Deliverable D6.3
Recommendations from Impact assessors
Grant Agreement Number: 24449
Deliverable Number: D 6.3
Dissemination Level: PU
Presentation
This document of recommendations (Deliverable D6.3 from the European Project
PLACES) aimsto contribute to the planning, implementation and evaluation of future
Science Communication Initiatives and Policies (SCIP), and particularly to those with a
strong local or regional dimension.
Recommendations contained here are addressed toboth science event organizers and
science centers directors, as well as local and regional politicians and the European
Commission.
This document is based solely on the recommendations arisenfrom 26 case studies
about the impact of different European SCIP. All these case studies were also carried
out within PLACES project.
The following steps have been followed to elaborate this document:

From the results of 26 case studies which analyzed the social impact of SCIP,
the authors of these research produced individual reports in which they included
a section of recommendations (see at the end of this document the list of authors
and countries)

A team from the Science Communication Observatory of the Universitat
Pompeu Fabra has grouped and summarized all recommendations mentioned
above.Categories had not been established previously, but they have emerged
from a bottom-up approach from the analysis of the cases’ recommendations.
The aspects or categories in which these recommendations have beengrouped
are:Objectives, Target, Venues, Areas / issues, Timing, Formats and ways, Local
dimension, Promotion / Advertisement / Communication, Financing and
Evaluation

This document intendsto be useful and practical, and because of that we
deliberatelyavoid technical words or large explanations, trying to be as much
informative as possible.

Some of the recommendations here could seem very basic or well-known by
most part of the people involved in SCIP. However,we have included them in
this document because some case studies have shown that there is still a lack of
knowledge about them.
Recommendations
1. Objectives
When planning a new SCIP, apart from clearly define the objectives it is also
important to explicitly state – and with enough detail – how they will be
evaluated. Different objectives require different actions.
2. Target
Clearly define the target population and adjust the SCIP to the age, gender or
particular characteristics of the population. If the SCIP already has a regular
public, the organizer must clearly know itsexact profile.
Actions aimed at children can contribute to informal learning, to increase
engagement in science and to encourage motivation and scientific vocations.
It is a strategic population and it should be taken into consideration. This is
especially importantfor policy initiatives and programs promoting science.
Actions targeted to an adult audience and to particular sectors (such as
business or local institutions) can increase the impact of SCIP in the
community.
3. Venues
Science centers and museums, as well as science events – such as science
festivals and fairs– have proved an important impact on their visitors, the
local community where they are established as well as on the people or
actors involved in their programs and activities (museum staff, scientists,
teachers, industry representatives, politicians, journalists, etc.). Responsible
of local, regional, national and international programs on scientific culture
should take into accountthis central role of museumsand events in science
communication, and try to work together and support them. In this way, their
respective social impactscould be multiplied.
Science events, and SCIP in general, could potentially take place in any
venue, but some recommendations arise from our research:

SCIP taking place in situ (universities, research centers) have the
advantage of offering visitors a very real experience about science,
its processes and its protagonists. When scientists working in these
institutions are really motivated and involved in the SCIP, visitor’s
sense of closeness to scientists will increase, which is usually very
appreciated by the public.

Other places like art galleries, theaters and music auditoriums are
seen positively by the public for their originality as a place to talk
about science, and because of their potential to offer new views at the
intersection of various sectors (i.e. science and art).

Popular places such as squares or parks can be a good location to
organize SCIP, especially in order to attract audiences not previously
interested in science.

