Showing posts with label conference. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conference. Show all posts
Thursday, 3 June 2010
Engagers' Digest - 3/6/10
Dear colleagues,
Welcome to a sunny edition of the Digest:
Again, a reminder for your diaries - Thursday 23 September 2010, Victoria Rooms. The programme for our annual Engage conference is shaping up and registration will open before the end of June. Engage 2010 will be a one day conference to share experiences and learn about the range of public engagement activity at the University of Bristol. Hear city leaders’ visions of an engaged university, meet and exchange ideas with colleagues and potential partners, and take part in innovative and interesting training and workshop sessions. Finish the day with a drinks reception and screening of the 'Mathematical Ethnographies'.
1. Universities UK - Universities Week: What's the big idea? 14-20 June
UUK's inaugural campaign will highlight the essential role of the UK’s universities and their impact on the economy, culture, society, the environment and much more. Find out how to support and contribute here http://www.universitiesweek.org.uk/Home.aspx
2. Conference - Exploring the What, Why and How of Public Engagement - 6 July
This conference, organised by the Beacon for Wales in collaboration with Vitae, is an introduction to public engagement with presentations from funders, academics and those involved in engagement projects. Come along and find out more about public engagement, what the benefits could be for you and your research and how you might get started.
10.30 am – 4.15 pm, Tuesday 6 July, Wales Millennium Centre, Cardiff Bay
More information and registration here
3. Vitae - various opportunities for researchers
The researcher development organisation Vitae has a call for evidence of the impact of researcher development (deadline 18 June). They have also opened their Innovate call for innovative training programmes with a deadline of 30 June, and are holding a research staff conference on 4 November 2010.
4. HP Catalyst Initiative Funding
HP is creating a global network of education consortia that will explore new and more effective approaches for preparing students to use their technical, creative, and collaborative ingenuity to address significant social challenges in their community and around the world. Organisations can apply to become consortium members, and receive up to $30k over two years with a number of other benefits. More information here
5. Wellcome Trust funding - deadline 30 July 2010
The Wellcome Engaging Science grants programme offers over £3 million per year to support projects that aim to inform and inspire the public about biomedical science and its social contexts. Society Awards are focusing on GREY MATTERS: Brain, Mind & Culture - deadline 12 October 2010. Other awards are also open for applications - more information here
And don't forget - 12-13 June is the excellent Festival of Nature, where University of Bristol staff and students will be sharing their work under the themes of "Biodiversity is life" and "Technologies for the future". In the run up to the Festival, UoB academics will be speaking at four, free consecutive Science Cafes - more information here
Last but not least, check the NCCPE website for their latest events, including an Open Space event, consultations, and a national conference - http://www.publicengagement.ac.uk/news-and-events
Best wishes,
Philippa
Monday, 5 October 2009
Is England's Past for Everyone?
Last Friday I visited a conference called Is England's Past for Everyone? Learning and Outreach in the Historic Environment. The conference was organised by England's Past for Everyone, a Lottery-funded local history project run by the Victoria County History.
The theme of the conference was how to involve communities in their local history, through publishing, online resources, volunteering and working with schools. The keynote address was delivered by Baroness Andrews, the new head of English Heritage, who spoke about projects to engage local communities with their industrial and natural heritage, and endorsed the conference's theme that "history belongs to local people".
Other speakers discussed the challenges and opportunities posed to local history publishing by new media; and developing online resources including English Heritage's ViewFinder online image library.
The highlight for me was a guided walk around central Bristol led by Andy Foyle, author of the Pevsner guide to Bristol, learning both about its architectural heritage and some local victims of the Blitz. It was a poignant reminder that history is inseparable from people's lives.
Image: Crown Copyright NMR
Friday, 28 August 2009
Living Knowledge Conference beats on...
The six parallel sessions on Friday afternoon opened discussion in areas from striking a balance between the needs of participants and avoiding exploitation of participants to planning for demographic change, encouraging various models of knowledge exchange and evaluating the process and the outcomes of community engagement in science, technology and innovation. Take a breath!
The abstracts and links related to the Parallel Sessions are located on the Living Knowledge webpage.
I’ll give you a taste of the sessions with the help of Paul McGill, from the Centre for Ageing Research and Development in Ireland. Thanks Paul. Off to the conference buffet and ceilidh now – for more discussion and engagement of course!
…but here are those summaries:
Session 1.1. Community-based research: finding a balance between non-government organisation-student-higher education institution needs
Chairs: Gerard Straver and Ils De Bal
Meeting the academic criteria does not mean civil society organisations will be happy with it. Tension between scientific and academic needs on the one hand and civil society organisations on the other.
One centre engaged 900 volunteers and employed 80 of them. Where does the money come from? This is a problem. Can you ask beneficiaries for payment for some or all of the work? Should there by criteria for deciding how much an organisation should pay.
Community research is win-win but to what extent do the different experiences influence the approach to research (e.g. by intermediary bodies like Science Shops)?
