tangle report final - einstein's...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Einstein’s Garden Society Award: Individual Project Reports 2017
Tangle
Dr Karen M Smith (March 2018)
Executive summary Tangle was an interactive installation using lengths of thread woven individually by each participant to understand the factors (social, educational, psychological, etc.) that influence health throughout life. Tangle explored how much control human beings have on their health and how they can understand more about healthy ageing. The project was produced by Einstein’s Garden in partnership with UCL and in collaboration with a textile artist. The project was piloted in Einstein’s Garden at the Green Man Festival 2017. In the festival programme Tangle was described as: ‘Everything that goes into your life is important -‐ what you eat, where you grow up, who your friends are, your education and all the tiny details. These threads of our lives intertwine and lead to different outcomes for health and ageing. Weave your own threads into the growing sculpture and untangle the data of people’s lives to understand more about living a long, happy and healthy life. In partnership with UCL.’ An overview of the project can be found here: http://einsteinsgarden.net/tangle Participants progressed through a series of activities with questions, for example, a memory test, a balancing exercise. Each activity contained an information board. Based on their responses, participants collected ribbons relating to their life course or life story and wound those into a
2
sculpture. The project aimed to weave each participant’s life course and generate learning regarding the study of life course epidemiology. The evaluation suggested that the project was extremely successful in creating a visual and highly enjoyable activity which inspired audiences to learn and evaluate their own lives and consider their health and happiness and the factors that influence them. Tangle attracted a broad range of people. The audience responded thoughtfully to Tangle with demonstrated enjoyment and engagement. As evidenced in the substantial number of vox pop interviews and in the observations, the activity presented a visual tactile experience which generated quiet discussion and engagement alongside fun activities which generated deeper understanding of one’s health over the course of a lifetime. The interaction with the audience and the experience of visitors being so visibly engaged and enjoying the project was the most rewarding aspect for the collaborators. The most challenging aspect for collaborators was a combination of keeping up with the demand for resources (e.g. fabric) as people participated, and ensuring consistency across the eight activities. Following the event, many collaborators expressed surprise at how engaged, welcoming, inspired and interested the audience were, and reaffirmed how enjoyable the experience was working with an audience. Most collaborators had been inspired to consider their everyday work in a new way and had gained or increased understanding of public engagement with science. The creative collaborator had learnt more about science and the way in which people are willing to engage. Some gains in skills and confidence in public engagement were also evidenced. Methods Online surveys were conducted with collaborators before and after the event, exploring their expectations and reflections on their involvement. Seven collaborators completed the pre-‐event survey, and eight completed the post-‐event survey. Observations were conducted at the Green Man festival focusing on each of the individual projects. Four observations were completed focusing on Tangle, totalling 66 minutes. Short vox pop interviews were conducted with visitors at the festival to explore their experiences and perceptions of the activities. Eight visitor vox pop interviews were conducted with visitors to Tangle involving:
• two adults, one male, one female • one adult male, one female child • two young adult females • two separate groups of one adult male • one adult female, one male child • one young adult female • adult female and young adult female
3
Vox pops were also conducted with collaborators at the festival, investigating how they were finding delivering the activities. Four collaborator vox pop interviews were conducted, with three scientists and one creative collaborator.
Findings
1. Sample
Of those collaborators taking part in the pre-‐event survey, six were scientists / researchers and one was an artist/engagement collaborator. Of those taking part in the post-‐event survey, six were scientists, one was an arts / engagement collaborator, and one was ‘other’: research manager.
2. Collaborators’ existing experiences of public engagement For four collaborators, this was their first time being involved in a public engagement project of this nature, three had been involved in similar projects before. Of those involved in similar events before, one had taken part in science fairs including ‘hands-‐on activity’ and another had worked on theatrical productions to promote awareness of charity work, and medical illness. All collaborators were motivated to get involved for the opportunities it offered for increased public engagement involvement and to disseminate and communicate research with the public rather than ‘just within academia’. One collaborator said: ‘It seemed like a good opportunity to have some 'expert' help to create an engaging public engagement event and also to reach an audience who might not have ever heard of life course research.’
