External Evaluation Report:
Science in Norwich Day
Dr Eric Jensen1
University of Warwick
1.
Assistant Professor
Department of Sociology
University of Warwick
e.jensen@warwick.ac.uk
http://warwick.academia.edu/EricJensen
7 May 2012
Table of Contents
Executive Summary.................................................................................................................... 4
Visitor Profile ................................................................................................................................... 4
Quantitative Results: Visitor Experience and Satisfaction............................................................... 5
Qualitative Results: Visitor Feedback and Impacts.......................................................................... 5
Science Communicator Profile ......................................................................................................... 6
Science Communicator Results........................................................................................................ 6
Introduction: Science Festival-based Public Engagement ..................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Methods ..........................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Visitor Evaluation Methods .............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Science Communicator Evaluation Methods .................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Visitor Evaluation: Quantitative Results ...........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Visitor Profile .................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Gender and Age Distribution of Visitors ....................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Visitor Group Distribution ............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Geographical Distribution of Visitors ............................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Annual Household Income ............................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Education Levels of Visitor Respondents ...................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Level of Prior Participation in Science in Norwich Day and Duration of VisitsError! Bookmark not de
Respondents’ General Interest in Science (Outside of Science Event Context)Error! Bookmark not d
Marketing of Science in Norwich Day ........................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Visitor Satisfaction ............................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Disabled Visitors............................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Visitor Evaluation: Qualitative Results ..............................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Qualitative Aspects of Science in Norwich Day Visitor Experience .. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Visitor Understandings of ‘Science’: Pre-Event ............................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Visitor Understandings of ‘Science’: Pre and Post Event ComparisonError! Bookmark not defined.
Visitor Impressions of Science in Norwich Day: Pre-Event ........... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Visitor Impressions of Science in Norwich Day: Pre and Post Event ComparisonError! Bookmark not
Valuing Science in Norwich Day .................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Visitor Experiences at Science in Norwich Day ............................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Self-Reported Gains and Losses from Attending the Event.......... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Small-Scale Studies of Pre- and Post-Event Visitor Experiences ...... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Science Communicator Evaluation: Quantitative and Qualitative ResultsError! Bookmark not defined.
Science Communicator Demographic Profile ................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Age and Gender Distribution of Science Communicators ............ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Professional Status and Scientific Career Stage of Science CommunicatorsError! Bookmark not defi
Previous Experience of Science Communication at Science in Norwich Day and
Elsewhere ...................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Marketing of the Event to Science Communicators ..................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Quantitative Results: Science Communicator Experience and SatisfactionError! Bookmark not defined
Support from Event Organisers .................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Satisfaction Levels from Science Communicator Participants...... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Dissatisfaction from Science Communicator Participants ............ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Self-Reported Science Communicator Achievements through Participating in the
Event ............................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Qualitative Results: Science Communicator Feedback and Impacts Error! Bookmark not defined.
Science Communicators’ ‘Best’ Experiences at Science in Norwich DayError! Bookmark not defined
Thus, science communicators’ favoured aspects of the experience at Science in
Norwich Day centred on the visitors and their enthusiasm for scientific topics.Error! Bookmark not
Science Communicators’ ‘Worst’ Experiences at Science in Norwich DayError! Bookmark not define
Science Communicators’ Pre-Event Understandings of ‘the Public’Error! Bookmark not defined.
Science Communicators’ Understandings of ‘the Public’: Pre- and Post-Event
Comparison ................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Science Communicators’ Thinking about Science in Norwich Day Pre-EventError! Bookmark not def
Science Communicators’ Thinking about Science in Norwich Day Post-EventError! Bookmark not de
Science Communicators’ Pre-Event Perceptions of ‘Public Engagement with
Science’ ......................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Science Communicators’ Post-Event Perceptions of ‘Public Engagement with
Science’ ......................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Small-Scale Case Studies of Pre-/Post-Event Science Communicator ExperiencesError! Bookmark not d
Science Communicator Small-Scale Case Study 1: Transformations in ViewsError! Bookmark not de
Science Communicator Small-Scale Case Study 2: Stable Views of ‘the Public’Error! Bookmark not d
Science Communicator Small-Scale Case Study 3: Stable Views about Event and
Publics ........................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Science Communicator Small-Scale Case Study 4: Stable Views .. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 7
References .......................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix 1: Visitor Case Studies Table .............................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix 2: Science Communicator Case Studies Table ....................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Executive Summary
This report describes key findings from an evaluation study based on survey data
from visitors and science communicators involved in organising and delivering
activities at Science in Norwich Day on Saturday 24 March 2012. Evaluation data
were gathered from respondents before and after the event in order to gain deeper
insights into visitors’ and organisers’ experiences and views about this form of
festival-based public engagement with science.
Visitor Profile

The majority of visitor respondents (76.9%; n=30) were attending Science in
Norwich Day for the first time.

