P a g e | 421
Chapter 59: SCIENCE CAFE: Summary of
Evaluations and Lessons Learned
Stephen Bitgood and Katey Ahmann( NC State Museum of Natural Sciences)
From Science Café: Summary of Evaluations. Report to
The NC State Museum of Natural Sciences. Raleigh, NC
and
The Informal Learning Review (2008), July-Aug. Pp. 8-11
INTRODUCTION
Science cafés are events that bring contemporary science and scientists to the public
in a casual setting (typically a restaurant, coffee-house or bar). It is a way for the public
to learn more about important, relevant, timely topics directly from the scientists rather
than having the information filtered through the mass media. These cafés are part of a
movement that started in Europe, but has been increasing in popularity in the United
States. Museums and universities are attempting to use this format to bring scientific
information to new and often untapped adult audiences.
The details of science café meetings vary from one location to another. However, the
emphasis is on informality. Typically, the scientist introduces himself/herself, talks for a
short period of time about the topic, and then opens the meeting up for discussion. In
some cases, a short video clip may be used to stimulate discussion. Instead of one café
leader, a panel of scientists may also lead the discussion. Topics vary, but tend to focus
on subject matter of current interest to the public. Most of the meeting time is spent
answering questions and conversing with the audience.
Informal Learning Review readers may be familiar with science cafés from a recent
article by Bella Desal (2005), “Building New Audiences: Science Cafés.” WGBH, the
Boston Public Broadcasting station, in conjunction with NOVA ScienceNOW, has been
promoting the science café movement. This promotion includes the development of the
Sciencecafes.org web site. Sciencecafe.org and the UK-based Cafescientifique.org
provide a variety of information on science cafés including maps of the locations of
science café groups across the U. S. and the world. These web sites also offer
recommendations for organizing café and provide contact information.
The NC State Museum of Natural Sciences in cooperation with the local Research
Triangle Park Sigma Xi Chapter has been conducting Science Cafés for over two years,
and all but the first four were evaluated by surveys (Bitgood & Ahmann, 2008a; 2008b).
From the responses to 14 different Cafés, we feel some lessons have been learned. We
offer these ideas to the reader and encourage others to evaluate the success of their own
cafés
Science Cafés have become a popular venue for museums and universities to
communicate on-going science research to the public. The NC Museum of Natural
P a g e | 422
Sciences (NCSMNS) in cooperation with Sigma Xi has sponsored a total of 13 Science
Cafés in the last 14 months. The first four Café meetings did not include collection of
evaluation surveys from attendees; however, survey data are available for the remaining
nine Cafés. This report summarizes the evaluations and makes suggestions for
organizing and conducting successful Cafés in the future.
METHOD
The NCSMNS Science Cafés were organized by Katey Ahmann in cooperation with
Sigma Xi and practicing scientists in the Research Triangle area. See Appendix A for a
list of the dates, topics, and presenters. Cafés were held at local restaurants and attendee
surveys were collected at the last nine meetings. Surveys were distributed and collected
onsite after the presentation was completed. The evaluation form underwent some minor
changes for the Hive Café meeting. The list of factors influencing attendance in Item #1
were modified and these changes are reflected in the absence of data entries for the first
three Cafés listed in Table 4.
A copy of the survey is contained in Appendix B. Responses to items 2a through 2f
were scored as either positive or negative. Neutral responses were not scored. The
percentages of positive comments for each of these items are reported in Table 6 under
the columns “Interest,” “Delivery,” and “Content.”
RESULTS
Topics and attendance
Table 1 contains the dates, titles of topics, and attendance for all 13 Cafés. Evaluation
surveys were collected for nine of these Science Cafés. The number in attendance varied
between 23 and 138 depending on the topic. The percentage of attendees completing
surveys varied from 22.2% to 65.2%. The response rate was not unusual for this type of
activity. It is difficult to assess whether or not the response rate threatens the validity of
the findings. However, there should always be concern when the response rate is low. It
is possible that those responding were different (e.g., had a more positive or negative
experience) than those who did not respond.
