tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4034888015247889941.post1889146335054572763..comments2024-03-27T02:25:16.462-07:00Comments on Heather Doran: Science Communication Conference 2011Heather Doranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01743182952112081912noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4034888015247889941.post-38651782583972149542011-06-02T07:06:33.891-07:002011-06-02T07:06:33.891-07:00I don't think 'selling' an event detra...I don't think 'selling' an event detracts from two-way engagement; I see the deficit being in the marketing of the event towards the appropriate audience. It's all well and good identifying who you need to engage with, but you then need to make what you're doing appealing for people to engage with it. That's what I mean as 'selling' - not reducing science to a product, but dressing up the activity as attractive in the best, most appealling way. Otherwise I fear we're always self-selecting for already sympathetic ears.Alun Hugheshttp://twitter.com/nullmousenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4034888015247889941.post-22315102303405195012011-06-02T05:48:00.222-07:002011-06-02T05:48:00.222-07:00Sorry - that should have read "two-way engag...Sorry - that should have read "two-way engagement".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4034888015247889941.post-2295759715833085102011-06-02T05:45:58.461-07:002011-06-02T05:45:58.461-07:00The problem people have with "selling" s...The problem people have with "selling" science is that modern ideas about engagement try to encourage two-engagement rather than just "informing" or "persuading".<br /><br />In terms of practical activities, I would always say start with low-impact activities (in terms of your time) to get experience. That way you can show your prof a finished product and say "I'd like some regular work time to do this - it didn't take very long and see how good it is". I hope that including impact in mainstream RC grants will make this discussion easier, but who knows?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4034888015247889941.post-64495521710633351802011-06-02T03:38:38.875-07:002011-06-02T03:38:38.875-07:00I came away with a similar feeling from the previo...I came away with a similar feeling from the previous SCCs I've attended. Setting aside the actual engagement activities that are being delivered, there does seem to be a lack of novelty and thought put in to promotion or polishing up the product that's on offer. The most exciting activity ever can be scuppered by poor or tawdry design, or the path of least resistance to generating an audience taken. As great as seeing your event promoted via University staff emails is, for example, it does doom your event to being mostly full of employees looking for entertainment within the scope of what already engages them. It may get bums on seats and look like you're getting a return, but what impact does reaching no further than an already savvy audience get you? Similarly, I listen to a lot of public engagament style podcasts; as do, I imagine, many other researchers. Do we really look at the audiences as much as we should do, or do we settle for quantity as a metric of success? Maybe I'm being too picky. After all, my knowledge of particle physics is lay at best: I'm someone's public, even though I'm a scientist.<br /><br />Drawing people in that wouldn't normally be engaged requires more than just identifying the population you want to reach - It needs the tools to 'sell' that activity to people. And viewing that activity as a 'product' to sell shouldn't be a dirty, gut-wrenching prospect. Marketing appeals to people, and it knows how to. Maybe it's too many years loving consumerism and propaganda for the amusement it gives me, but the power of selling can be harnessed for good and not just selling someone something they don't need.Alun Hugheshttp://twitter.com/nullmousenoreply@blogger.com