4
Another science collaborator also wanted to meet people and hear their thoughts on their work. The arts / engagement collaborator said that both their dedication to public engagement and their previous ‘brilliant experiences’ working in Einstein’s Garden at Green Man had motivated them to become involved.
3. Collaborators' perceptions before the festival Before the festival, one scientist and one artist collaborator were concerned about time, and for the artist collaborator the relatively short time scale for designing and preparation. One scientist had no concerns and the other four concerns were as follows:
• ‘The creative side. Sometimes scientists are not the most creative people’. • ‘How much help we would actually receive from the experts in terms of creating the event’. • ‘That it would be hard to be on the same page as non-‐scientists-‐ our study is sensitive, and
we don't want to communicate details of our work incorrectly or give viewers the wrong impression about it’.
• ‘That there would be disagreement over major aspects of the project that prevented work progressing quickly’.
In terms of collaborators concerns for delivering the project at the festival, three people were concerned about the weather, particularly rain, which they perceived may cause complications with logistics or other practicalities. Another person was mildly concerned about the practical installation. One collaborator voiced a concern about time and logistics: ‘I have a slight concern that our activity may be too time consuming and how logistically people will be able to work their way through it and how much time people will spend with us’. A further collaborator was concerned about the activity being tiring. In terms of what collaborators were looking forward to about delivering the project at the festival, all collaborators were anticipating interaction with the public and with each other and were also looking forward to public reactions and discussions. Two were also keen to be able to see the installation within the festival setting. Collaborators were aiming for a range of outcomes as a result of their involvement in the project. Most science collaborators were looking for developed public engagement and science communication skills, in addition to developed mutual understanding and insights into their research via interaction with audiences. A fun and playful experience was also hoped for. One collaborator said they aimed for: ‘experience of putting together a more creative public engagement experience which may hopefully help us to think a bit outside of the box for all our future activities as well as reusing aspects of Tangle.’ The creative collaborators hoped to learn from the scientists, and to have developed: ‘A beautiful sculpture, some great experience with public engagement and to have facilitated some good learning experiences.’ Two additional pre-‐festival comments expressed thanks and enjoyment of the experience of working with Einstein’s Garden and team, for example: ‘X and X were engaging and supportive, and meetings were co-‐ordinated well.’
4. Collaborators’ perceptions following the festival
5
Collaborators were asked about their perceptions of the overall experience of delivering the project at the festival. On a scale of 1 -‐ 10 (1 -‐ very negative, 10 -‐ very positive). All collaborators rated their experience in the top three scores of 8-‐10, with one rating the experience as very positive (scoring 10), five scoring 9, and two scoring 8. When commenting on their ratings, the collaborators noted the positive experience and enjoyment that they had felt, and the positive feedback from the keenness of the public to interact and discuss Tangle widely. ‘Fun’ was a word used consistently, and all collaborators suggested that the project was successful. Engagement with the public and the festival as a whole had engendered feelings of pride and satisfaction. Seeing the project come to life had been a real highlight and for one collaborator the success of the activity had far exceeded their expectations. One collaborator discussed the activity as: ‘Very positive, career enhancing, great fun, learnt a lot from the scientists and the public. Learnt a lot about quick problem solving and how different levels of engagement can work. It was very hard work and tiring!’ The collaborator who scored 10 commented: ‘I really enjoyed it and it was successful; people liked it and it went smoothly’. It was noted by one collaborator that ‘the help we had to come up with the concept was invaluable and the fact that the project was so creative led to it being a much more enjoyable experience’. Collaborators were asked about the most rewarding aspect of the experience. All the science collaborators said that an aspect of audience involvement and interaction; predominantly talking to people engaging and sharing their research work with the public, was the most rewarding. One science collaborator also found seeing the overall sculpture at the end rewarding. Collaborators commented, for example:
• ‘engaging with interested people at the festival who asked for recommendations for further reading’.
• ‘Several long discussions with members of the public who came over to see what we were doing were very rewarding’.
For arts / engagement collaborators, the most rewarding aspect was again, public engagement and being able to witness the work created working effectively. Collaborators said:
• ‘Seeing a large scale work realised and overhearing valuable engagement, watching public understand the research and enjoying the way it had been interpreted was the most rewarding’.