Demographics
The age composition of the Café attendees varied depending upon the topic. Several
topics (Build Green, Hive, and Dark Matter) were successful in attracting a larger
percentage of attendees who were under 30 years of age. The “over 50” age group was
well represented in all Cafés (average of 47.9% for all cafés), but more so in Potato,
Woodpecker, Pest, and Technology Cafés. Females (57.4%) were more likely to attend
than males, although male-female ratios depended upon the topic. The majority (52.9%)
of attendees were highly educated, with post-graduate education. The educational level
may reflect both the nature of science café and the high educational level of residents in
the Triangle Area.
P a g e | 423
Table 1
Science Café Meetings, Attendance, and Surveys Completed
Date
Topic
Attend
Surveys___________
Oct 10, ’06
Bird Flu
37
--
Nov 28
Space Flight
42
--
Jan 16, ‘07
Chaos
45
--
Feb 20
Global Warming
87
---
Mar 28
Potato Killer
42
20 (47.6%)
Apr 17
Build Green
92
35 (38.0%)
May 15
Woodpecker
23
15 (65.2%)
June 19
Hive
138
47 (34.1%)
July 17
Dark Matter
95
42 (44.2%)
Aug 28
Pests
83
37 (44.6%)
Sept 25
Bridges
63
14 (22.2%)
Oct 23
Fossils
94
38 (40.4%)
Nov 27
Technology
52
24 (46.2%)
Jan 15
Drought
150
76 (50.7%)
Table 2
Ages and Gender of Café Attendees
Ages
Under 30
31-50
Over 50
% Female
Potato
1
6
13
30.0
Build Green
16
11
8
62.5
Woodpecker
0
4
10
46.2
Hive
16
14
17
70.5
Dark Matter
13
12
16
55.6
Pests
6
9
21
68.8
Bridges
3
5
6
50.0
Fossils
6
14
17
54.8
Technology
1
7
15
50.0
Drought
9
24
37
64.2
_________________________________________________________
P a g e | 424
Table 3 shows the educational level of attendees for each of the Cafés. Build Green
and Hive attracted the highest percentage of attendees with less than a college degree.
Potato, Woodpecker, Bridges, and Technology attracted the fewest attendees who did not
have college degrees.
Table 3
Education of Café Attendees
Education
< grad
grad
post-grad___
N
Potato
1
5
13 (68.4%)
19
Build Green
16
8
11 (31.4)
35
Woodpecker
0
3
11 (78.6)
14
Hive
16
12
18 (39.1)
46
Dark Matter
5
15
21 (51.2)
41
Pests
5
15
17 (45.9)
37
Bridges
0
3
11 (78.6)
14
Fossils
9
9
19 (51.4)
37
Technology
4
6
14 (58.3)
24
Drought
7
20
46 (63.0)
73
______________________________________________________________
Factors that influenced attendance
Table 4 contains the percentage of attendees who indicated that various factors
influenced their attendance. Note that the survey content changed after the May café
(Woodpecker) and the alternative choices were different. Since the choices were
different for Potato, Build Green, and Woodpecker, only the “topic” criteria are included.
The full descriptors presented to attendees were: “Topic/interaction with a scientist,”
“Opportunity to learn new information,” “Availability of food/drink,” “Chance to meet
new people,” and “Type of restaurant & restaurant location.” Unfortunately, two of these
alternatives were ambiguous (“Topic/interaction with a scientist” and “Type of restaurant
& restaurant location”) and we cannot state which of these compound factors may have
been most important.
Clearly, the Café “topic/interaction with a scientist” is critical, but not always the
highest-selected factor. “Learn new information” was apparently more important than
“topic” in three of the five cafés for which we have data. “Availability of food/drink”
was of less importance, but still selected more than “Chance to meet new people” or
P a g e | 425
“Type of restaurant & restaurant location.” The leisure value of “learning new things”
makes sense when considering the educational level of the attendees.
