University student-led public engagement event: increasing audience diversity and impact in a non-science space
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
There is a wealth of innovation in microbiology outreach events globally, including in the setting where the public engagement is hosted. Previous data indicate an underrepresentation of marginalized ethnic groups attending UK science-based public engagement events. This project engaged our student cohort, encompassing a diverse range of ethnic groups, to create an integrated art and science event within an existing series of adult education evenings. The study’s objectives were to increase the proportion of visitors from marginalized ethnic groups and to gain a greater understanding of the impact of the event on the visitors’ reported science capital. The participants’ demographics, links to our students and University, and detailed impact on participants’ science capital of the event were determined through analysis of exit questionnaires. There was an increase in the proportion of marginalized ethnic group visitors compared to similar previous events. A higher proportion of visitors from marginalized ethnic groups had links with our students and University compared to white/white British visitors. Elements of the exit questionnaire were mapped to the science capital framework and participants’ science capital was determined. Both ethnically marginalized participants and white/white British visitors showed an increase in science capital, specifically dimensions of science-related social capital and science-related cultural capital, after the event. In conclusion, our study suggests that a student-led blended art and science public engagement can increase the ethnic diversity of those attending and can contribute towards creating more inclusive public engagement events.
Article activity feed
-
-
This study would be a valuable contribution to the existing literature. This is a study that would be of interest to the field and community.
-
Comments to Author
Dear authors, Thank you for the time to consider my comments, and the changes you have made. I am happy for this manuscript to be accepted.
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Good
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Very good
To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?
Strongly support
Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?
No
Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?
No
If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with …
Comments to Author
Dear authors, Thank you for the time to consider my comments, and the changes you have made. I am happy for this manuscript to be accepted.
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Good
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Very good
To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?
Strongly support
Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?
No
Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?
No
If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?
Yes
-
-
Thank your for your manuscript, which will be of interest to the Access Microbiology readership. Reviewers have now looked at your manuscript and were very positive about the manuscript. They have made the following comments which I would appreciate if you could address before resubmitting.
-
Comments to Author
This manuscript is describing an outreach study which suggests that study suggests that a student-led blended art and science public engagement can increase the ethnic diversity of those attending and can contribute towards creating more inclusive public engagement events. Overall, it is very well written and structured. Methodological rigour, Presentation of results, Organisation and Literature analysis are clear and informative. Some minor corrections: 1. In Abstract, lines 24-30, provide values or fold-change, plus p values if relevant. E.g. how big was the observed increase? 2. Line 209: Prism (GraphPad Software, USA). 3. Figure 2 is small and blurry, please improve image quality. 4. In Discussion, most of the examples are from British or US institutions. Are there any examples of similar studies …
Comments to Author
This manuscript is describing an outreach study which suggests that study suggests that a student-led blended art and science public engagement can increase the ethnic diversity of those attending and can contribute towards creating more inclusive public engagement events. Overall, it is very well written and structured. Methodological rigour, Presentation of results, Organisation and Literature analysis are clear and informative. Some minor corrections: 1. In Abstract, lines 24-30, provide values or fold-change, plus p values if relevant. E.g. how big was the observed increase? 2. Line 209: Prism (GraphPad Software, USA). 3. Figure 2 is small and blurry, please improve image quality. 4. In Discussion, most of the examples are from British or US institutions. Are there any examples of similar studies in other countries? If yes, are your results in agreement with theirs? 5. Line 385: Duckett needs 'tt'.
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Very good
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Very good
To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?
Strongly support
Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?
No
Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?
No
If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?
Yes
-
Comments to Author
In this manuscript, the authors detail an interesting microbiology public engagement event, which aimed to broaden the demographic diversity of attendees whilst engaging with the student body at their institution whom could take a lead in the planning of the event. The event, taking place at an art gallery was successful, and increased the demographic diversity of attendees in comparison to other, similar events the authors have delivered over the years. The paper is interesting, and useful to the microbiology community, and would make an interesting discussion point for those interested in public engagement with microbiology. I have some minor amendments to suggest below, and one overarching concern that the authors need to consider to ensure their narrative/conclusions are supported by their data.