• ‘For me the most rewarding aspect was when I walked past one night at 9pm and there were still people looking at and reading all the notes on the sculpture. The fact that people were still engaging with the project even when we were not there makes you a little bit proud!!’.
Highlights from collaborators in vox pops were the engaged audience reactions and their responses to the research and to the work. For example, one science collaborator said, ‘it’s just been so much fun and learning about what the public feel about what we’re doing and hearing their personal stories. Some people have been really touched by it, I saw a women with tears in her eyes when I was telling her about my research and it was so important to me to know that it matters.’ Another collaborator said: ‘Just reading the stories on there has been a real highlight for me, the amount of things that people share almost unprompted, has been a highlight’.
6
Collaborators were also asked about the most challenging aspect of the experience. All but one of the collaborators comments found that the most challenging aspect was a combination of keeping up with the demand for fabric and other resources as people participated and ensuring consistency across the eight activities. For example, comments included:
• ‘The project seemed very busy all the time, so it was a lot of effort to make sure things didn't run out.’
• ‘the most challenging aspect was keeping up with demand and making sure we had enough people and materials!’
One collaborator commented that engaging with the public was the most challenging. Another added that the challenges were: ‘physical, heavy lifting and logistics of being at a festival!’ Tangle was popular and talking to people in what proved to be a consistently busy activity meant that breaks were not taken, and a longer day was worked than expected. To alleviate the demand in the future some collaborators suggested:
• ‘The demanding day was non-‐stop -‐ we should have had a rota to give each member of the team breaks, and designated roles.’
• ‘Needed a manager. Could have done with more people / breaks / structure / organisation. Allocated roles etc. This made it stressful at times.’
• ‘The other challenging aspect was to have a consistent message about each of the 8 areas. It is fairly easy to explain the concept of life course and what we do to people, so I think this aspect was very successful. Depending on the scientist the public may have been told slightly more/less detail about the topics. I don't think that was necessarily a bad thing it is just a consequence of having quite a few different areas and scientists who know more about a specific area than another.’
When discussing challenges in the vox pops, one science collaborator observed: ‘We’ve swapped our cups of tea and our desks for an airbed and rain and chatting the whole day with people asking us questions. It’s really hard to answer questions, but it’s got us to really get to the nub of what we do. By explaining things, we know our work better. It’s been tiring but illuminating.’
5. Impacts on collaborators Collaborators were asked whether their experience with the project had impacted on their ideas about public engagement with science. Two collaborators said it had confirmed or reinforced the importance of public engagement and the symbiotic relationship between art and science. One collaborator said: ‘I think taking part in Einstein's Garden has just reinforced the idea that art and science can be combined to produce something that is very interesting and engaging to the public.’ Three Collaborators were surprised by audience reaction for example:
• ‘Showed how much the public wanted to learn about our research. I wasn't expecting people to want to know as much as they did.’
• ‘A novel and clever project surprised me with the length of time it prompted people to hang around for.’
• ‘I have always enjoyed public engagement science events, but I was particularly struck by how genuinely interested people are in learning about what we do -‐ we should engage more often!’
7
One collaborator had learnt ‘To be more creative/abstract... and keep it simple...’ Another collaborator said: ‘I'm more confident about different methods to engage people’. In the vox pops collaborators evidenced further learning. For scientists, learning included how enjoyable the experience was working with an audience and some collaborators again expressed surprise at how engaged, welcoming, inspired and interested the audience were, for example: ‘I’m really surprised actually at how engaged people have been because I’ve done science engagement things in the past where people have taken a little bit of time but not really taken as much time as they have here. People sitting down for half an hour and really talking through each one of these stations behind us, people are talking about balance, they’re asking questions about memory, about mastery, what that means to their health and it’s really incredible to see people engaging on that level.’ ‘I didn’t think that they were going to love it as much as they do, and everyone wants to talk about their health and their life and ask questions. A lot of people are really interested in research which is good because we worry that some wouldn’t be that interested in the science part, but they really are amazed by the work that we’re doing.’ A science collaborator observed: ‘I really like people exploring and seeing how people do things differently… I test control, it’s really subjective, it’s psychological, and it’s something different to every single person. I think that’s really important for me to remember. So, some people think it’s so important to be in control and some people are more like it would be more relaxing not to feel in control, and it gave me a really new perspective on my work, so I’m going to take that home and be inspired by it.’ For the creative collaborator discussing the project in the vox pop, they observed: ‘I’ve learnt a lot about the science itself but also about the way in which people are willing to engage’. Collaborators commented on whether their experience had led them to consider their everyday work in a new way. Two collaborators said no, and six said yes, with the following further comments:
• Working out a clever way of representing data to members of the public can provide an excellent way of prompting in depth discussions with engaged individuals.