Table 4
Factors that Influenced Attendance
Topic
New
Food
Meet
Restaur
Potato
100%
--
--
--
--
Build Green
94.1
--
--
--
--
Woodpecker
100
--
--
--
--
Hive
72.3
92.5
55.0
32.5
39.1
Dark Matter
73.3
90.5
47.6
31.0
31.0
Pests
89.2
81.1
62.2
40.5
48.7
Bridges
78.6
92.9
71.4
50.0
35.7
Fossils
100
89.5
63.2
31.6
26.3
Technology
85.0
80.0
35.0
65.0
25.0
Drought
98.6
87.1
56.9
45.1
49.3/50*
_____________________________________________________
Problems and Length of Session
Table 5 registers the problems (difficulty hearing, distracting sights and sounds) and
perception of session length. Given the restaurant/bar setting, hearing difficulties and
distractions were often a problem, more so in some Cafés than others, and more so in
some locations within the facility than others – the seating location of the attendee
undoubtedly played a role in these problems.
Report of perception of the length of the meeting varied among Café topics. Hive and
Dark Matter received lower percentages of session duration rated as being “OK or just
right.” They also received the highest complaints of “Too short.”
It is difficult to assess how these problems and perceptions of duration influenced the
experience of the attendee since there did not appear to be a strong correlation between
these problems and ratings of café satisfaction. Undoubtedly, these issues influence the
visitor experience, but further study is necessary to assess how.
P a g e | 426
Table 5
Problems and Perception of Session Duration
Problems
Hear
Distractions
Duration
OK
Too short_____
Potato
25.0%
31.3%
100.%
--
Build Green
10.7
23.3
80.0
16.0
Woodpecker
8.3
0
90.9
9.1
Hive
13.9
33.3
62.9
34.3
Dark Matter
44.8
58.3
60.0
36.0
Pests
3.3
14.8
92.3
7.7
Bridges
0
18.2
81.2
18.2
Fossils
30.3
36.7
93.6
3.2
Technology
27.8
47.1
78.6
21.4
Drought
17.7
--94.4
3.7
_______________________________________________________
Performance Outcomes
Table 6 includes the percentage of attendees who gave positive responses to outcome
factors (interest level, delivery style of scientist, content of café session, and rating of
overall satisfaction. All Café topics received mostly positive comments about interest.
The delivery style of the scientist was also highly rated. The lowest incidence of positive
comments (Dark Matter) may have been due to the difficulty of theoretical physics which
seemed to be reflected in the comments about content. All other Café meetings received
positive comments of 90% or above. The overall satisfaction rating on a scale of 1 to 5
suggests that Fossils, and Hive were rated highest, with Pests and Woodpecker closely
behind. These outcome results provide evidence that attendees were satisfied with their
experience.
Repeat Attendance
Figure 7 shows the percentage of first-time and multiple-repeat (two or more)
attendees across time (succeeding dates of Cafés). The percentage of first-time visitors
decline and the percentage of two-or-more attendances increase across succeeding Cafés.
This strongly suggests that attendees are satisfied enough to invest additional time and
effort to attend subsequent Café meetings.
P a g e | 427
Table 6
Performance Outcomes
Interest
Delivery
Content
Satisfaction_____
Potato
100.
93.8
100.
--
Build Green
96.4
96.
90.
4.15
Woodpecker
100.
100.
100.
4.53
Hive
97.4
100.
100.
4.67
Dark Matter
96.7
86.2
61.9
3.95
Pests
100.
100.
100.
4.60
Bridges
100.
100.
100.
4.50
Fossils
100.
100.
95.
4.75
Technology
100.
93.3
91.7
4.33
Drought
98.2
100.
