Our first academic journal paper from the Creative Science at Life research and development project has been published in Educational Action Research, in August 2017. Published by Routledge, the journal is concerned with exploring the dialogue between research and practice in educational settings. The focus of the paper is on the use of participatory action research (PAR) to enable university researchers and Science Centre professionals to co-design Informal Science Learning exhibits that enhance creativity and innovation in young people. We discuss how PAR enabled effective engagement with and creation of enriched knowledge and innovation, in both the academy and science-learning professionals. The added value of PAR and co-production to our project aligns with current calls in academia for a redefining of how societal impact of academic research is considered.
The team’s first poster ‘Simultaneous Human Behaviour Research & Public Engagement in Science Centres’ was presented at The European Human Behaviour and Evolution Association (EHBEA) 2017 Conference, held in Paris, 6-8 April 2017. EHBEA is an interdisciplinary society that supports the activities of European researchers with an interest in evolutionary accounts of human cognition, behaviour and society. The poster can be viewed and downloaded as a PDF. The poster is also being presented at the 2017 Culture Conference at the University of Birmingham, 25-26 May, where innovation in humans and non-humans and innovation’s role for cultural evolution will be the focus. More can be read about the project’s impact so far.
I just attended the Engage 2016 Conference, in Bristol, run by the National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement. I had no idea what to expect as conferences I usually attend are in areas where I have worked for over 15 years, such as primatology, animal behaviour, human behaviour and evolution. I found a large and friendly group of delegates who are variously academics involved in specific projects that engage the public in their research, individuals who promote engagement in their Universities, or individuals representing intermediaries for engagement, such as museums or science centres.
The purpose of attending the conference was to give a presentation about our interactive research pod and hopefully drum up interest in other academics and science centres/museums using it. So, I was essentially ‘on the sell’, but unusually for me, I was not presenting research findings but a product. The point is not to make money from our interactive research pod, but to encourage others to take up the design to enable more fruitful interactions between academics and museums or science centres. My selling points regarding the interactive research pod, in enabling live research on the gallery floor, had two general themes:
1. Collection of useful research data:
- We’ve already done all of the hard work piloting and testing ethical consent systems that work without a researcher being present as well as digital (video) data collection that is tied to that consent.
- You get to collect data from a diverse range of people in a natural context, who are acting naturally, as there is no experimenter present from whom they may feel pressure to perform in a certain way. This is known as ecological or external validity, the opposite of the picture !!
- You can collect loads of lovely data very cheaply and easily as a researcher does not need to be present. In fact in 8 months of intermittent data collection we collected data from over 5,000 visitors, 80% of whom consented to their data being used in our study. This means that the experimental control (or internal validity) we sacrifice for ecological validity is compensated for by our sample size. In other words, the sheer number of individuals interacting with the exhibit helps us to account effectively for the large variability in ages, ethnicities, prior experience, motivations etc. of the participants.
- A live research exhibit on the gallery floor is a cost, and time, effective way of collecting data as i) a researcher does not need to be present, ii) participants do not have to be recruited but come to you and iii) they do not require payment/reward.
2. Public Engagement:
- Both children and adults, alike, were enthused by interacting with an exhibit that enabled them to take part in real research. A bonus for engagement of the public in science; a key agenda for science centres/museums and academics alike. Indeed, many visitors spontaneously told us about factors they thought may influence our findings, such as their child having an autism spectrum disorder, or they had previously studied psychology, or that they had drunk a glass of wine at lunch time!
- The style of exhibit may go some way to alter perceptions regarding what ‘science’ is, as it can highlight research that is not only about mixing chemicals or using specialist equipment. Again, a plus for the agenda of science centres/museums.
- Visitors take away some understanding of the research that is taking place in the interactive research pod (or exhibit). This represents a feather in the academic’s hat regarding engagement with the public, as opposed to sitting in an ivory tower conducting research that is never explained, or is meaningless, to the general public.
I made several useful contacts regarding my mission for the day, but also discovered all sorts of exciting engagement projects featured by other presenters. The NCCPE gives an annual prize for the best engagement projects, and among them were two projects that stood out to me due to similarities in approach to our project. One, a pop up ‘Heart and Lung Convenience Store’, created a mini science centre in an empty shop for two weeks, to engage passers by in heart and lung health discoveries. Another project, involved the public in real research in order to engage young people in Cape Verde in turtle conservation. This project made me think about our future plans to include some citizen science in our project, whereby visitors not only act as participants in our research but also get to undertake some of the research themselves. For example, they may be able to rate the creativity of participants’ buildings. This would be very useful as judging creativity is very subjective and we need lots of people’s ratings in order to make our measures of creativity more consistent.
Now it is back to work and time to continue evaluating our interactive research pod. Hopefully, we can use this information to highlight how the pod can provide a win-win situation for academics and science centres alike, enabling public engagement and high quality rigorous disciplinary research.