Comments to Author
In this manuscript, the authors detail an interesting microbiology public engagement event, which aimed to broaden the demographic diversity of attendees whilst engaging with the student body at their institution whom could take a lead in the planning of the event. The event, taking place at an art gallery was successful, and increased the demographic diversity of attendees in comparison to other, similar events the authors have delivered over the years. The paper is interesting, and useful to the microbiology community, and would make an interesting discussion point for those interested in public engagement with microbiology. I have some minor amendments to suggest below, and one overarching concern that the authors need to consider to ensure their narrative/conclusions are supported by their data. Primarily the link between the fact that the event was student led (with a diverse student demographic) and the increased diversity of attendees. Whilst both of these things are demonstrably true, the evidence that one impacted the other is weak, and whilst I appreciate that this is a very difficult thing to, but it is alluded too throughout the manuscript, so needs much more attention throughout. Other suggestions/corrections include: Title - University students? Introduction - Please define 'public engagement' - term is used interchangeably with science communication and outreach L42 - 'societal benefits' such as? L47 - 'sections of the community' what community? L67-69 - this sentence isnt clear, can you simplify? Introduction - you mention that science locations can struggle to get diverse audiences, but as you deliver in an art gallery, its important to know if this is also a problem for those spaces. Introduction is too wordy, and as such it makes it hard to follow the logic leading into the aim and questions. I think this can be streamlined a little to make it easier for readers to understand where you are going. L 107 - The word 'Using' a diverse body of students L108 - the introduction suggests you are looking to deliver an event in a non-science environment, but a art gallery is a bit similar to that kind of environment (its a formal environment). I think the introduction should consider the challenges and opportunities of delivery science in an art gallery. Method: Whilst this is a non-standard microbiology paper, I believe that it is still vital that the method be detailed and reproducible where possible, so methods should be detailed. Is it possible to place the detail of the different activities/elements into a table or bullet points instead of prose? Its not so easy to follow where description of one activity ends and another begins. L135 - what do you mean by 'An art gallery was created...' - An event was designed whereby researchers...? L137 - methods need more detail. What is a 'Science Roots' light box? What was on the agar to create the art? Bacteria? how were they prepared? L138 - how many is several? The word is used twice in this method, vague. L144 - swabbing with what? Moist swabs? What media were used in the plates? How were they incubated? L148 - what soil microbiome project? L148 - what did they observe? What were they looking at, and with what type of microscope? More detail on the event - was it a one off? was it at night or in the day? was it adults only or family oriented? How was it advertised? L154 - same as above - please provide methodological detail. L161 - was this paper or digital? L181 - how were they combined? L203 - Can you give an example here. E.g. a linkert scale score of 6 translated into...? L234 - Student involvement increased the number of visitors from marginalised ethic groups - can you confidently conclude it is the involvement of students that increased the number of marginalised ethnic group visitors? table 3 - need n= for each event to make it comparable. Around Figure 2 - Was there a check on the quality of learning? i.e. was there an opportunity to check that what they think they know is correct? The link between in being student led, and the increase in diversity isnt clear. Also, do you have data on the usual audience demographics for the art gallery? How does it compare to their standard audience? L353 - can you comment on the method used to generate these numbers for the previous events? are they comparable to your current event? L361 - is it worth speculating a little? Is it the case that the students asked people they know to come? How would the audience have known the demographic of the organizing team otherwise? and if they didnt know, is it ok to make a link between student-led and increasing diversity? L486 - please state the reasons for not making the data available. Is it identifiable? Was this requirement part of your ethical approval?
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Good
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Very good
To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?
Partially support
Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?
No
Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?
No
If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?
Yes
-