Impact of research on policy-making and on university curricula: sometimes it has tremendous policy impact and in other cases little or none.
No agreement on paying students for their research: in some cases they get academic credits, in others they are paid.
Session 2.1. Encouraging models of knowledge exchange: planning for demographic change
Chair: Paul McGill
What does it mean for users (such as older people) to be involved in research: It’s not enough to interview them or get them to fill in questionnaires. We need to ask the extent to which they want to be engaged and take account of practical issues.
Why do older people drop out of research projects (people who are poor or in bad health more likely to leave)? We can tackle some of the causes and minimise drop-out rates and can boost participation through social networking sites and by pointing to positive impact of previous community research projects.
Local versus global? There was discussion of the extent to which a local research project, e.g. a survey, may or may not be representative of the wider population. Does that matter?
Issue of paying community researchers: some research centres pay and others do not.
Session 3.1. Climate change: science and civil society
Chair: John Barry
Meeting the challenges of climate change requires a partnership of the university, municipal authorities and community. The issues must be brought out to the people. Science shops have a role to play in this.
We need to search for new funding mechanisms to apply new ideas in food, transportation and housing.
Breaking down the barriers between the university and community requires more effective communication.
Session 4.1. Avoiding exploitation: good practice in engagement and knowledge exchange
Chairs: Bill Peterman and Kim Treasure
Setting an agreed vision of the research from the start is central to breaking down silos and building confidence and trust among stakeholders. Various disciplines having shared responsibility, with co-directed research. An aim is to improve quality of life and ‘wellness’. Working from a grass-roots level, in response to concerns expressed by community partners, with genuine participation; best to focus on solutions rather than problems alone.
All stakeholders should be involved from the very beginning of the project. It is not about community members dropping in and out to do specific jobs.
What if the results reflect unfavourably on the community or are not what they want? How can you help them to see the bigger picture in a positive way rather than focusing on smaller negative points?
Working with universities to value community based research just as much as laboratory research.
Session 5.1. Sustaining community-based research practice through arts and cultural forms
Chairs: Khan Rahi, Heather Floyd and Caragh O’Donnell
How can the community feel ownership of research? It must be involved from the beginning in formulating the questions and community expertise must be recognised – there is often disrespect for community knowledge.
There is a role for the community in disseminating research; example given of good practice in a working class area in Belfast, but this may be threatened by lack of resources.
Quilting – making a large blanket in groups – is one of many means of giving a voice: it can transcend a lot of layers and can release stories during the process.
Session 6.1. How do we evaluate both the processes and the outcomes of community engagement in science, technology and innovation?
Chair: Norbert Steinhaus
Standards for evaluating science shops and community based research: who sets them? Where do they come from? For example if there are no mission statements defining the Science Shop, how are evaluation criteria to be defined?
A template for quality improvement was presented and triggered some disagreement about the relevance and possible constraining effects of structured evaluation; also raising questions about the limits of self-evaluation.
Overall there was great interest in the possibility of developing a shared evaluation framework and instruments. Some discussion on relation between such evaluations and kinds of assessment applied at disciplinary level in higher education.
The abstracts and links related to the Parallel Sessions are located on the Living Knowledge webpage.
I’ll give you a taste of the sessions with the help of Paul McGill, from the Centre for Ageing Research and Development in Ireland. Thanks Paul. Off to the conference buffet and ceilidh now – for more discussion and engagement of course!
…but here are those summaries:
Session 1.1. Community-based research: finding a balance between non-government organisation-student-higher education institution needs
Chairs: Gerard Straver and Ils De Bal
Meeting the academic criteria does not mean civil society organisations will be happy with it. Tension between scientific and academic needs on the one hand and civil society organisations on the other.
One centre engaged 900 volunteers and employed 80 of them. Where does the money come from? This is a problem. Can you ask beneficiaries for payment for some or all of the work? Should there by criteria for deciding how much an organisation should pay.
Community research is win-win but to what extent do the different experiences influence the approach to research (e.g. by intermediary bodies like Science Shops)?
Impact of research on policy-making and on university curricula: sometimes it has tremendous policy impact and in other cases little or none.
No agreement on paying students for their research: in some cases they get academic credits, in others they are paid.
Session 2.1. Encouraging models of knowledge exchange: planning for demographic change
Chair: Paul McGill
What does it mean for users (such as older people) to be involved in research: It’s not enough to interview them or get them to fill in questionnaires. We need to ask the extent to which they want to be engaged and take account of practical issues.
Why do older people drop out of research projects (people who are poor or in bad health more likely to leave)? We can tackle some of the causes and minimise drop-out rates and can boost participation through social networking sites and by pointing to positive impact of previous community research projects.
Local versus global? There was discussion of the extent to which a local research project, e.g. a survey, may or may not be representative of the wider population. Does that matter?
Issue of paying community researchers: some research centres pay and others do not.