Communication and scientific culture policies should not only be
focused on large cities or large installations. In small
towns,proportionally larger parts of population attend local science
events and activities (including people with no particular interest in
science). A normally scarce offer of cultural and leisure activities due
to the obvious reason of reduced dimensions, a proportionally higher
visibility of the installations and advertisements, as well as a higher
coverage in local media, make a science event hard to not notice in a
small town.
Accessibility should be planned from the beginning. Good public transport
and car parking space, as well as access for disabled visitors can be decisive
in the success of the SCIP.
In locations underextreme weather conditions, closed centers with good
conditioning system are highly valued since the offer of indoor activities
forfamiliesis usually reduced.
4. Areas / issues
SCIP focused on local issues, or in areas where there is a pool of scientific
excellence in the community, often have a strong impact on visitors and
participants.
Strategic issues of general interest (human rights, sustainability, health and
welfare) also need to be included in SCIP, particularly in policies and big
programs.
A multidisciplinary approach to the issues covered by a particular SCIP
should be provided in order to attract different audiences.
5. Timing
On-off events are particularly vulnerable to the adequacy of the day or week
selected. Parallel local activities organized onthat day, as well as other
events that may interfere (sports events, elections, etc.)should be considered.
Try to coordinate efforts with the rest of local agents of scientific culture
(see “local dimension”).
Schedules should be adapted to target populations. Schools need to prepare
visits with months in advance; scientists are often also professors and have
exams and classes, etc.
SCIP planning must be realistic and consider allthe activities that will be
needed before, during and after it.
6. Formats / Ways
One of the most appreciated values by visitors in science centers and
scientific events is precisely their ability to present new and old issues in a
different, attractive, aesthetically pleasing, emotional and innovative way.
Despite this, there are stillvery flat and unimaginativeactivities.Innovation
and creativity should be very present in all SCIP.
Experience and exploration are also two characteristics highly valued by
citizens. Promoting activities that allow these experiences can increase their
impact among the public.
Many SCIP have as a main objective to encourage public participation in
science, but the truthis that many of them continue to offer one-way
communication (those who know filling the knowledge gaps of those who
don’t know). Citizens who attend these activities expecting to be heard and
participate in important decisions often feel cheated or disappointed. It
should be clear whether a SCIP is participatory or not and, in this last case,
how this participation will be guaranteed and evaluated.
Scientists that regularly participate in SCIP usually appreciate the contact
with the public, but not always recognize the value of public feedback nor
their opinions or knowledge. SCIP organizers who want a genuinely public
participation should guarantee that scientists and other invited
actorsunderstandwhat public participation is and help share its value.
European Commission, as well as national and local authorities, can greatly
contribute to encourage public participation in decision-making through
SCIP.
7. Local dimension
The coordination among local scientific communication agents should be a
priority in local policies because it helps increase the relative impact of each
of them. Local policies promoting science should contribute to such
coordination. They should also identify the main local agents in science
communication (such as science museums and science events organizers),
work with them and try to support their activities. Similarly, new or smaller
organizations should also getsupport.
SCIP should help inform citizens about relevant issues related to innovations
of their city and key local problems. They should also make clear in which
ways citizens can access these innovations or contribute to solve these
problems.
The involvement of local authorities in scientific communication activities is
very desirable since this participation often awakens the politicians
awareness and interest for local scientific issues. This participation can also
generate the place for networking, thinking in new projects for the city and
possible sources of funding.
Collaboration with local journalists and media has proven to be a very
effective way to increase SCIP’s impact. This collaboration can be done in
several ways: providing media training workshops on target scientific issues,
facilitating their work, etc.
Local policies should promote cross-cutting scientific communication
programs which can benefit all local agents of scientific communication. For
instance, communication training programs for scientists or training in
science for journalists.
8. Promotion / Advertisement / Communication
General population does not always know the offer of SCIP in its city.
Sometimes, the perception is that these activities are targeted to a very elitist
population. It is essential, therefore, to intensify the promotion of SCIP,
using mass media and different channels, repeatedly announcing the
imminence of the event and updating the information on the website.
SCIP are still not well promoted by social networks and platforms 2.0, in
comparison with other areas of culture (i.e. concerts, sportive events, etc.).
Without astrong presence on social networks, SCIP could not reachthe part
of the population that is less exposed to mass media but is online 24 hours a
day. Communication 2.0 should be seriously considered, and human and
material resources need to be provided to implement it in an effective way.
Search for the cooperation of local media and journalists. Do not just send a
press release. Instead of that, try to facilitate their work and seek closer
collaboration with them (see "local dimension"). Collaboration with local
journalists must be regular and as personalized as possible.
9. Financing
Public funding of SCIP should be diversified, including transnational (such
as the European Commission), national and regional or local resources.
In many countries, the private sector is not very present in the SCIP
financing or support despite it may be one of the main beneficiaries of these
actions. Local administration should develop strategic actions toencourage
networking between different actors and promote a greater involvement of
the private sector.
SCIP are very vulnerable to crises and government changes. Policies to
promote scientific culture should be an explicit integral part of the main
official documents, such as municipal action plans, laws, etc.
10. Evaluation
Funding agencies should promote a culture of evaluation, providing training
and tools to facilitate its practice (particularly for small organizations).
Results from the evaluation of scientific centers and events are often
unpublished or just summarized in reports for internal uses. Main networks
of science communication, as well as local and national administration,
should encouragethe publication and public access to such studies. Thus, it
wouldbe easier to learn from previous mistakes and take as a reference cases
with good results.