• I learnt a lot from watching people make their life courses, this will go into the everyday running of workshops.
• When thinking about public engagement activities we will try and think about the user experience more and what types of things people actually enjoy doing. I am not sure it will have necessarily changed the direction of our research.
• It has encouraged me to think how my research could be translated... In vox pops collaborators confirmed that they had learnt how their research could be presented by collaborating with creative practitioners. One collaborator said: ‘My mind is really rational and scientific, and I don’t understand how artists think so it’s really interesting to see it and observe it. I have so much respect for the way that they approach things because some of the public have actually said, “how did you come up with this idea, it’s such a
8
good way to present the data” and I said, “it wasn’t just me, it’s a collaboration between artists and scientists”.’ Another science collaborator said that the creative collaborators were: ‘so positive about everything. Like “let’s try and let’s adapt these ideas, make it all work together”, and I think sometimes in a scientific community people are very quick to say, “well no that won’t work because”, rather than try and work it that way… everyone’s so positive about it and have really adapted to everyone’s ideas and made sure that everything is working. I think it’s just surprised me, it’s surprised me how engaged people have been.’ When asked about other impacts, collaborators rated their experiences on a scale of 1 (not at all) to 10 (totally changed). Impacts were positive in nature: The average rating for learning about art and/or science was 7.4 with three collaborators scoring 8. An example of collaborator comments:
• ‘I had already started thinking about combining art and science in a recent engagement event, but this project showed what can really be achieved when you have the right combination. I think the project was very designed to offer different levels of engagement.’
• ‘I have always been interested in learning about science so this has confirmed that.’ The average rating for confidence in public engagement was 8.8. 2 collaborators scored 10, three scored 9 and three scored 8. Collaborators explained their rating as follows:
• ‘The relaxed and informal atmosphere is a great place to feel more comfortable with public engagement skills and increase one’s confidence.’
• ‘I have had a fair amount of experience in talking to members of the public around science related matters, but this was one of the most positive. It has definitely encouraged me to continue down this avenue.’
The average rating for impacts on skills in public engagement was 7.9. Collaborators commented, for example:
• ‘My skills have shot up.’ • ‘The people who took part ranged from some who had no idea about a cohort to people
who were actually part of a cohort or working in the health survey area. The audience were very engaged so this really helps boost your confidence as people are genuinely interested in what you are saying. There was a wide age range at Green Man so it was good to be able to talk in more simple terms to a child but then to explain some of the more detailed findings to adults who showed a deeper interest/understanding. It helps to practice all levels of engagement.’
Collaborators were asked ‘Before taking part in this project how involved would you have considered yourself in public engagement with science (e.g. do you participate in many events and activities?) (1-‐10 scale, 1 – not engaged at all, 10 extremely engaged)’ and they responded with an average rating of 6.8. When asked whether their experience had made them more or less likely to be involved in similar public engagement events in future (1-‐ much less likely, 10 – much more likely), the average rating was 8.6, alongside comments, this scoring demonstrates that collaborators were marginally
9
positively affected in terms of their motivation in public engagement. However, the comments suggest that those who gave further detail to this question were already committed to increasing involvement in public engagement. The project was noted to have ‘highlighted the ability to be more ambitious with future projects.’ Two further examples of comments follow:
• ‘I am actively involved in our public engagement activities. Taking part has made me want to continue what we are doing and interacting with the public.’