97.9
4.52
________________________________________________
Table 7
First-time and Repeat Attendance for Science Cafe
Topic
First time
Two or more
Date______
Potato
--
--
Mar 28
Build Green
--
--
Apr 17
Woodpecker
--
--
May 15
Hive
85.0%
7.5%
June 19
Dark Matter
69.1
14.3
July 17
Pests
63.9
16.5
Aug 28
Bridges
42.9
21.4
Sept 25
Fossils
60.5
21.1
Oct 23
Technology
52.2
30.4
Nov 27
Drought
48.6
34.7
Jan 15
P a g e | 428
DISCUSSION
Evidence of success
Several findings suggest success of these Science Cafes. First, the Café sessions were
well attended. This reflects an interest in this form of communicating science. Second,
the attendee ratings of performance were high for all of the meetings. Third, attendees
indicated that the topic and scientists were motivating factors for attending the meetings.
Finally, the number of repeat attendees increased over subsequent cafes.
Together, these findings suggest that there is public interest in learning about ongoing scientific research and that the Science Café meetings formed well at satisfying this
interest.
Suggested Guidelines
Selection of topic. This may not sound like an intellectual bombshell, but the NC
surveys indicate that topics of current interest (e.g., Global Warming” and “Drought”)
attracted large crowds. Global warming has been a popular media topic in the last couple
of years, but this café actually gave the public a chance to discuss it with a climatologist
and a weatherman. “Drought” was a topic of concern because the southeast, including
North Carolina, has been suffering from severe drought for some time.
There are also topics that seem to have inherent interest. “Dinosaur DNA” was a sure bet.
Still other Café topics may be well attended if they are associated with a special interest
group. “Bee Hive” and “Dark Matter” were popular in terms of high attendance because
of cooperation with local organizations (bee keepers and the local astronomy
organization). Teaming up with a local interest group is a good way to ensure adequate
attendance.
A final point about the scientific topic. Providing information to the audience
before the meeting (e.g., on the museum web site) may serve several functions. First, it
may help market the café meeting. Second, it gives the audience more time to ponder
questions and issues to discuss. Third, it may provide a more knowledgeable audience
and result in a richer discussion. The above list of possible benefits of providing precafé information are, of course, speculation and subject to evaluation at some future time.
Location of the café. Location is of concern for several reasons. First, the location must
be easily accessible by the attendees. The closer the meeting is to home, the more likely
people will attend. Second, the facility must have a large enough space to hold 50 to 150
attendees. If possible, size of the facility should match the expected crowd. It may be
wise in some cases to have attendees sign up beforehand. A third concern about location
is possible distractions that may not be under control of the organizers. A noisy bar or
restaurant may make it difficult or impossible to hear the presentation or discussion. If
P a g e | 429
held in a public café or restaurant, efforts should be taken to isolate the café meeting from
other patrons in order to minimize noise distractions. Our surveys indicated that
distractions have a significant influence the quality of the experience.
Other considerations in choice of location include availability of parking, traffic, and
distance from the residence of attendees.
Duration or length. Duration of presentation and duration of discussion are both
important issues. The survey results suggest that it’s difficult for the scientist to
communicate adequate information if the presentation is less than 30 minutes. The NC
audience of the “Dark Matter” café needed more background material, before they could
understood the topic enough to discuss it. Of course, factors such as the difficulty of the
specific topic and public knowledge of the subject matter must be considered in deciding
how much background information the audience needs.
How much time should be allocated for audience discussion? Generally, at least 30 to 60
minutes of discussion should be planned. Cafés tend to generate a lot of discussion,
perhaps partially fueled by the serving of alcohol in the restaurant.
Café content. We may be stating the obvious, but the content should be of high interest
and at a level appropriate to the audience. Judging from the Research Triangle
attendance, the audience is going to be older and more educated than the general public.
A younger, less educated audience may expect more background information. All of the
topics selected in the Triangle cafés were given high marks for interest. And, in only a
couple of instances did the audience have difficulty understanding the presentation. In
the sample of surveys, scientific jargon appears to have been a problem only for the
“Dark Matter” Café.
Size of the audience. How many is too many? The size of the audience will influence
the amount of discussion as well as physical comfort. If there are too few seats or the
people are crowded too closely together, it can be a distraction. On the other hand, it’s a
little embarrassing if only a handful of people show up. In the NC experience, too large
an audience was more of a problem than too small. This is not always the case.
