Innovative Ways to Communicate Science
Schrögel, Philipp
Science communication can mean many different things - an evening lecture, an entertaining science festival of a dialogue on societal perspectives regarding a new technology. Whar are the trends? And what does this mean for young researchers? Philipp Schrögel gives an overview on the field together with selected insights from his science communication research projects.
 This is the old aura of the University of Heidelberg, like the very traditional mode, the high professors are talking from the podium, promoting the truth to the uneducated public, and in a very formal, very hierarchical, very traditional setting. And of course, you all know you're in the midst of all that during your projects. Like science communication today looks a lot different. There's so many things. You already mentioned the science lens, and I thought, well, I use just that as an opener. This is outdoor science lab I hosted in Karlsruhe during the Science Festival in 2015. Like it's a completely different mode of communicating science. Like there are a lot of people. It's an outdoor festival. They're having fun. They're drinking beer. So it's a totally different picture. Before, so this was, yeah, it's a very, very pictorial start into the topic, but going back a little bit, laying the foundation, what are we actually talking about? I just showed you two very dominant pictures, giving impressions of science communications, but I want to start asking you what your perceptions and your expectations of science communication are. You mentioned that it has been brought up the last days, one or two times, and it has been brought up yesterday when I was here. So what do you think of when you think of science communication? What do you expect from science communication in your projects? Are there any opinions or what do you want to know about science communication? Yes? I think that it's important to get the message across. Say again? To get the message across that you want to communicate. Okay, so which message, from whom? I mean, about your research, for example, but I think what is most difficult is try to pitch what is it important to communicate, because we tend to just drown into our research, and when we start to explain our own research, we talk and talk and talk, and then we don't really communicate. Okay. I think. Are there any other? Yes, please just make the round. Probably it's the easiest way for the microphone. Oh. Yeah, I was just thinking that you don't have to jump around. Sure, so I think there might be actually a difference between communicating scientific results and communicating about science, like kind of marketing of science and society itself. I think there are maybe these two kind of strategies. Okay, and what is it for you? When you hear science communication, what do you think about? Actually more like the marketing kind of thing from my experience? And for me, the first thing that comes to my mind, or what I expect from my research is to be accessible, and that's what communicating, like that's one of the challenges of communicating science or communicating about science. Okay. Yeah. There was one more over this. Yeah, for me, science communication is something like how we can translate the knowledge between a stakeholder as Pamela says something like our results, but the idea is that it's translate information because we need to share same language. Okay, so I don't see any immediate responses with just some quick gathering, getting to know what you think about it, somehow some impressions. So of course I also started with a definition here, and actually it's all included in there, and that would be probably the first message. Science communication is also a very broad umbrella term that's not really defined. Some people are using it in a special narrow way, either as a positive approach or either as a, well, negative approach, decrying some forms of communications, like, oh, science communication, that's just marketing, and because the other thing is science journalism, and that's the truth. And the most broad, and I think the most applicable definition would be it's basically, and even shorter than that, it's communicating about science, about all aspects of science, and communication between all different actors, like not only scientists talking to the public, but also then, and then Bastia I think is going a bit more into that later on, scientists talking to scientists, public talking to scientists, like it's all communication processes that somehow involve some aspects of science. What I am going to focus, and this, well, obvious, already with the chosen examples, is external science communication. This means communication going beyond the boundaries of scientific institutions. And please note that there's also no direction included in there, that of course, communicating, translating your results, making them accessible to the public, to lay people is one part, but also the communication back from the public, to the institutions is also part of that definition. And there's all these different aspects that would be included in that definition, like the traditional science PR, the department, science journalism, private science, YouTubers, science, activists, organizations, NGOs that communicate about scientists, scientists that personally talk about something that have personal Twitter accounts or what else not. So the forms are not really limited. I'm not going more into detail about science journalism, that's not my area of expertise. I'm more talking now and the following about scientists in one way or the other, communicating with others and especially communicating with lay people. And I think this is a very important aspect and you discussed it the last days, you discussed it yesterday, the sole question of experts versus non-experts. We can discuss it later on. There's one thing, there's institutionalized hierarchies versus the public, but there is expertise. And I see there are differences in expertise that also need to be addressed in communication. And I already forgot to mention it, like translating knowledge, like transforming messages to various levels of expertise. This is also part of science communication. But even going one step back more to even more basic foundations because I think that's very important. That's my message I want to get across to our students but also to others when I talk about science communication. Many have the expectation and the desire or science communication, just tell us the five tricks that we need to know then we can talk better about our research. Like what are the five key lessons on PowerPoint slides or how do I do a YouTube video? So of course there are some very fundamental basics but they're not that difficult and you can't talk about what you probably can. Talk an