The Value of “Dialogue Events” as Sites of Learning: An exploration of research and evaluation frameworks

Abstract

In the past five years, informal science institutions (ISIs), science communication, advocacy and citizen action groups, funding organizations, and policy‐makers in the UK and the USA have become increasingly involved in efforts to promote increased public engagement with science and technology (PEST). Such engagement is described as taking place within the context of a “new mood for dialogue” between scientific and technical experts and the public. Mechanisms to increase PEST have taken a number of forms. One of the most visible features of this shift towards PEST in ISIs is the organization and staging of adult‐focused, face‐to‐face forums that bring scientific and technical experts, social scientists, and policy‐makers into discussion with members of the public about contemporary scientific and socioscientific issues related to the development and application of science and technology. A significant aspect of the literature on efforts to increase PEST has focused on the development of a unifying evaluative framework for determining what counts as success for PEST mechanisms, and how success (or lack thereof) can be empirically measured. In this article, we draw from our experiences as UK‐based and US‐based “dialogue event” practitioners and researchers/evaluators to suggest that these existing evaluative criteria are insufficient to explore the role and value of ISI‐based “dialogue events.” Instead, we suggest that it may be productive to research and evaluate these ISI‐based “dialogue events” as sites of learning. Secondly, however, we show through a discussion of our own research frameworks that understanding these “dialogue events” as sites of learning does not intuitively provide a framework for understanding what counts as success for these efforts. Instead, research on the role of “dialogue” within the educational literature—and the connections between “dialogue” and competing understandings of the nature of science and society—offers a multiplicity of approaches to defining the terms and goals of these events. Finally, we identify two broader implications of researching and evaluating these “dialogue events” as sites of learning for ISIs and all efforts to increase PEST.

Acknowledgements

This material is based partially upon work supported by the US National Science Foundation under Grant No. 0119787 to the Center for Informal Learning and Schools. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. The authors also wish to thank the co‐editors of this special issue and the two anonymous reviewers for their insightful commentary on earlier drafts.

Notes

This article emerged in the context of ongoing dialogue and collaboration between the authors, who are researchers and practitioners engaged in attempts to create, manage, evaluate, and analyze “dialogue events” in the UK and USA. The Center for Informal Learning and Schools has provided the opportunity and medium to link the research and practice of “dialogue events” by providing support for postgraduate students and post‐doctoral researchers at King’s College London to enter into collaborative relationships with practitioners at three different “dialogue event” sites: the Dana Centre at the Science Museum (London), the Darwin Centre at the Natural History Museum (London), and the Choices and Challenges Project at Virginia Tech (Blacksburg, VA, USA). The explorations in this article are thus grounded in the authors’ experiences in these two national contexts, as well as by the four overarching and interconnected themes of CILS research: (1) the means and structures of participating in informal learning; (2) the use of explanation, communication, and discourse in informal contexts in a range of settings; (3) the organizational structures, policies, and agencies of those engaged in informal learning and their implications for practice; and (4) learning environments and their design.

1. For the purposes of this article, we limit our discussion to the UK and USA. However, we should note that efforts to increase PEST are not limited to Anglo‐American contexts.

2. Roughly 60% of the Dana Centre events focus on increasing awareness and interest in contemporary science through techniques such as forum theater, interactive panelist debates, handling sessions using real objects from the museum’s collection, art installations, and science comedy events. The other 10% of events include deliberative discussions directly connected to science and technology policy‐making processes (such as the current Meeting of the Minds—European Citizen’s Deliberation on Brain Science).

3. Institutional partners in NISE already include: the New York Hall of Science; the Sciencenter (Ithaca, NY); the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry; the Fort Worth Museum of Science and History; the Museum of Life and Science in North Carolina; the Association of Science–Technology Centers; the Materials Research Society; Main Street Science (Cornell University); MRSEC Interdisciplinary Education Group (University of Wisconsin‐Madison); and the Envision Center for Data Perceptualization (Purdue University).

4. For instance, The Exploratorium’s 1995 exhibit “Diving into the Gene Pool” included a lecture and discussion series on bioethics and the Human Genome Project that was partially funded by the ELSI. However, most of the ELSI‐funded dialogue events seem to have occurred outside ISI settings. For instance, in collaboration with the National Educational Foundation of Zeta Phi Beta sorority, two workshops (1999, 2000) were held for members of minority communities in Philadelphia and New Orleans, LA to discuss the status of genetic research and avenues for greater minority‐group involvement, as well as to solicit input from minority communities on their issues and concerns. A similarly intended meeting was organized in 1997 at the University of Maryland, which included as it aims to “acquaint [participating] genome project scientists and policy‐makers with the aspirations and interests of these [minority] communities”; and in 1996 at Tuskegee University. The ELSI also funded a project to “introduce Native‐American tribes to the basics of genetics, genetic research” and, “in turn, inform DOE HGP managers about tribal perspectives,” as well as the 1994 conference entitled “Seeking Common Ground: A Forum for People with Disabilities and Genetic Professionals.”

5. The criteria employed by Guston (1999) to evaluate the first consensus conference in the USA (1997) are an exception. Guston (1999) assesses four different types of impacts, what he labels “actual impact,” “general thinking,” “training of knowledgeable personnel,” and “interaction with lay knowledge.”