The overall gender breakdown amongst visitor respondents was 58% (n=22)
women or girls, and 42% (n=16) men or boys. Thus, the overall gender
distribution for this sample of festival visitors was slightly skewed towards
women and girls.

The visitor ages most represented are from 36-50 (41%; n=32), with very
young visitors age 1-10 also heavily represented (26.9%; n=21). 19-25 yearolds and those over age 51 are relatively under-represented in this event
based on the present data. This pattern is consistent with the conclusion that
the predominant demographic pattern for Science in Norwich Day comprises
family visits, with parents and their relatively young children attending.

Annual household income for visitors was relatively evenly divided above and
below the line for average earnings in the region in which Science in Norwich
Day takes place. Visitors were somewhat more likely to be above the average
earning line, with 42.5% (n=17) earning more than £20,000 annually.
However, a substantial 35% (n=14) reported earning less than £20,000 per
year (22.5% chose not to provide an answer). This suggests that Science in
Norwich Day is reaching relatively low-income individuals in the Norwich
area, while the overall pattern is slightly skewed towards above average
earners.

35% (n=14) of visitors reported attending in groups of two, and 37.5% (n=15)
of visitors came in groups of 3-4 people. Relatively few visitors came alone
(12.5%; n=5) or in groups of six or more (2.5%; n=1). This provides further
support for the conclusion that Science in Norwich Day is a ‘family’ event. It
also highlights the fact that the visiting experience at this science festival is
inherently social, with the event drawing in pre-existing pairs and groups.

Results indicate that the profile of visitors to Science in Norwich Day is
predominately local (94.6% of visitors travelling 20 miles or less), and to a
much lesser extent regional.
Quantitative Results: Visitor Experience and Satisfaction

A remarkable 92.5% of respondents said they felt ‘very satisfied’ or ‘satisfied’
with Science in Norwich Day, while just 5% were ‘very dissatisfied’ with the
event.

50% of visitor respondents indicated in their post-visit questionnaire that
they spent about three hours at Science in Norwich Day, 25% spent two
hours, 12.5% spent one hour, and 12.5% where at the event for about four
hours.
Qualitative Results: Visitor Feedback and Impacts

Visitors self-reported the perceived value of the visit, stating that they
learned a lot and that it had increased their enthusiasm for various science
topics.

Furthermore, local visitors valued the opportunity to learn about their town,
and to engage with their community. This latter category of responses
supports the idea that events like Science in Norwich Day can contribute to
civic engagement.

Respondents gave positive feedback about the perceived ‘hands-on’
interactivity at Science in Norwich Day and the availability of the large
number of stalls/displays as effectively engaging people with different levels
of interest in particular scientific topics.

Respondents frequently used the word ‘fun’ to describe their experiences at
Science in Norwich Day.

Both the diversity of subject matter available at Science in Norwich Day as
well as the range of different kinds and difficulty levels of activities that were
available were highlighted as very positive aspects of this event in
respondents’ feedback.

Respondents highlighted the inclusivity of Science in Norwich Day and
appreciated the underlying commitment to reaching out to the broader
community that was evinced by the very existence of the event.

Respondents’ complaints were generally a result of organisational or
logistical problems and especially the physical limitations of event spaces as
opposed to the actual content of the activities, presentations and events.

Expressions of the value of visiting Science in Norwich Day tend to connect
short-term affective impacts, such as pleasure and excitement, with a selfreported increase in curiosity and the desire to learn more.
Science Communicator Profile

The majority of science communicator respondents (68.8%; n=11) had
previously participated in Science in Norwich Day. Moreover, 50% (n=3) of
scientists (postgraduates, early or mid career scientists) had participated in
Science in Norwich Day in the past. This indicates that the event is drawing in
some new engagement practitioners (particularly from within the subcategory of practicing early-mid career scientists) while retaining a majority
of science communicators from year to year overall.

Overall, 43.8% (n=7) of science communicators had previously participated in
other science outreach or public engagement other than Science in Norwich
Day. This means that for a majority of participating science communicators,
Science in Norwich Day is comprises their only experience of science
engagement with publics.

