Experienced scientists offer advice about how to put on public outreach events.
By
Because of the important role science plays in
peoples’ lives and the significant (and increasing) impact of humans on the
environment, there is a great and growing need to improve links between
scientists and society [e.g., Lubchenco, 1998]. Some funding agencies
recognize this need and have shaped their priorities accordingly. For example,
the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) requires grant applicants to address
the broader impacts of proposed work, including “promoting teaching, training,
and learning” [NSF, 2007]. NASA, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), and other agencies also encourage and fund education and
public outreach activities [e.g., Franks et al., 2006; NASA, 2009].
In addition to increasing a researcher’s likelihoodof receiving funding, building an effective public outreach component of a
research project also can greatly magnify the influence of one’s research and
enhance teaching efforts by connecting a researcher with new audiences and
partners. Hence, public outreach can be an important and beneficial part of an
early-career scientist’s program. Yet Ph.D. students and postdocs rarely
receive any formal training on how to develop and implement an effective public
outreach program.
To address this need, a working group on outreach
was formed at the December 2005 Dissertations Initiative for the Advancement of
Limnology and Oceanography (DIALOG) VII Symposium for recent Ph.D. graduates
across the aquatic sciences. This
article synthesizes several issues, discussed by the working group, that an
early-career scientist should consider to develop effective outreach programs.
The article also provides Web sites of formal and informal educational programs
and institutions as well as some resources for scientists interested in developing
effective outreach programs.
Because early-career scientists are likely to be
busy with teaching and research commitments, it is incumbent upon them to
develop outreach programs that use their time and input efficiently. It is
important for scientists to evaluate the sustainability of their commitment in
the context of other responsibilities, and to account for time and financial
requirements of outreach activities in any proposal they write. It is also
important for them to think carefully about the extent to which they will
directly implement the program versus how much they will rely on others.
Partnering and the delegation of work can lead to a more effective outreach
program, save time and energy, and allow for focusing on one’s strengths.
One way to make involvement with outreach programs
more efficient is through the effective use of existing resources. To this end,
early-career scientists who also are professors will want to find out whether
their department, school, or college has education and public outreach
professionals who have community contacts and are skilled at establishing
relationships with target groups that might be appropriate partners. It also
may be possible to leverage other, existing grants that have education and
public outreach as their central purpose (e.g., NSF Graduate Stem Fellows in K-12
Education (GK-12) grants); it may be possible to join these programs directly
or build on existing relationships between such programs and the community. One
also can enlist students to help with public outreach efforts. Gaining
experience communicating science to nonscientific audiences can help students
develop skills and contacts that will be useful later in their careers,
especially if they are planning to work at the interface between science and
society. If one’s institution does not have an outreach professional on staff,
it may be worth considering hiring one separately or partnering with other
faculty to hire one. Though it can be expensive to support outreach
professionals, they can greatly enhance the effectiveness of public outreach
efforts—and potentially grant-writing success—of a research group or
institution.
For an outreach program to be effective, it should
address an important need. The relative importance of the needs of a community
can be assessed by formal means (e.g., a survey or series of workshops) or by
other, less formal input (e.g., from community leaders, teachers, or others).
Some examples of important, community-based needs include increased science
literacy related to environmental issues (i.e., education to increase
knowledge) and increased understanding of an applied problem that science can
help solve (i.e., education leading to behavior change in society). Also useful
is consulting funding-agency Web sites for information on their current areas
of interest regarding agency needs and target audience.
An effective outreach program, in addition to
addressing an important need, also should identify and target a particular
audience. Potential target audiences include policy makers, resource managers,
teachers, students, citizens, and particular professional or recreational
groups. The target audience will vary depending on need, so determining the
specific need will help identify the correct target audience, thereby allowing
for the development of the best outreach method.
Also, determining need will allow scientists, or the
public outreach professionals with whom they are collaborating, to identify key
members of the community to consult with at the onset of a project regarding
appropriate outreach methods and approach. Identifying key partners can be a
particularly daunting task for an early-career scientist. Some possible
approaches might include a Web search of recent public hearings related to the
research topic of interest, consulting with colleagues, and contacting the
alumni office of one’s institution for leads. Another possibility is to attract
key partners by offering a well-publicized and generally accessible public
lecture on one’s research topic, to which community leaders are invited.
Consultation with key members of the community also may help scientists to
refine their concept of community need.
It is also important to identify helpful partners
who might be more familiar with the target audience. These existing groups,
which often have important contacts and have established trust within a target
community, may be more effective at delivering the outreach message for a
research project than the researcher herself or himself. Allowing partners to
tailor the message to their needs also increases their sense of ownership of
the message and the likelihood that partners and the target community will
adopt real change in the long term [Krasny, 2005].
