival, there was a panel discussion and question and answer session called ‘Recycling is Rubbish’. An event-specific evaluation of this session found that only 28% of the audience recycled plastic before the event, but 48% claimed they would continue or start to do so by the end (Grant, 2005: 170–171). Such individual event evaluations offer limited insight into science festival visitors’ overall experiences, which involve attending multiple events on multiple subjects in a distinctive festive setting.

On the occasions when evaluations have reported on visitors’ responses to science festivals, only closed-ended response questions are typically used, thereby limiting validity (e.g. British Science Association, 2009a; Oxfordshire Science Festival, 2009). Generally, festival evaluations tend to find that a majority of visitors report satisfaction with science festival events (British Science Association, 2009a; Grant, 2004; Oxfordshire Science Festival, 2009), and that visitors’ most commonly self-reported benefits of attendance are related to learning more scientific information and an increased interest in science (Nash and Haste, 2007; Oxfordshire Science Festival, 2009). An unpublished evaluation of the 2004 Cheltenham Science Festival came to similar conclusions (Grant, 2004). Their evaluation survey asked 93 visitors on-site to circle three words from a list of 13 adjectives ¹ (both positive and negative) describing the festival overall. The most commonly selected words were ‘interesting’ and ‘informative’. However, given that these words were the researcher’s and not the visitors’, the validity of these data is questionable. The over-reliance on closed-response survey questions in previous studies does not allow for a detailed understanding of processes of visitor reception of science festival events. As such, little is known about why publics visit such festivals and what they believe they gain from them.

Drawing upon the Cambridge Science Festival’s external evaluation and a linked academic research report, this study investigates visitors’ views on the Festival experience in depth through quantitative and qualitative analysis of survey responses and focus groups. Key research questions addressed through this study include: What are the patterns of visitor interest and reception at the Cambridge Science Festival? What, if anything, about the science festival experience is valued by visiting publics?

5. Methods

A combination of methods was employed in this study with the aim of methodological triangulation. Methodological triangulation compensates for the strengths and weaknesses inherent in any one data collection method by using overlapping methods on the same topic. In the present case, quantitative data from the on-site questionnaire (n = 957) provided the overview perspective of general patterns of visitor motivations and reception of science festival events, while the online questionnaire and focus groups offered the opportunity to explore these patterns in greater depth. The science festival experience is inherently variegated. The visitor experience unfolds based on the interaction between individual interests and available science engagement activities. As such, we make no pretence in this study that all respondents were exposed to the same experience. Rather, we have collected data on a large set of individual experiences and examined these accounts for common themes.

Data analysis

Grounded theory approach

Qualitative data analysis for this study followed a grounded theory approach (e.g. Jensen, 2008; Jensen and Holliman, 2009; Strauss and Corbin, 1998). The analysis began inductively with line-by-line ‘open coding’ to identify emergent patterns. This coding process involved interrogating the data, making comparisons and developing labels and groupings for similar phenomena (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). The next step in the sequence for the grounded analysis approach is ‘axial coding’, which involves restructuring data to make new connections and refine the categories for the analysis. These categories are then applied deductively at this stage to systematically identify all data relevant to each coding category. Finally, representative quotations are selected from the most substantial categories for inclusion in the write-up of the results. These analytic procedures were carried out using the computer-aided qualitative data analysis software program Atlas.ti.

Grounded content analysis of on-site survey data

The on-site survey yielded a large qualitative data set, which was first analysed inductively to identify coding categories for a quantitative content analysis. This means that content analysis codes were derived from the data rather than imposing codes based on an a priori framework. For the quantitative analysis, all content matching the definitions of the different coding categories was systematically identified. In so doing, the qualitative data were converted into quantitative data. This quantitative content analysis process was conducted by a trained undergraduate communication studies student.