hour about that. But I think any sufficient reflexive human being can actually think about, okay, is this PowerPoint slide? Understandable to my grandmother, to my grandfather, to my neighbor with a different academic or non-academic background. So you don't need to read a detailed training test. Basic thinking should be enough. And I don't know, that's really my opinion. Of course you can have some examples and can get better at that, but the basics are there. I think it's much more important to talk about the underlying assumptions about the interaction of science and society and what your expectations are towards communication, what your expectations are towards your communication partners. And you are probably much more ahead of that since you're already discussing that in your research projects and in your understanding of transdisciplinarity. But a lot of others aren't. And I think it's very important. I wanted also to present it to you to discuss it with you. And also I mentioned yesterday is it regarding the real world laboratories, is it just a new thing or new rebranding? And also for science communication issues. A lot of these things and a lot of these insights I will present later on will sound very familiar to you. You have reached them from the perspective of transdisciplinarity research, but also very other disciplines come to similar conclusions just here now from the framing of communication sciences and science communication. This is one very important aspect and also important for media-lized science communication, meaning through science journalism. These two keywords brought up by Peter Weingart, scientification of society and socialization of science. It's not much anymore that you have disjunct, political scientific institutions that do some research and present it through every half year. And that's it. There's much more societal discussions going on in research institutions about priorities, research agendas. But also there's much more scientific insights involved in policy making and in societal developments in any aspect. It's not also the big things climate change, but it goes back to quarter development. All these things, basically the research you are doing is, in many of your projects, is a picture of these two main phenomena. So there's this one very naive thinking that many, well, let's say some natural scientists fall trap into when they think, oh, we're just doing pure science, we have nothing to do with society, we have nothing to do with politics, and that there may be very few cases where this might be true, but in general, it's very much intertwined. So this, you need to know when you communicate about science. It's not about just telling the truth in a very understandable way. And then this effect, it's called medialization or medialization, depends on who you ask. These also, these effects that influence the way we communicate, like there's an extensification of public presence. Like universities used to have just one press officer 20 years, then now the PR departments have grown, the numbers, they have much more activities, so there's much more public communications. In the earlier times, whatever you go back 100 years, like the experts just communicated with each other and they wrote letters and had their scientific meetings and sometimes aristocrats invited to some salons where the higher class had some exchange about science, but now the science is really in the public and you have to deal with that. There's a polarization of communication, where that's also part of your work. This can be very good when you have various views, when you have multiple viewpoints on an issue and you have to deal with that from a communications perspective, this can be also very bad. And I brought up the example yesterday and this is the case here again, like when you have a discussion on climate change in the media and the media say, okay, we need to present a balanced view. We have one expert on one opinion and the other expert on the counter opinion, then they present one scientist talking 10 minutes about why human-driven climate change is a thing and then they have another scientist equally getting 10 minutes talking about, okay, why human-driven climate change probably is not a thing. And so it's a problem you have to deal with, and somehow. Then the whole polarization issue that scientists have through the socialization and politicization, it gets much more controversial because it's very much from the beginning on intertwined with political processes. And there was just two or three weeks of paper coming out and I forgot to wrote down the original quote, it was about the polarization on the views of climate change between Republicans and Democrats in the United States. And there was this very interesting quotation citing some Republicans saying, well, I actually thought that climate change might have been a thing, but in the moment I learned that Al Gore was opposing, or was working against climate change, I thought, okay, now that's an issue on the other side and I'm totally against it. So basically, political processes interfering with communication processes. And of course, not for all areas, like if you're doing, what, I think basic geometry, that's probably not the case. And then this big criticism of communication for reputation in science, that institutions and personal scientists are using communication just to gain public reputation, to gain reputation by politicians, just to support their standing, just to gain potential support by funding institutions, by politicians. So just all these findings and there's not a neutral, well neutral, of course, not a trying to be neutral press release, but every headline is just following this mass media logic of having a very, say, appealing headline. Researchers from university, IGS have cured cancer, like you all know these things, or chocolate is good for you, chocolate is bad for you. Like all these things because that generates views, that generates reads, that generates clicks. And scientists and science communicators are much ever growing and dependent on these logic, and that's also a bad thing. That necessarily it's also good, like if you want to reach people with something you need to know how to frame the audience, to get the message across, that's one thing, but then if you do it for everything, yeah, it also falls out of line. So this is the current landscape. Going back, like I said at the beginning, science communication basically is everything to communicate somehow about on and for science. Was there always this divide between scientists that need to translate to the public? And so if you look at that historically, basically it's a way back and forth. In the very early beginnings, it's okay, scientists was only done by rich people, aristocrats who did that as a hobby, but they needed