Session 3.1. Climate change: science and civil society
Chair: John Barry
Meeting the challenges of climate change requires a partnership of the university, municipal authorities and community. The issues must be brought out to the people. Science shops have a role to play in this.
We need to search for new funding mechanisms to apply new ideas in food, transportation and housing.
Breaking down the barriers between the university and community requires more effective communication.
Session 4.1. Avoiding exploitation: good practice in engagement and knowledge exchange
Chairs: Bill Peterman and Kim Treasure
Setting an agreed vision of the research from the start is central to breaking down silos and building confidence and trust among stakeholders. Various disciplines having shared responsibility, with co-directed research. An aim is to improve quality of life and ‘wellness’. Working from a grass-roots level, in response to concerns expressed by community partners, with genuine participation; best to focus on solutions rather than problems alone.
All stakeholders should be involved from the very beginning of the project. It is not about community members dropping in and out to do specific jobs.
What if the results reflect unfavourably on the community or are not what they want? How can you help them to see the bigger picture in a positive way rather than focusing on smaller negative points?
Working with universities to value community based research just as much as laboratory research.
Session 5.1. Sustaining community-based research practice through arts and cultural forms
Chairs: Khan Rahi, Heather Floyd and Caragh O’Donnell
How can the community feel ownership of research? It must be involved from the beginning in formulating the questions and community expertise must be recognised – there is often disrespect for community knowledge.
There is a role for the community in disseminating research; example given of good practice in a working class area in Belfast, but this may be threatened by lack of resources.
Quilting – making a large blanket in groups – is one of many means of giving a voice: it can transcend a lot of layers and can release stories during the process.
Session 6.1. How do we evaluate both the processes and the outcomes of community engagement in science, technology and innovation?
Chair: Norbert Steinhaus
Standards for evaluating science shops and community based research: who sets them? Where do they come from? For example if there are no mission statements defining the Science Shop, how are evaluation criteria to be defined?
A template for quality improvement was presented and triggered some disagreement about the relevance and possible constraining effects of structured evaluation; also raising questions about the limits of self-evaluation.
Overall there was great interest in the possibility of developing a shared evaluation framework and instruments. Some discussion on relation between such evaluations and kinds of assessment applied at disciplinary level in higher education.
Living Knowledge Conference, Belfast
In the morning plenary on Friday, Robin Webster, Chief Executive of Age Action Ireland, spoke about the rights, duties and responsibilities of all people [growing old]. He reflected on the nature of partnerships comprised of the advantaged and disadvantaged, and whether the motivations of public alliances were biased because of natural (individual, organisational and institutional) self-selection. He provided warning that power balances in partnerships were inevitable and that diversity represented a major challenge, but also of course, an ideal opportunity to readdress those inequalities.
Professor Monica McWilliams, Chief Commissioner for Human Rights in Northern Ireland, who was chairing the session, provided summary for the short presentations provided by Mr Webster, who was joined by Dr Rajesr Tandon of the Society for Participatory Research in Asia, Murielle Gagnon from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, and Professor Gerry McCormac, Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Planning and External Relations at Queen’s University Belfast.
Professor McWilliams suggested that public and community-based research had huge potential and obligation to have serious impact on policy, legislation and regulatory frameworks. She echoed Robin’s comments by finishing the session with the advocacy notion: is this partnership what we [the public] really want? Why not ask us and check.
There was enough time for a few questions before morning coffee, one of which was answered by:
Professor Monica McWilliams, Chief Commissioner for Human Rights in Northern Ireland, who was chairing the session, provided summary for the short presentations provided by Mr Webster, who was joined by Dr Rajesr Tandon of the Society for Participatory Research in Asia, Murielle Gagnon from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, and Professor Gerry McCormac, Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Planning and External Relations at Queen’s University Belfast.
Professor McWilliams suggested that public and community-based research had huge potential and obligation to have serious impact on policy, legislation and regulatory frameworks. She echoed Robin’s comments by finishing the session with the advocacy notion: is this partnership what we [the public] really want? Why not ask us and check.
There was enough time for a few questions before morning coffee, one of which was answered by:
It doesn’t mater how complex the research findings are, the most important thing is to communicate to all audiences with open and accessible language in terms the reader cares about. Who just wants to read the executive summary of a lengthy report and not really be able to, or have the energy to, read the rest?When the comments from the floor moved on to question the identities community and co-creation of knowledge, they prompted the comment from Dr Rajesr Tandon:
Who is any partnership made up of? We’re heading towards a knowledge economy, what about the knowledge society? We’re not working in a social vacuum and the economy is merely a subset of the whole society.
Wednesday, 26 August 2009
Science Communication Conference
We've just seen the reports and presentations from the British Science Association's Science Communication Conference, which are now available online.The University of Bristol was very well represented, with presentations from our very own Gillian Squirrell, Kathy Sykes and Dudley Shallcross, as well as Paul Manners and Sophie Duncan from the National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement and Savita Custead at the Bristol Natural History Consortium. All in all, an impressive Bristol turnout.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)