Table 1 provides exemplar extracts from the data to illustrate the codes. First, generic ‘good’ or ‘bad’ Festival experiences overall were coded as ‘positive’ or ‘negative’. The second dimension reported in the present study is ‘Self-reported Impact’. Specifically, the range of perceived beneficial aspects of the science festival were coded, with the three most frequently identified codes reported in Table 1.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Coding of generic comments and self-reported impacts.

Positive	General	“excellent”
		“well worth coming”
Negative	General	“not science, biased religious propaganda has no place at a science festival”
		“terrible, nothing of value”
Creating Interest	Self-reported Impact	“informative insights, provocative”
		“exciting, colourful, creative, unusual, inspiring, bright”
Knowledge	Self-reported Impact	“an informative discussion”
		“it was very informative and everything was very relevant”
Participation	Self-reported Impact	“very informative and interactive – good to see so much audience participation”
		“Excellent! Generated lively debate between speakers and audience”

Subsequently, the coded on-site survey data were treated as comprising a quantitative dependent variable.

6. On-site survey results

The key questions in the on-site questionnaire related to visitors’ experience of the Festival were: (1) a 5-point Likert scale asking respondents to rate the event they attended from ‘Excellent’ to ‘Poor’ and (2) an open-ended question asking “what did you think of the event?” This section begins with general results based on these two questions.

The overall level of satisfaction with the science festival events was very high. ⁵ With ‘1’ as ‘Poor’ and ‘5’ as ‘Excellent’, the mean rating was 4.53. Qualitative responses to the question asking what visitors thought of the Festival were converted into quantitative data through content analysis, as described above. General comments about the science festival were overwhelmingly positive, as can be seen in Table 2. Responses related to ‘Self-reported Impact’ emphasised that the science festival was valued most for ‘Creating Interest’ and enhancing ‘Knowledge’. The three most frequently occurring self-reported impacts are reported in Table 2.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

General views and self-reported impacts.

Code category	Code	Number
General	Positive	156
General	Negative	6
Self-reported Impact	Creating Interest	230
Self-reported Impact	Knowledge	125
Self-reported Impact	Interactivity	23

It is noteworthy that ‘Creating Interest’ was mentioned with a higher frequency than direct knowledge gains. This dimension of inspiring interest and curiosity in science is the most significant contribution of the science festival experience for attendees, based on this analysis. Moreover, as the extended survey and focus group results indicate, ‘Creating Interest’ is connected to the psychological immediacy of the live, highly social, science engagement experience, which distinguishes science festivals from many other science engagement contexts.

7. Extended web-based survey results: Most ‘successful’ and ‘unsuccessful’ aspects

Firstly, there was clear evidence of self-reported benefits of attendance in the domain of improved ‘Knowledge and Understanding’ for a majority of web-based survey respondents (n = 45). For example:

I feel that I now have a greater understanding of mathematics and astronomy. I am also aware of what educational opportunities may be available to my sons. (F, ⁶ web-based survey)

In the following extract, the respondent indicates that she gained an increased knowledge about the science of sound through informal discussion with a psychology researcher:

Learned a lot from talking to a man in [Experimental Psychology] about compression of sound in relation to hearing aids and digital recording of music. (F, web-based survey)

Responses such as these suggest informal discussions between scientists and publics within the science festival were viewed by some respondents as useful means for developing ‘knowledge and understanding’. It is worth noting that in these particular cases, the engagement that is taking place is more or less ‘first order’. The focus in these comments on such self-reported first order engagement outcomes signals a positive orientation towards this category of public engagement.

When asked directly about what the most successful element of the Festival was for them, most responses named individual events, with particular lecturers often singled out. The most common answer could be categorised as ‘lectures in general’.

The talks I attended were great because they were aimed at a general audience of educated adults and they kept it fun, relevant, and informative (not too dry or technical). (F, web-based survey)

Respondents who had attended with children were more likely to identify the hands-on events and ‘family’ talks as particularly successful:

As always [the most successful element was] the lectures and the chemistry labs where the children wear the lab coats and goggles and actually get to ‘do’ the experiments themselves. (F, web-based survey)

The two extracts included above show respondents praising different kinds of science festival event formats. These data indicate that respondents value the inclusion within the Festival programme of a range of different types of science engagement aimed at different ages and levels of scientific interest.

