Science centres and universities differ in many respects: policies, objectives, commitment to dissemination, organisation, speed, flexibility, partners, dedicated budgets... Both types of organisations have their own complexities, but are they able to dance tango together?
This session’s speakers managed to “cross the bridge” meeting people from a different environment and collaborating in the creation of a project the strength and uniqueness of which is the result of this “mix of cultures”. Throughout the session, an interactive poll will tease participants' brains: the speakers will ask for feedback during their talks (quizzes, questions, ideas, comments) and the results will be displayed live. A chronological abstract will be generated.
Facilitator
Head of Science/Culture Dpt
Montpellier
France
Session speakers
Assistant professor informal science education
Leiden University
Leiden
Netherlands
What is needed for a fruitful research collaboration between a university and a science museum? Leiden University and Naturalis Biodiversity Center collaborate on research about museum education. Researchers are embedded in both organisations and study questions that emerge from practice. I will discuss the factors that made our collaboration successful (e.g. overlapping interests, commitment) and some of the challenges (e.g. time, funding).
Media and Public Relations Manager
Wyss Center for Bio and Neuroengineering
Geneva
Switzerland
Research organisations are keen to connect with the public through museums, science centres and their own in-house visitor centres. I will share my experiences of developing and managing an interactive visitor space in a research centre, collaborating with local museums as well as inviting university researchers into a science centre. A live audience poll will highlight the benefits and drawbacks of universities connecting with the public in different settings.
Director of science mediation and education
PARIS
France
3 reflections:
What: ask questions which are relevant for both research AND the public. Questions relevant for researchers only are boring and uninteresting; questions relevant for the public only are empty and insignificant.
When: upstream, mainstream. Science communication should work at the roots of research questions, not on the leaflets of research results. It should grow with research, not after research is finished. It should be part of research, not a side dish (or worse the fake food in the shop’s window …).
Who: whenever is too easy to distinguish who is the expert and who is the public, something’s wrong.