As the nights draw in and the temperature drops with the fall into autumn in here in the UK, a trip to Tampa, Florida in late September could be seen by some as an excuse to stock up on Vitamin D! Team members Andy Lloyd and Dr Hannah Rudman enjoyed a few moments in the sun in Tampa, whilst spending most of their time at ASTC 2016, the annual international conference for the Association of Science and Technology Centers.
They presented to c. 70 Science and Technology professionals interested in the interactive research pod, and the data and ethical consent gathering tools that we have “Embedded in the Exhibit”. The pod was also mentioned in the opening article of the June 2016 edition of Dimensions, the quarterly glossy magazine of the ASTC community which was given away to all conference participants.
The wider conference was launched by a lively and inspiring opening session that included “artistic astronaut”, Nicole Stott, the first person to paint a work of art in space! Her commitment to ensuring creative approaches are a part of scientific endeavour mirrors our aspirations.
Team member Dr Claire Bailey-Ross met another astronaut just a few days later at the UK Association for Science and Discovery Centres’ 2016 national conference. She presented a Pecha Kucha about our project to c. 120 attendees, including UK astronaut Tim Peake, who was looking particularly 2D since his return from space…
Back at ASTC 2016, Linda Conlon, ASTC’s board chair (and chief executive of the International Centre for Life), then discussed why science centres must engage with refugees and migrants and rethink their business models if they are to survive and meet the needs of future audiences. Her key themes included the “new divide” between those who see an open world (with globalisation and technological change) as broadly beneficial and those who see these forces as threatening and destructive. The new politics of our age will not be “left versus right” but “open versus closed.” This idea links to the ASTC supported International Science Center & Science Museum Day 2016 experiment: a global citizen science observation of clouds. Science Centres and Museums all over the world are encouraging the general public to take images of clouds with their own devices between 1-22 October, then upload them via the Globe Observer app. The citizen science data will be shared with NASA to help them generate a global visualisation of cloud cover.
Back in the UK over the summer, we collected 2814 sets of data with ethical consent granted, a 79% acceptance rate from the general public to use their data for research. We are interested in how our research pod which is obviously already a popular science exhibit and research observatory, can begin to be used for/with citizen science projects. We are excited to consider how data generated and given ethical consent by the general public at the International Centre for Life can co-operate with and compliment official data, and can be shared openly.
Scientific theories can often be elegant, but the underbelly of scientific research is frequently messy, tiring work, and thoroughly inelegant. This is data collection. The same is true of cooking. No matter how beautifully planned a recipe can be on paper, inevitable practicalities always require pragmatic choices in its preparation. In carrying out our own data collection for the collaborative condition of our physical experiment at Newcastle’s Centre for Life, we encountered the challenging and thought-provoking practicalities that arise when working with children in the sometimes chaotic, constantly moving environment of the gallery floor. These are our experiences.
The data we collected are messy, in other words they are variable. Our idea was to get two, three, or more children to stand around a table and work together (the collaborative condition of our physical experiment) to construct something in the centre, using wooden blocks. This rarely occurred. Instead, with the provision of a footstool for smaller participants, the children frequently clustered around the protruding ‘peninsulas’ of our table. Or alternatively they took no permanent position and instead darted to and fro around the table’s edges to occupy different vantage points on their constructions, almost as bees construct their hive.
Messy data means there are multiple variables at play in each building group we observed. Children’s ages and sexes varied, as did their relations to each other (siblings, friends, strangers etc.). It is the job of data analysis to separate these variables out by comparing one group to another. We need this analysis because of a trade off we made between control over the experiment and the relevance of the experiment to the ‘real’ environment. By using children’s participation in a science centre exhibit as our experiment, we abstracted only somewhat from children’s ‘natural’ interactions with museum exhibits. We can therefore claim high relevance to the environment (‘ecological validity’), but we accordingly need intensive analysis after data collection to distinguish the variables at play.
In fact the varied behaviours of the children we observed appeared so interesting and accessible for data collection that we drew up a simple list of familiar behaviours (an ‘ethogram’) which we could note down as and when we saw them performed by the children. This neatly illustrates our pragmatic approach to data collection since the original idea was to focus just on the things children created from blocks. Among other variables, we collected information about where around the table children were standing, whenever they copied from each other, and each time they discussed their building or gave instructions.
By expanding into recording behaviours we hope to make use of these extra data to illuminate different perspectives on the findings from our first interest in the buildings themselves. Looking at behaviours allows us to ask questions such as: What is the impact of discussion on children’s innovation in building? Does the amount of copying correlate to different building types? and, What are the effects when children provide instruction to others? Asking these questions allows us a more comprehensive view of children’s collaborative building with blocks.
At the end of each build, we offered the children a sticker as a prize for participating. We give the child the sticker as a gift in return for our use of the data they have provided. It illustrates for the child that they have done us a favour by participating.
Of course the adult’s version of this symbol is the consent form. While issues of data privacy, security, and misuse are today widespread, we found most adults to be relaxed about their children’s participation. But some were anxious about the dangers of social media, some didn’t want their children filmed, others didn’t want to give family names or dates of birth. Collection of information from people can certainly be used for exploitative ends. Indeed the use of information derived from people without their consent can be considered a form of exploitation. In practicing ‘participatory’ action research, however, we try to generate new understandings in ways that we can all benefit.