8. Focus group results

The focus group results highlighted the special role of the science festival, which was perceived as creating stronger, more memorable impressions by virtue of its status as a time-limited ‘live event’.

As this focus group discussion continued, the interactive, ‘live’ science festival experience was compared with science broadcasting. This discussion suggests that the ‘buzz’ of the science festival context may reach individuals at a different level than science broadcasts, as well as possibly allowing for discussion of more complex topics.

The potential for “higher level” first order engagement enabled by interaction with scientific researchers (“leaders in their field”) is emphasised above. Similarly, one focus group participant commented on the unusual opportunity to delve beyond the surface level of science afforded by scientists’ participation in the Festival.

A vast number of the population don’t understand what science is about and what it means when it says on the news, ‘Scientists say that…’; What does that actually mean? How have they drawn those conclusions? The Science Festival is an opportunity to say, ‘This is how science works, how it knows what it knows’ […], which is really important […] whether you want to be a scientist or not. To understand what science is, is important […] not just to understand the end results. (M, Audience Focus Group 1 – Cambridge)

While the benefits of attending the Festival enumerated by most focus group participants centre on first order engagement within Irwin’s (2008) taxonomy, the extract above suggests a connection to third order engagement concerns with the context of science and its role in society.

Beyond interaction with scientists, the diversity of science engagement formats was also highlighted as a positive aspect of the science festival. One discussion focused on positive adult-oriented experiences, balanced against a broader appreciation for the fact that there were also many activities oriented towards children:

Taken together, the focus group results suggest the potential for science festivals to provide publics with information and conceptual tools to understand scientific developments in a diversity of subject areas. These experiences are underpinned by the unique context that brings together the excitement or ‘buzz’ of a festival with the unusual opportunity for publics to interact with active scientific researchers and experience a wide range of different science engagement activities. Third order engagement may arise unplanned at a micro-level within science festivals, as they provide opportunities for publics to critically discuss scientific developments with scientists and other publics.

9. Discussion

This research casts light on publics’ experiences in science festivals, as one increasingly widespread manifestation of the ascendant public engagement agenda in UK and EU public policy. The fact that public engagement events more generally are sometimes well attended is one indicator that this agenda may have some purchase with some publics. However, this study goes further to develop an understanding of what visitors find valuable (or not) about informal science engagement events and activities within a festival setting.

Respondents valued both presentations and informal interactions with active scientific researchers who gave insights into “how science works, how it knows what it knows” and opportunities to “go and chat” with practising scientists. These experiences are underpinned by the unique science festival context that brings together the diverse cultural appeal of a festival (including open days, performances, talks and activities) with the unusual opportunity for publics to interact with active scientific researchers. ‘Hands-on’ activities of the kind seen in many science centres also feature heavily in the overall science festival programme and the availability of such family-friendly activities was valued by visitors.

An aspect of visitor responses to the Festival that was notable for its absence was negative comments about the predominately first order public engagement on offer at the Festival. Rather, visitors reported that they enjoyed developing new areas of scientific interest and enhanced scientific understanding of the world around them. While many Festival activities are interactive, they typically take place within a general first order framework of the knowledgeable scientific expert educating or inspiring less scientifically knowledgeable publics – not entering into an authentic second order dialogue between equals.

There was no evidence that publics were seeking a fundamental shift away from first order public engagement. Indeed, the results of this study could be considered as supporting the continuation of a ‘mixed economy’ of different ‘orders’ of public engagement in the field of science engagement (see Holliman and Jensen, 2009). Based on the present study, we would argue that practitioners should recognise and employ a range of engagement methods to meet the requirements of particular contexts and publics. Certainly, this study indicates that ‘first order’ forms of public engagement aimed at ‘informing’, ‘enthusing’ or ‘educating’ should not be assumed a priori to be inherently flawed. At the same time, the possibility of spontaneously arising third order public engagement occurring within predominately first order settings, casts doubt on the idea that these orders of engagement are necessarily linked to deep “intellectual and political roots” (Irwin, 2008: 203).