• ‘I think I do enough public engagement.’ Two collaborators commented on whether the ideas that came about in the workshop were seen through in full to the festival? Both felt that the ideas had come through and one collaborator commented: ‘Yes, the final project was a great meshing of all ideas’. When asked if there were any other comments, two collaborators made the following comments:
• ‘Working with such a positive team who were willing to ensure everyone's voice was heard was refreshing. The experience of the team and artists involved shone through and their ability to engage with the science behind the project was inspirational. I hope these cross disciplinary projects continue!’
• ‘I was actually surprised how many adults (without children) took part in the activity. Before attending I thought it would be mainly children but this wasn't the case. The [artist collaborators] were great in running everything and coming up with all the stands/fabric words etc.’
6. Audience interactions and behaviours
Participants in vox pops demonstrated their enjoyment in Tangle. All eight vox pops discussed enjoyment. One vox pop particularly stressed their enjoyment as a family: ‘We had a really nice time as a family just going through the self-‐assessment of your core values and the skills and what you really appreciate in life. And then we’ve just finished by tying our threads, measuring the importance of the skills, into the fence. And we’ve done that as a family which has been really nice.’ All of the audience members participating in the eight vox pops said that they had spoken to scientists as part of their experience in the project. Visitors described talking to scientists about learning and memory, balance, play, eating behaviours and, for example: ‘what you shouldn’t be eating, sweets, sweets, sweets’; ‘about the psychological science behind memory and how I can balance on one foot’ along with recalled details of particular areas of interest from their discussion, such as: ‘we spoke to one of the guys about it who was explaining the first original experiment with the people who did it for their whole life, it’s really interesting’. One vox pop visitor said: ‘it was really interesting about the studies they were telling us about where they’ve looked at people’s birth onwards to try and predict behaviour and whether it influences how you look after yourself’. One vox pop group described the scientists as ‘really welcoming’, and another said: ‘I thought the chap at the beginning was very good, giving us the introduction to the work, I’m a doctor so I had heard of the research, but we didn’t really talk in depth to any of the others’.
10
When asked: ‘Did you discover anything new?’ all vox pops suggested that they had developed new learning and thinking, and had been challenged or intrigued or encouraged to reflect. Other visitors had discovered new learning, for example:
• on the duration and longitudinal quality of some of the studies, (for example, ongoing testing from 1946, with the study being the oldest British birth cohort study).
• understanding the environment, for example, the rise of the supermarket and the effect on obesity.
• that obesity is a reflection of life, culture and the surrounding environment.
In another group a visitor commented that they had ‘learnt that balance is really important from a really early age so when you start walking, the earlier you start walking the better your balance will be so that’s pretty interesting to know’. Another visitor commented that they had discovered: ‘that it’s far more complicated and fascinating than you really think…it makes you think more.’ A different vox pop group visitor said: ‘It made me aware certainly just of things like what’s important, the evaluation at the end, things like family’s important to me and stuff, just makes me reinforce things really, appreciate things.’ Another visitor commented: ‘I think the main focus of it was about how stuff from when you’re just born or when you’re learning to walk can affect you up to when you die. So it was very interesting about things that stay with you and things that don’t.’ Observations provided a snapshot of audience behaviours whilst participating in the activity. Four observations were conducted, of approximately 43 visitors. Observations ranged in length between 13 and 20 minutes in duration. All observations record a mix of adults and children. Specific observational comments note the broad range of participants and a ‘quiet’ engagement with the activity. Observations also note how people who appeared to be strangers when arriving, engage in group activity at tables together, for example: ‘18 year old woman on own…talking to other participants, e.g. man and little girl and another similar aged woman.’ Another observation notes further people having: ‘Discussion with each other about their relative values; joined by another friend or a random stranger talking about difference between formal and informal learning.’ One observation ends with: ‘Overall picture as I leave is of several small groups around the tables, often individuals who don't know each other/don't arrive together. Quietly standing and winding.’ Observations demonstrate welcome and engagement of people by collaborators, drawing visitors into the activity, for example: ‘Male researcher welcomes groups and directs them to emptier parts of the tables. Researchers doing a good job at welcoming visitors: "do you want to join in?"’ The balancing game was also observed to attract people to the activity. For example: ‘Male and Female in their 30s join and do balancing game, another Male and Female in their 30s are attracted by seeing this and come and join. Standing still, nodding as female researcher explains the concept. "Beautiful" said female when told about the winding sculpture. All huddle around the memory game together -‐ smiling. Nodding, counting on fingers as observation ends.’ Observations show strong engagement and often demonstrate thoughtful interaction from visitors, particularly when threading strings, but also at other activities such as the balancing game, for example:
11
• ‘Groups quietly threading at tables…Researchers engaged… quiet conversation…peaceful atmosphere.’