In addition to determining the need and audience for
an outreach program, identifying some specific measurable outcomes and products
also is important. Being specific and explicit about one’s goals early on will
focus efforts and will also allow for evaluating success and impact (and
potentially making midstream adjustments). A few examples of specific and
concrete goals to consider (by no means an exhaustive list) include increased
test scores for students, a change in attitudes and behavior of community
members, the creation of a Web site that is regularly consulted by a target
audience, and an observable change in the use or quality of a shared resource
(e.g., water or air quality).
The identification of need, target audience, and
desired outcomes will help with the design of an effective outreach method.
Some examples of outreach activities include public lectures, field trips for
students or adults, community-based participatory research, community or
professional workshops, the development of an educational brochure or citizen’s
guide, partnering with K-12 teachers, and service on a board or committee of a
local volunteer organization. Examples of the authors’ outreach activities can
be found in the electronic supplement to this Eos issue.
Soliciting advice from a mentor who has attempted
something similar to one’s outreach effort may save a lot of time and prevent false
starts. Also, there may be other faculty with whom to collaborate, potentially
sharing the workload and magnifying one’s impact. Community organizations also
may be effective partners, particularly if they have worked with one’s
institution in the past. In seeking to partner with individuals or
organizations outside the academic research environment, it is useful to listen
to their needs and expectations from the beginning and to approach them as
collaborators who bring a valuable and complementary skill set.
In this vein, each partner should approach the
collaboration with specific goals for participation. For example, scientists
might expect to amplify the impact of their research or enhance their sampling
capacity (e.g., through coordination with community volunteers), whereas
outreach professionals might expect to gain access to state-of-the-art
information and expertise that can be incorporated into their public outreach
efforts. Clarifying these goals at the outset will help define the nature of the
partnership and avoid potential misunderstandings as the project develops.
The effective evaluation of outreach activity relies
on clearly stated and quantifiable goals (outcomes). The evaluation of a
project should not happen only at the end of the project; rather, it also
should occur during the project so that midcourse corrections are possible.
Evaluation methods might include “before, during, and after” surveys of the
outreach target audience (see information about the Online Survey Design Guide
in the sidebar) or indices of understanding (e.g., student test scores) and
metrics of behavior change. For example, in trying to raise awareness of best
management practices for farmers within a watershed, it might be useful to
evaluate changes in agrochemical consumption due to one’s program (note that
this will require collecting data on use before and after implementing one’s
program).
The use of an interactive Web site (e.g., a survey
or data submission Web site) is one way to evaluate the participation of the
target community in an outreach activity. Simply counting the number of Web
site visits is somewhat less useful, but it also can provide information about
whether a Web site is effective. It also may be possible to interview or form
focus groups with participants to obtain feedback on program effectiveness.
Effective evaluation is critical for improving outreach programs and for
reporting back to granting agencies in annual and final reports, especially if
the education and public outreach activity was proposed as part of the work
plan.
Most research grants last only a few years, so it is
important to think about a plan for sustainability or an exit strategy at the
outset of the outreach program. If the program is meant to address a discrete
problem, project goals should be clearly defined at the project’s outset so
that success can be effectively evaluated. If the program is meant to last
beyond the period of one’s grant, it is essential to develop a sense of
ownership within the target audience, leading them to support and possibly fund
the program. Establishing a self-sustaining outreach program requires that
members of the target audience value the outreach effort and that at least a
subset of the target audience feels capable of continuing to promulgate the
outreach message in the absence of continued participation by the primary
researcher. One way to engender this ability and attendant confidence might be
to train teachers and volunteers to train others.
In sum, effective outreach programs can take many
forms, but some consistent characteristics of such programs include (1) a
realistic expectation of time to be invested on the part of the primary
researcher, (2) an effective and mutually respectful collaboration between
scientists and outreach professionals, (3) a well-targeted audience
and/or a well-defined problem, (4) reliance on the cumulative wisdom of
mentors, in the academy as well as in the target community, (5) a
mechanism for feedback and midstream adaptation, and (6) an effective exit
strategy or sustainability plan.
Acknowledgments
We thank John Wickham, Gisele Muller-Parker, and
Gretchen Rollwagen Bollens for valuable insight and Sue Weiler and the DIALOG
VII symposium for supporting our initial discussions. The DIALOG symposium is
supported by NASA, NSF, NOAA, and the U.S. Office of Naval Research through
grants NSF-OCE-0217056 and ONR-NA16OP1435 to Whitman College, C. Susan
Weiler, principal investigator.