public support to show that they get some money from their duke, or from their, whatever, from the king. So they had huge public demonstrations on the marketplace, where a lot of people actually watched that. The famous example of the, in Magdeburg Hothbolts by Otto von Gehlke, where they demonstrated the vacuum pressure, like he did that on the marketplace with thousands of people watching. And there's also a public demonstration. There was no scientific communities, so the public was also needed as evidence that actually the experiment took place and the experiment had a certain outcome. There, thousands of people saw that, because there was no peer review and stuff like that back then. Then science became much more specialized, much more technicized, so-called ivory tower and okay, we're just within our scientific communities and working with ourselves because it's so complicated and now the push in the last years or the last decades basically back to the public, public involvement and all these things. And it has been framed in various different places. In the beginning it was just about communicating scientific literacy and then the public engagement and all these things probably here just showing you some of these areas. And now you might wonder what has that to do with science communication. And I say back to the beginning actually a lot because how to design a PowerPoint slide is not the important part about science communication, but what assumptions about the goals, about the purposes of science communication underlie your actions. And so all these things have a lot in common, I would say. It's different framings from different academic disciplines. They are all describing processes of opening up scientific communication to non-traditional institutionalized scientists in various aspects. And all of them are basically about communicating, communicating back and forth between publics and what between various different publics. So this is the landscape of science communication. And just to make it also clear since in the very beginning I asked, what do you think, what do you expect from science communication? And you mentioned making clear, translating your results to the public. And that of course, that is one key part of science communication. There's no question about that. But also this could be a legitimate goal. If you want to communicate about your field, you want to attract possible new students, possible probably PhD students, you want to communicate that the research you're doing is important, that it's worthwhile pursuing that research. Then this whole aspect of justification, legitimation of science. I framed it in a rather negative way in the first comment, but it doesn't have to be that. Like there is this pressure to legitimize your work when you're publicly funded through taxes. Okay, you have to show what you are doing. This is not working. You have to show what you are doing to give the public the possibility to actually think about it and discuss about the underlying issues. And also then, of course, like scientists doing science because they think it's cool and important what they are doing, and their goal is to raise acceptance for their work. This can be negative because there might be different viewpoints about certain areas of science or certain aspects, but it is a goal and you have to discuss if it's legitimate or not. And then, especially the last part, which you are doing is integral part of your transdisciplinary research, the exchange and dialogue of society. Also that is science communication. The hosting of forums, several people can do that themselves for others, like science communicators are actually asked to host events, to host town hall meetings, to host whatever dialogue workshops and include public input into scientific processes into priority settings by research institutions. Then also, then this is very much in the research process where scientists doing this themselves, gathering input from the public corporation. This would be this whole thing, co-designed corporations, citizen science projects, but that basically also has a communication component. It's very important to note, some people now say, okay, citizen science is a new cool form of science communication. Technically, this is true, but what they are meaning, okay, it's a cool new way if we give people the opportunity to collaborate somehow, they think it's good, they just think at that from a marketing or PR perspective. That's not the case, but it is a form of science communication. And, oh yeah, that's just, no, of course, there's something, I should not go over that, excitement and fun. So people actually enjoy talking about science and people actually enjoy, or might enjoy, hearing about science. They have fun at a science festival at a science center. And this is often overlooked because it's all about, probably 80% of people say science communication is about communicating knowledge, educating people, that's everything, but the fun part is really important. And that is, for me, it's really important to have it there. People enjoy being at a science lab and talking about their research because, you're a PhD student who actually enjoys when you're talking about your research. Like, there are 300 people in a room, they paid entrance fees to listen to what you are researching on. Like, that's a cool thing. And then in a science center, like, when you have these very basic experimental settings and teaching children the very basic principles and basic experiment, that's a fun entertainment. They don't need to learn a lot about that, but just need to learn that it's fun to be curious, to be experimenting. So, I really want to, I think I made clear that I think this is important. Okay, so this is the summary. I want to leave here the most important part, and this is something in the communication or science communication research was called the deficit model, like these early stages of science communication where you thought, okay, science communication is just about communicating results to the public. And when you communicate that results to the public, they think it's cool what you're doing. It's just a question of information. If I just tell people long enough that nuclear power is a good thing and physically very well understood, which it probably is, people will like it afterwards. And that's obviously not the case because there's a whole lot of different issues surrounded by that. And I think that can also not, second to the fun part, this can also not be overemphasized enough. Like, we are not living in this deficit model anymore. And a lot of traditional people in science communication, like probably some of these old school press offices you might meet at your universities who have this job for 40 years, they still think in this mode. Or professors who also