We will therefore use our results to help the design of future exhibits at the Centre for Life. By doing data collection and research ‘in’ rather than ‘on’ the Centre for Life we hope not only that we can take part in the collective expansion of knowledge, but feed that knowledge back into the context from which we drew it to better understand and thereby improve that context for its visitors. This is our practical science.
by Zarja Muršič & Guy Lavender Forsyth
Imitation is one type of social learning, and it is one that humans are expert at. We are really very good at copying things around us, to the extent that some experiments have shown our willingness to copy even irrelevant, superfluous actions.
Take the example of trying to open a locked box. Imagine you are observing somebody trying to open the box. She grabs the red block on the box, then she opens the box by pulling a green string. What would you do to open the box? Grab the red block first or just the green string? In numerous cases experiments have shown our tendency to copy what we have observed and touch the red block first before opening the box by pulling the green string. This seems to remain true even when people can see that grabbing the red block does not have any functional role in opening the box. This example may be a little abstract, but in everyday life we copy others in the way we dress, eat, and act, as well as in the ways we solve problems.
In our ongoing research, using an exhibit where children build with wooden blocks, copying is clearly present as children depend on things they remember from daily life which they use to structure their buildings. We see very few buildings based upon novel abstract designs. They are overwhelmingly models of known things. These things vary wildly: from ‘army castles’ to elephants, and huts to smiley faces (complete with glasses). This copying is not restricted to depicting just the phenomena of the physical world: one boy’s ‘TNT cannon’ took inspiration from the virtual gaming world of Minecraft. And when not depicting ‘real’ things in miniature, the children tend to take their cues from (what we guess are) previous experiences with blocks similar to the ones we give them. This is especially the case with the game Jenga, which we have found to be absolutely endemic to the minds of the visiting public in the Centre for Life. Jenga appears strongly associated with the specific geometrical pattern in children. This remains true whether it be a classic Jenga tower like the ones we invariably toppled on wintry evenings as kids or, more adventurously, challenging the 90º angle tradition through addition of diagonals.
The deviation from the Jenga model supplied to the children is perhaps evidence of one crucial capacity of human beings. When pre-existing structures are reproduced with embellishments, culture can become cumulative. It is such cumulative accumulation of elaborations and refinements, over generations, that is what gives us cars, computers, and space travel. It is also what gives us science like that we are conducting in the Centre for Life.
Cumulative culture is widely thought to be dependent on exact copying, and so by the time we are toddlers we are already accomplished in copying both peers and, more commonly, adults. Humans have many biases in their copying, for example one study found that children copy adults more often than they do a more knowledgeable child. On the other hand, when it comes to play, children copy their peers more often than adults. Thus we can say that the setting and context in which we put the child influences the way she behaves.
We are currently studying these topics in the Centre for Life. We don’t give children puzzle boxes that are often used in psychological research (i.e. the locked box described at the beginning of this post). Instead we present children with an open-ended task involving building blocks, which offers them the opportunity to be creative. Children are faced with wooden blocks and all we ask of them is to build something.
Currently we (Guy, an undergraduate student at Durham University’s Anthropology department, and Zarja, a PhD student from the same department), are conducting a study in which we explore the ways children build together in groups, and what it is they build. We see lots of children copying each other, but at the same time innovation or invention, both of which are required for cumulative culture.
We also have lots of fun after the children build their structures, since we get to ask them some questions. One of these questions being whether they copied (or not) when building, and why they did so.
Here is a snippet of their answers regarding why they didn’t copy:
“Copying is stupid. It might be wrong, e.g. in a test. You haven’t actually learned anything.”
“She [my sister] wouldn’t like it.”
“It’s stealing their ideas.”
“I like my own ideas.”
We are not yet sure what these responses mean for our study. But we will keep you updated with our results. We hope what we find will enable us to see the extent to which copying and innovation do actually occur when children are working in groups, in the relaxed atmosphere of the Centre for Life.
The team have been busy again this month, developing pathways from the project for impact. Claire and Hannah were invited to share learnings and speak at the Evolution of Methodologies conference on 29th June, held at The National Glass Centre in Sunderland.
80 participants gathered to consider how artists and designers are evolving practice based research at the conference funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council and organised by the Northumbria- Sunderland Centre for Doctoral Training in Art and Design.
Together, we critically interrogated practice-led research methodologies across creative disciplines. We discussed the Participatory Action Research methodology and design thinking practices which have informed the work to date. The slides of our presentation can be viewed here:
And the whole session can be watched on demand here (we start at 1:06:35):
The presentation generated a lot of discussion in the Q&A session, and the team has since been invited to contribute a chapter to a new book to be published by Routledge: ‘Transcending Disciplinarity; Reconnecting Philosophies of Research Design and Methodology in Art and Science’.