1. Science and the Public Conference 19th May 2007 Public engagement as a socio-cultural learning process science communication research using drama and discussion as meaning making Emily Dawson, John Barlow, Anne Hill and Emma Weitkamp

2. Introduction UK Science Communication agenda Dialogue, discussion and debate Need for research on ‘what’ people think and ‘how’ they have thought it ‘how’ 16-19 year old students made meaning in a drama/discussion workshop on the social issues of genetic testing

3. Research aims and objectives To develop & run a series of science communication workshops using drama and discussion to engage with science issues To investigate how students between 16-19 years of age made meaning within the workshops

4. Methodology Social-constructivism Phenomena: workshop situation specifically constructed for research in formal education setting Parallels with a grounded theory approach for this aspect of the research Data supports socio-cultural learning theories

5. Methods: the workshop Science: pre-testing with 16-19 year olds selected genetic testing for Early Onset Alzheimer’s disease. Drama: a two scene, open ended performance based on a family where the granddad has Early Onset Alzheimer’s Disease and the question of genetic testing for his grandson. Discussion: facilitated small group discussions designed to start students talking about the questions posed in the drama.

6. Methods: the research Methods Mixed method approach with emphasis on the qualitative elements of the research Recorded discussions: qualitative approach used as most suited to research aims Sample 7 workshops, 240 students, 140 female, 99 male Analysis Preliminary analysis of transcripts has followed a reflexive approach to thematic analysis

7. Results Found meaning making in this group to have socio-cultural dimension Students ‘made meaning’ together by… Personalising Scaffolding Vernacular science language for communication Building a sophisticated understanding of social issues surrounding genetic testing as a group

8. Personalising “ S1: my uncle, when he was born, he was born with a weak heart and he was told that he wouldn’t see his 20th birthday, but my grandparents decided not to tell him…my uncle is now 40 and he’s still alive, so they reckon it was the fact that they didn’t tell him, basically put no pressure on his mind or body, so that’s why I’m saying no, I think it would risk the rest of his life… and he wouldn’t be able to live it in full… S2: but then at the same time, my mum suffers from multiple sclerosis and she got diagnosed at 36 and her brother that she hasn’t seen since she was 7, he lives in New York, and now she’d never going to get round to doing it, cos she hasn’t got the strength to do it, and if she’d of known that she was going to have it, ten years ago she would have gone” (Group 2, TVU)

9. Scafffolding “A1: would you tell your doctor? A2: yeah yeah, definitely A3: yeah but wouldn’t they know? It’s be on there A2: yeah but if you changed doctors, it might not be A1: basically it’s health people init, you might need to tell a counsellor as well, if it affects you mental health as well, before you get it, you might need to speak to a counsellor about it so they can help you A2: yeah a counsellor A3: so a counsellor might be able to help you with it A2: just help you mentally cope with it A1: cos that’s the place where you’re weakest A3: true” (Group 4, FF)

10. Vernacular science language “D1: um, […] does she come from the same blood line” (Group 1, Denefield 1) “F1: it’s more likely that she will get it if Josh has got the disease as well in his blood stream then it’s […] and her father has got it F1: well yeah it’s going to be passed down but it can skip generations F2: yeah exactly […] F3: […] genes F1: […] going to get the disease, but it can, if you do have, you know it can skip so it might make her think ‘oh I'm getting it’ and then she might think she's getting symptoms and then” (Group 3, SSU)

11. From black and white to grey “G1: cos she's the mother and I'm a mother, I know…so I would want to know G2: without his permission G1: yeah, yes, I wouldn’t need permission from my son to G2: yeah but this guy seems to be over 18, […] G1: then again that's down to Josh to tell me, I mean if I'm going with him [if I know ] the problem if I [pick] up the symptoms and I probably would [have gone] with him and I would be worrying about him and then he would talk to me if we are close enough but then again we might not be close enough and he might […] G2: depends on what sort of situation you're in, because like to me if he didn’t want his mum to know, if he didn’t want her to know so it doesn’t make his mum worried but then no, but then again if you’re saying that, if she actually went with him and someone that actually knows about the problem and he's asking her help then I think yeah,” (Group 6, TVU)

12. Developing a sophisticated understanding “E1:yeah but people don’t take that attitude do they, you’ve got to, it’s got to depend on the individual when deciding these things, you can’t decide en masse can you E2:en masse […] E3:no […] E1: you can’t decide for the whole of society […] E2:everyone has their different outlooks E4:yeah people deal with problems differently” (Group 4, SSU)

13. Conclusions The socio-cultural components of meaning making were utilised by students in the research workshops. Science communication can work with socio-cultural learning theory to develop engagements based on these principles. The discussions in this research were prescriptive and more flexibility may yield more interesting results.

14. Suggestions More research into ‘how’ engagement works is necessary:- 1)Longitudinal research on impact and views 2) Perhaps by building on ‘how’ people construct knowledge, more effective public engagement can be developed