The majority of science communicator respondents (41.2%; n=7) considered
themselves to be ‘science communicators.’ The remaining science
communicator respondents were ‘postgraduate scientists’ (11.8%; n=2),
‘early-career scientists’ (11.8%; n=2) or ‘mid-career scientists’ (11.8%; n=2)
and ‘other’ (23.5%; n=4).

The overall gender breakdown within the science communicator group was
70.6% (n=12) women, and 29.4% (n=5) men. Thus, the overall gender
distribution for this sample of festival science communicators was skewed
towards female science communicators.

The science communicator ages most represented are from 24-35 (46.7%;
n=7) and 36-50 (46.7%; n=7). Science communicators over the age of 55 were
under-represented in this event.
Science Communicator Results

Science communicators indicated they would like more logistical information
from organisers in advance of Science in Norwich Day.

Science communicators evinced a very high level of satisfaction with their
experience at Science in Norwich Day. Specifically, 69.2% (n=9) of
respondents stating they were ‘very satisfied, and 30.8% (n=4) indicating they
were ‘satisfied’. No respondents stated they were ‘somewhat satisfied’,
‘neutral’, ‘somewhat dissatisfied’, ‘dissatisfied’, or ‘very dissatisfied’.

Thought-listing responses about ‘the public’ pre- and post-event show more
of a differentiation between science communicators and the public postevent. That is, science communicators indicated more distance between
themselves and publics post-event than they did pre-event. This may be due
in part to the perception of the large number of visitors as a ‘crowd’.

The primary thought associated with Science in Norwich Day for participating
science communicators was ‘busy’. In the pre-event thought-listing data,
‘busy’ and ‘fun’ were equally prominent in science communicators’
perceptions of Science in Norwich Day. Post-event, ‘fun’ had receded and
‘busy’ dominated their perceptions of this event.

There was evidence of a transformation in science communicators’ thinking
about public engagement with science. This followed a pattern in which a
pre-event focus on engagement as a ‘professional necessity’ and ‘practical
methods’ of engaging shifted to a post-event focus on the inherent value of
engagement for publics and opportunities for ‘interaction’ afforded by
Science in Norwich Day.
Conclusion
This report evaluates the perspectives of visitors on the crucial question of how
festivals can best engage publics. This evaluation relies upon open-ended qualitative
data to supplement the quantitative results. The overall patterns in this study show a
remarkably high level of satisfaction with the visiting experience at Science in
Norwich Day. It also highlights various aspects of the event that visitors found
valuable, such as engaging in hands-on experiments, interacting meaningfully with
scientists and other science communicators, and learning about new developments
in science. Moreover, evidence shows that visitors ‘took away’ a more grounded and
differentiated understanding of science and a deeper sense of the role of science in
their lives.
There were also very high levels of satisfaction reported by science communicators.
Most of these individuals self-reported that they believed they had achieved their
goals of engaging with the public, disseminating science knowledge, and seeking to
give the public deeper insights into the role of science in everyday life.
This evaluation points to the value of temporary science festivals for engaging
publics with new ideas. Indeed, visitors self-reported that they had learned new
scientific information. Yet, the scope for such direct learning impacts stemming from
a single day’s intervention will necessarily be limited. Of greater long-term
significance is the impact of this event on visitors’ perceptions of science and the
event itself, which may influence their future orientation towards science and
science engagement events. Of course, such influence is dependent on a host of
contextual factors (see Dawson & Jensen 2011; Jensen, Dawson & Falk 2011), most
of which are outside of the scope of this evaluation. However, the fact that visitors
generally attended with their families raises the potential for greater impact on the
day-to-day context for discussions of science in people’s everyday lives.
The data from the present case shows clear development in visitors’ thinking about
science and indications of increased curiosity about science. Curiosity in particular is
a crucial upstream factor in a long-term, indeed life-long, process of engaging with
new ideas. An equally important outcome from this event is the affective impact of
feeling like science is not a distant and unintelligible endeavour, but that it is instead
something that can be ‘for them’. The local character of the event helps to support
this crucial impact.
In sum, participating science communicators were very satisfied with the event
overall, but raised concerns about organisational details and some found the
quantity of visitors simultaneously exciting and exhausting. Although not every
individual visitor showed positive change as a result of their visit to Science in
Norwich Day, this evaluation revealed a very high level of satisfaction overall
amongst visitors. Data on visitors’ demographic characteristics showed that this
event is making good inroads in terms of class inclusion. It is also delivering clear
positive impacts on visitors’ curiosity and interest in science and visitors’
understanding of the diversity of research activity encompassed under the umbrella
term ‘science’.