However, if too large an audience is a consistent problem, it may be wise to have
attendees sign up beforehand and limit the total number of attendees. A smaller audience
facilitates discussion, but a skilled leader can often manage discussion with a larger
audience.
Amenities (food and drink). While our surveys found that attendees don’t give food and
drink the highest priority, these amenities do seem to contribute to a positive experience.
Care should be taken in selecting a restaurant. Attendees are likely to complain about a
high-priced menu. Negotiating meal prices with the restaurant is possible if you are
providing unexpected business on a slow night.
Selection of a speaker. The quality of presentation is one of most important predictors of
satisfaction. Finding competent speakers should be a high priority. University professors
P a g e | 430
who have taught a long time are often good speakers because they have a lot of
experience. It doesn’t hurt to ask students or colleagues about the potential speaker’s
skills. Word of mouth is helpful in the selection process, but remember that one person’s
opinion may not agree with the majority. Your friend may think a speaker is the best, but
the majority of the audience may not agree! As a general rule it is a good idea to be
cautious in selecting someone who does little public speaking. Fortunately, the Research
Triangle area has a large number of potential speakers, given the availability of
universities, governmental scientists, and Research Triangle industries. Be wary of
pressure to choose a speaker for political reasons rather than for audience interest and/or
speaker ability.
Marketing the café. The NC State Museum found that announcements on their web site
together with an ever growing e-mail list was a winning combination. Attendance ranged
from a high of 150 (“Drought” café) to a low of 23 (“Woodpecker” café). Teaming up
with local organizations created large audiences for what otherwise might have been less
interesting topics (e.g., “Bee Hives,” “Dark Matter”). A local Sigma Xi chapter may
also be of help in marketing efforts.
Know your audience. It may be difficult to tell in advance who your audience will be.
Each topic is likely to attract a slightly different audience. However, over successive
cafés, you will probably find a consistent demographic. You might find it’s an audience
you didn’t expect. You could then tailor your meetings to their needs.
In the NC Research Triangle cafés, the audience has been older (high percentage of over
50 years of age) and more highly educated (majority with advanced degrees) than one
might expect in other locations. Given the Research Triangle area with an abundance of
highly educated people, this should not be too surprising. If you target a specific
audience (e.g., the twenty-something crowd), you may experience a bigger challenge to
attract them to the meeting. Some creative marketing may be required.
Use systematic evaluation. Evaluating each meeting with a brief survey and occasional
interviews can provide invaluable information regarding what you’re doing right and
wrong. See Appendix A for a sample survey. While each evaluation should be tailored
to the situation, there may be some fundamental issues that are important to most, if not
all, cafés. Here are some of the “universal” factors:
Attendance. Count the total number of attendees for each café. Determining the number
of repeat attendees is also a good measure of success. In the NC cafés, the percentage of
repeat attendees increased over successive meetings suggesting that the cafés were
providing enough satisfaction to be motivated to return.
Satisfaction. In NC, we use a 7-point rating scale for overall satisfaction, quality of
presentation, distractions, interest level, ease of comprehension. We also ask about the
appropriateness of the length of the presentation, amount of discussion, and the ease of
comprehension. Statistically, we found that quality of presentation and distractions were
significantly predictive of satisfaction rating.
P a g e | 431
Other. Obtaining demographic information (age, education, sex, residence, etc.) is
important. In addition, reaction to the café location and type of facility will help to
understand how important these factors are to the audience. It’s important to keep the
survey as brief as possible. If it requires too much time, you’ll get a low response rate
and not be able to draw meaningful conclusions from the data.
Final Thoughts
The best way to maintain a successful science café program is to monitor its success
from meeting to meeting. Continual assessment allows you to see patterns that might not
be evident when examining only one or two meetings. Some think that the audience
would be unwilling to complete surveys, but this has not been the case with the NC
Research Triangle audience.
References
Bitgood, S., & Ahmann, K. (2008a). Science Cafés: What Makes Them a Success?