The present research highlights the need for greater conceptual clarity about the distinctions that exist within each of the ‘orders’ of public engagement identified by Irwin (2008). Negative visitor comments about the lack of debate between speakers (not between speakers and publics) at the science festival may indicate one of the potential fault lines for science engagement events such as this. Specifically, publics may be seeking access to a more processual account of scientific knowledge within a first order public engagement setting, rather than just the ‘ready made’ science that the public relations end of the science engagement field might advocate. This points to the importance of first order public engagement activities maintaining an openness and honesty with visiting publics about the uncertainties inherent in scientific research. Seeking to downplay scientific disagreements and only presenting a sanitised public relations version of science to publics, risks damaging the very science/society relationship and scientific citizenship that science festivals and other venues for public engagement with research are supposed to nourish.

The potential for the science festival experience to reinforce an unrealistic vision of science must be taken into account when evaluating its role as a site for informal science engagement. The motivations of the volunteer scientists participating in the Festival tend to be on the side of persuading people that science is an enjoyable and worthwhile activity (Holliman and Jensen, 2009; Holliman et al., 2009). The ways in which this message is conveyed and the enjoyment-centric context of the Festival, may frame science inaccurately. Of course, scientific practice is by and large a matter of painstaking labour, and this aspect of science is heavily downplayed in the science festival context in order to maintain the focus on enjoyment that most institutions, including television and museums, see as essential for gaining and maintaining a broad public audience. The question of whether the impacts of such representations of science are ultimately negative for visiting publics would require a different form of evaluation than that employed for the present study. An evaluation that directly measured individuals’ thinking about science before, during and after the festival experience would more fully address the risk that some individuals may value and enjoy science festival experiences, yet be worse off in terms of their understanding of science. This impact question holds clear implications for any judgement about the effectiveness of science festivals as intermediary spaces facilitating engagement between sciences and publics (Jensen and Wagoner, 2012).

10. Conclusion

This study has identified distinctive patterns of visitor reception relating to the ‘live’ engagement context of a science festival. The on-site survey showed that the self-reported festival impact of ‘creating interest’ was by far the most frequently reported by survey respondents. This suggests that while knowledge acquisition is an important benefit of science festival attendance for some, the opportunity to encounter science in an “exciting” or “inspiring” context is a much more commonly perceived benefit of attendance. This finding makes sense given the time-limited nature of the science festival experience. Treating the Festival as an opportunity to dabble in a number of different scientific domains in order to identify areas of interest for later development, emerged as a typical visitor reception pattern across the three data sets examined in this study. Thus, the value of ‘first order’ science engagement for science festival visitors is clearly not a simple matter of knowledge acquisition. Participants emphasised the immediacy and interactivity of the science festival experience, the diversity of public engagement formats, opportunities for social interaction and learning and access to active scientific researchers as a unique combination not offered by other science engagement settings.

Large-scale surveys continue to suggest that the British public generally values scientific research (Ipsos MORI, 2011; Research Councils UK, 2008). Where this public support for science comes from remains under-explored. Science festivals and other modes of engagement may explain part of this macro-sociological pattern. However, to further develop understanding in this domain, future research should consider the long-term impacts of science festivals well beyond the seven-week time threshold covered in the present study (Dawson and Jensen, 2011). In addition, the ways in which science festivals interlock with other forms of science engagement, such as museums and science broadcasts, could be fruitfully explored using idiographic methods (e.g. Wagoner, 2008; Wagoner and Jensen, 2010). Such long-term impact evaluation holds the key to understanding informal science engagement’s role in people’s lives. Moreover, it can help assess the relative contribution of informal science engagement to the development of a healthy relationship between science and society.