• ‘Researcher at balancing game is talking to large group and all are quietly listening, smiling…nodding along as she talks about the cohort study.’
Observations also record ‘lots of giggling, laughing’ particularly at the balancing game. Another observation notes: ‘2 Females in their 20s are playing the balancing game. Laughing and hopping around, smiling at one another.’ One observation records visitors discussing ‘being energised’ by Tangle. Another observation notes a long discussion between a woman and researcher: ‘Woman in 40s approaches and researcher asks if she would like to know more. "That's really interesting!" on hearing about the concept of large cohort studies. Woman and researcher talk for 10 mins. Back and forth conversation, researcher is winding and [the] two women are standing side-‐by-‐side. Woman doesn't do a life course, but conversation continues touching both on the study, other cohort studies and the impact on healthcare and their own lives/work.’ One observation also notes: ‘"Oh it's brilliant, that's been fun!" -‐ mum and 5 year old say to researcher as they wind their life courses into the frame. "ooh stand there so I can get a photo"’. Two observations also observe visitors suggesting that they could spend substantial amounts of time at the activity, for example comments overhead from visitors such as: ‘I could stay and do this all day’.
7. Impacts on the audience Collaborators were asked how they felt the audience had responded to the project, and if there were things which they felt had worked particularly well. Collaborators commented generally on a strong positive audience response with people spending long amounts of time on the activity and asking numerous questions. One collaborator said: ‘we counted that at least 620 people were involved’. Collaborators were surprised by how willing people were to share and how much people liked making the thread. The interactive components and craft aspects (making of the life course and the tapestry) were felt to work very well. A collaborator said: ‘Everyone seemed to enjoy the creative side and lots of people mentioned how therapeutic it was weaving their life courses. There was a good mix between the hands on activity tests and the self-‐service questions.’ Collaborators observed that the games were already questions. One collaborator suggested this potentially made people feel important, intrigued, and also invited people to ask their own questions and enabled conversations to initiate easily. A collaborator said: ‘the simple but engaging task allowed people to hold interesting conversations’. Engagement was observed to be across the age spectrum, suitable for adults and children, and for families to learn together. The sculpture invited questions but did not need participation in the activity. A collaborator was surprised by those that did participate: ‘The weaving into the giant sculpture also worked out better than I thought. You could see people actually thinking quite hard about where to put their life course.’
12
The length of participation was felt to work well. One collaborator said: ‘people were able to stay for 10-‐20 minutes which allowed time to engage in conversation.’ Two Collaborators commented specifically on the balance station and memory task which were felt to work particularly well and gained audience interest. An arts / engagement collaborator felt that ‘it was great to have so many scientists available.’ Collaborators were also asked if they felt there were things that the audience did not find as engaging. One collaborator did not think there was anything that was less engaging. Comments concerned specific elements of the activity, and were as follows:
• The mastery and friendship sections could be improved. • The 'give this ball to a friend' station -‐ people didn't understand that (and if they were
alone/parents it didn't make any sense). • The thimble in the memory box -‐ children didn't know what this item was, and non-‐native
English speakers struggled with the word…One memory box was a bit of a bottleneck (would be nice to have a memory task more than one person could do at once).
• The audience would perhaps like to have seen more of the outcomes from the actual survey.
• The sculpture could be viewed without engaging a researcher consequently some viewers may have gone away having not learnt about the science of the project.