Presented at the American Association of Museums, Denver, CO.
Bitgood, S., & Ahmann, K. (2008b). Science Cafés: Two Years of Evaluation.
Presented at the Visitor Studies Conference, Houston, TX.
Desal, B. (2005). Building new audiences: Science cafés. The Informal Learning
Review, #75, Nov/Dec.
Peterman, K., Pressman, E., & Goodman, I. (2007). NOVA ScienceNOW Science Cafés
Evaluation. Boston, MA: WGBH-TV.
P a g e | 432
Drought Café
Have you visited the NC State Museum of Natural Sciences?
93.0% “Yes”
Would you attend a Café at the Museum?
94.4% “Yes”
P a g e | 433
Appendix A
Science Cafés sponsored by the NC State Museum of Natural Sciences and Sigma Xi
OCT 10, ’06: (‘Tis the Season) The Truth about Bird Flu. Dr. Lori Hudson, Duke
Vaccine Institute & Department of Immunology
NOV 10, ’06: Human Space Flight: Return to the Moon and Mission to Mars. Dr. Fred
DeJarnette & Dr. Andre Mazzoleni, NC State University Dept of Mechanical &
Aerospace Engineering
Jan 16, ’07: Chaos. Richard Field, University of Montana Department of Chemistry
Feb 20, ’07: Global Warming. Greg Fishel, Meteorologist for WRAL-TV & Gary
Lackmann, Assoc. Professor of Meteorology, NC State University
Mar 28, ’07: CSI Dublin: The Hunt for the Irish Potato Killer. Dr. Jean Ristaino, North
Carolina State University.
Apr 17, ’07: What can you do to “Build Green”? Bob Kingery, Southern Energy
Management & Randall Lanou, NC State University
May 15, ’07: The Ivory-billed Woodpecker: Searching for Proof in the Choctawhatchee
River Basin. Drs. Lewbart & Deresienski
June 19, ‘ 07: Exploring the Fascinating world inside the Hive: Insights into Honey Bees
and Beekeeping. Dr. David Tarpy, NC State University
July 17, ’07: Our Runaway Universe: From Dark matter to Dark Energy. Dr. Richard
Hammond, UNC-Chapel Hill.
Aug 28, ’07: Summertime Itch: Familiar Pests and New Threats. Dr. Barry Engber, NC
Dpet of Environment & Natural Resources.
Sept 25, ’07: Troubled Bridge Over Water: New Research will help Detect, avoid bridge
collapse. Dr. Sami Riskalla, NC State University
Oct 23, ’07: Dinosaurs: Rewriting the Rules of Fossilization. Dr. Mary Schweitzer, NC
State University and NC Museum of Natural Sciences
Nov 27, ’07: Our Future State. Dr. Robert McMahan, Advisor to the NC Governer
P a g e | 434
Appendix B
Sample Survey
Please help us make these Science Cafés even better!
Tell us about yourself:
Age: __ under 21
__ 21-30
Sex: __ female
__ male
Education:
__ high school
__ 1-2 yrs college
__ 31-40
__ 41-50
__ over 50
__ 3-4 yrs college
__ post-graduate
__ college graduate
Have you been to a Raleigh Science Café before? __ yes
If so, how many? ____
__ no
Let us know about your experience:
1. What factors influenced why you attended tonight’s Science café?
__ Topic/interaction with a scientist
__ Opportunity to learn new information
__ Availability of food/drink
__ Chance to meet new people
__ Type of restaurant & its location
2. Comments
a. Difficulty hearing?
b. Distracting sights and sounds?
c. Duration: __ too long
__ too short
__ just right
d. Interest level of topic?
e. Presenter delivery
f. Content (comprehension level)
3. Rate your overall satisfaction (Please circle the number that indicates the degree of
your satisfaction with tonight’s café.
Not satisfying
1
2
3
4
5
What other topic would you enjoy hearing about at a Science Café?
Your email address for future announcements:
Very satisfying