Welcome back to those of you who left the rest of us to run the country for two weeks.
I must say that I spent the Bank Holiday weekend in a verily good mood having had a quick peek at the results of our annual member survey. This showed that 98% of our members say we meet their needs and 93% rated our services as good or very good. With results like that I imagine there will be pressure to call in the UN inspectors next time. But given that I am on to pastures new shortly, it’s nice to know I haven’t wreaked havoc and destruction on this fine Association over the last five years.
As my team will tell you, sad person that I am, I live and breathe surveys. I even survey my children regularly on what they want to do/eat/watch/visit etc so bad has it got. But there is one survey that I have been eagerly awaiting for, for some weeks…
The 2011IPSOS Mori Public Attitudes to Science Survey pubished today makes for fascinating reading. In fact I think it is one of those pieces of work that merits much deeper study and analyses over the coming months. Naturally, the PR around it has concentrated on the good news aspects – that 86% of people are amazed by the achievements of science. But, fair game, there has also been a lot in the coverage which has noted the public engagement concerns that come through. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills news release is here for good measure.
You’ll see that the Science Minister, David Willetts, has responded to this latter challenge – and it is a challenge – by re-iterating his commitment to public engagement. The news release goes on to refer to a number of ongoing programmes which are being funded by the Government. But c’mon David, you can do better than that. These surveys should be the basis if not the prompt for some strategic thinking by the Government. Perhaps it could even be a good first topic for the recomposed Council for Science and Technology (CST) when it next meets. Anyway, the point is, this is news we should use.
In that vein, I noticed a few nuggets of interest that are worthy of further consideration by my own sector:
That only 17% identified charities – or even universities for that matter – as funders of research…is a little disappointing. But the fact that no respondents saw the NHS as a funder of research is simply worrying. However, it doesn’t explain whether they see research as an important activity of the NHS which is a different sort of question.
I was struck by the huge amount of data and discussion about public perceptions around science regulation. That 88% of people feel regulators should communicate and engage with the public sends a strong message to whoever is going to lead the new Health Research Agency (HRA). It also debunks some of the things I have said previouly that a new HRA shouldn’t go OTT on public engagement.
The low understanding of stem cell research and clinical trials suggests we have much more to do to underline the importance of both to indivuals, as well as to the the country’s overall wealth and health.
That people tend to trust scientists funded by universities (83%) and the charities (76%) most is something that I suppose those of us in these sectors can feel pleased about. But lower response rates for the private sector will not serve us well in the long-term. We all need to communicate the important role these valued partners play.
Inevitably the reactions to the survey so far have pinpointed the ‘engagement gap’ that exists between the 66% of people who say scientists should consult the public more, and the more than half who say they are not interested in being involved. But, and this is where can surveys frustrate more than they illuminate, it would be helpful to know what might spark their involvement.
The latter point is the perennial concern for those interested in public engagement. How we choose to interpret it is critical. The detractors of public engagement often point to it as the reason for less effort. I see it as the reason for more. Engagement is often about ensuring that people have ‘access and opportunity,’ it is rarely about marshalling people just to get some satisfying numbers about attendance at the end. Indeed, if interpreted in the latter way, I think we ultimately set ourselves up for failure.
What this survey tells us is that, while we might rejoice in some of its conclusions, we need to think more deeply and work much harder at making science meaningful to, and inclusive of, its many publics.
Declaration of interest: I am a researcher at Ipsos MORI and worked on this study.
Good analysis! It’s worth noting that the question about who funds scientific research was unprompted, so people did not think of the NHS (or any other specific organisation for that matter) off the top of their heads. However, p69 of the main report highlights that in the qualitative research, participants considered Government spending on health/the NHS to contribute to scientific research – this acknowledges your second point, about people recognising the role the NHS plays in scientific research.
I understand what you’re saying about wanting to know more about how to improve public engagement, rather than simply saying there is an “engagement gap”. Clearly it’s not all about Government engagement, and the private sector and charities also have to engage with the public about science, as the survey uncovers. Chapter 8 of the main report, which is about segmenting public attitudes, goes into what different segments of the public want from public engagement. Ipsos MORI will also be exploring this aspect in an interactive session at the BSA’s Science Communication Conference on 26 May 2011.
LikeLike
This is really helpful Jayesh, thank you. You are right, the segmenting of public attitudes in the report is helpful in understanding motivations for engagement, and I am pleased there is going to be an opportunity to explore the issues further at the BSA Science Communication Conference.
LikeLike
Hello Simon
Another declaration of interest – I’m the BIS project lead. Firstly, it’s good to see that you were keen to see the results. There are so many ways in which people are looking at those, and that’s interesting in itself. Some focus on what you term the engagement gap while others focus on the positive aspects. It’s important to get the balance right.
Like you, we hope that people will subject the data to the deeper analysis that it clearly deserves over the next few months. Our session at the Sci-Comm conference will hopefully be just the first step in this, and we hope to be able to blog on various aspects, including why people seem to feel uninformed.
Marilyn
LikeLike
That’s good to know Marilyn. Perhaps we can encourage the Science Minister to blog as well! If only to understand more about how he thinks about this subject. When he spoke at the launch of the RCUK Concordat on Public Engagement I was struck by his remark in response to a question from the audience, that he was very keen in seeing the emphasis put on involvement and participation when it comes to engagement, not just pushing information out.
LikeLike