Specific comments on questions:
• The questions on education did not seem to provoke as much discussion, though the fact they required less hands on time from researchers was valued.
• A few questions were considered quite hard for younger children to understand, the example given was the question: ‘how in control of your life do you feel?’. A collaborator suggested that all questions could be child proofed in advance.
• One collaborator said: ‘I felt like there was a bit too much to explain about the project…the 8 questions/tests and making the life course was ok but then having to explain about the fence and the different areas about quality of life.’
Some visitors in vox pop groups commented that they had changed their attitude to science by taking part, and they were now more interested in science. Others were already interested. Those whose interest had not been affected made comments such as:
• ‘I’m quite open minded, my wife’s actually a lecturer in science anyway, but certainly it’s good to get the kids involved to show there’s more to science than boring classroom lessons and something a bit more fun and interactive’.
• ‘I don’t think I had a bad attitude towards it before, I’d always accepted that it was important’.
One visitor suggested that they ‘maybe a bit less scared at having a go at something at a festival, a sciencey thing’. Tangle had made science more accessible to this visitor. Those who were impacted and had changed their views on science made comments such as: ‘I think things like this are really important to have, a festival’s a really great place to be in but I think things like this are really important and you should definitely invest in funding them’. Another visitor commented on the impact of the activity by being creatively involved; that the message and
13
knowledge sticks: ‘it’s like doing something isn’t it, doing the you know like tying something around a piece of rope, that’s something that you will take away and remember, do you know what I mean because it’s kind of active and it’s visual and it’s I don’t know it weaves into something, it’s not being told, you’re not just being told something’. Another commented that Tangle enabled ‘research that can involve everybody and you can do together and have a lot of fun as a family’. Audience members were asked in vox pops whether they expected to see an activity like this at a music festival. Comments from interviewees ranged in opinion dependent on their experience of festivals in general and which festivals they had previously attended. Some visitors were repeat returners to Einstein’s Garden, and expected arts and science activity. Of the eight vox visitor pop groups, four expected the activity, and four did not, but were not necessarily surprised by it. The four different vox pop groups who said they were not expecting the activity, for example, clarified their thoughts with similar comments such as:
• not at a music festival but at green man, we know they have lots of science. • green man always has a science area and no other place does • I think the Einstein’s Garden as a whole is fantastic anyway, so many diverse things • not at a normal music festival • I feel this is more like an artsy music festival so I wasn’t surprised by it being here
When asked to describe the experience in three words, the vox pop groups used the following words:
Fun was a word used most in descriptions and in the vox pops in general. Interesting and thought provoking were also words used often. All eight vox pops groups said they would recommend Tangle to others. They clarified why they would recommend it with comments describing the activity as fun and creating new thinking and reflection. Examples of comments follow:
14
• I think it’s a really good way of talking about science in a different way. • Definitely, 100%, it was really really good fun. • We’re going to get brother and dad to come and do it because we think we might beat
them, we’re a little bit competitive in our family aren’t we? • I would recommend it because it just gives a perspective on one’s life and even a four year
old and a much older person could do it together. All vox pops were emphatically inspired to take part in other similar activities. Comments included a number of ‘yeah definitely’ and further comments such as:
• it’s very interesting • we like this area and activities like this help us to think
In Vox pops, most visitors did not suggest improvements. Visitors described the activity, for example, as ‘very pleasantly challenging’ and others made comments such as:
• ‘I think it was really well laid out…explained really clearly’ • ‘it was fantastic, it really was, everything’s brilliant here’
Two vox pop interviewees suggested improvements, one visitor suggested further signposting regarding some of the studies that were discussed in order to discover more about the context and to enable further reading after the festival. Another visitor suggested more scientists at busy times to support the flow of people.
8. Improvements and suggestions Collaborators made a number of specific improvements and suggestions to individual activities that are detailed above in section 7. More general suggestions for improvements were:
• A manager or a rota to reduce stress and provide structure and organisation so each team member could have designated roles and breaks.
• To have a consistent message about each of the eight areas. Most vox pop visitors did not suggest improvements. The two main improvements suggested were:
• Further information and signposting • Additional people resources at busy times to support the flow of people.
15