have that job for 30, 40 years, who think, okay, we're doing science, we know what is right, and we just have to tell the stupid people what we are doing, and then they will like us. You will meet this a lot, this thinking. Probably not in your field, but when you're talking to others, it's very present still. Yeah, and then there are a lot of forms of science communication, there's a lot going on, there's a lot of institutions experimenting, if you're, it's a German website only, I don't know an English equivalent. So if you know German, you might want to visit the page, Wissenschafts Kommunikation DE, and they have a huge overview of different forms of science communication. You can click through, there's some resources and further links. So there's a lot of stuff going on. I don't wanna focus on these issues in this very broad aspect. I want to raise another question, and the question you already addressed when you introduced me, the question we have in our research project, who is actually reached by science communication, by all these, even by all these nice efforts, like by all these science, who is going to science them? And this is something you're also probably aware of from your own experience, that actually science communication usually is not reaching a broad public. Usually I always say the typical audience of whatever academic event, evening lecture, and even to some degree science slam, is old, male, white, and highly educated. Typically a teacher or an engineer in retirement. That's the prototype of the audience. Of course, like it varies and there are differences, but in general you see that a lot. And, okay, this is the German quotation, especially left it here, because here also again, on the plus side, they are really addressing, okay, we are not reaching the broad public, we are not reaching not formally educated people enough, and all these things are so, this is good, but then again, the information that should be brought in, those who should be brought to knowledge and information. Like this is, then again, reflecting this very old deficit model again, even in a otherwise really reflected report. So, you see there's a lot of work still to be done. So what are we doing? We started a practical, a practice and a research project, Science for All, together with Wissenschaft and Dialogue Science and Dialogue, this is a practical science communication organization based in Berlin. They are organizing our events and we are doing the research, this whole thing is funded by the Robert Bosch Foundation. And we are asking the question, who is actually not reached by science communication? For what reasons? What do they think about science and science communication? And what do they want? What do they expect from science communication? This publication, this is one, we are doing the main project, but we are also doing several side things to the project. So this illustration, for example, is from a project description in something that's called Easy Language, Leichte Sprache. That's a formalized way of language, and I don't know if that exists in English or in other languages as well, I only know it so far from German. It's a formalized language that is based on very simple and easy to understand, grammatical and verbal rules, so that people with a different language background or people with educational problems can easily understand that even if you're describing very complex issues, it's accompanied by illustrations, so then there are many ways to access the information in there. Okay, but that's just a side note. So what are we doing here? We started with a review, actually saying who is described as not being reached by communication. This is something not only happening to science communication, but also to many other fields, political education, health communication, adult education, so we included all these works in our review, and we found two basic things. It's a very difficult problem, actually, naming the problem. A very typical term used in the literature is hard to reach audiences or hard to reach groups. It has the advantage, it addresses that the communicator has actually the duty to reach them, because it's hard for him to reach, so it's the responsibilities laid on the communicator, but then again it also implies somehow that it's the fault of the groups, okay, they are hard to reach, what can we do about that? So it's a difficult term, and all the others underrepresented, uneducated, I don't know if there's a better translation for a Bildungsfern. All these definitions have a lot of, well, plus sides and downsides and implications, so we decided to go with the most neutral possible... I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Definitions they just not reach groups, as it has a very descriptive term. And also the assumption of groups is a very problematic term. It applies homogeneity and a self, how do I say? Selbstzuschreibung, a self-assigning of people to various groups that in reality is not present, and also you cannot really describe groups, because a lot of factors actually coming together. And we see that when you look in the reviews, for example, there's from a review on traffic safety, then the groups, they identified there, it's socioeconomically disadvantaged people over 65 years, that's really specific, it's socially disadvantaged, educational deprived parents, but then also there's a group of migrants. Like there are so many things going on, like it's... Yeah, so obviously groups is a very difficult concept, so for our research, we decided that we go with exclusion factors. Like we take this, the group descriptions, and some other works also described exclusion factors, and try to sort, like who is actually not reached. And so I just want to... So something went wrong, I'm going to translate probably some of the most important parts. Let me give, before you try to read it yourself, let me give you the big picture first, so do not try to read it. No, just... Okay, so this is probably a practical lesson for science communication, if you want to efficiently communicate science, don't do that. Because now obviously everybody tries to read it, and that's not working. We sorted these factors into three main groups, like individual factors that lay mainly within the individual, as it's called, social factors that derive from the interaction of individuals with others of a group, whatever definition of group it is, of others in a societal setting, and then structural conditions mainly lie on the side of the science communicator. Of course, individual factors, the description does not mean that it's the individual's fault, like okay, they're not interested, so they must be interested first, and then we can communicate to them, no, it's way around, like we have to make it interesting to them. So it's not an assign of individual responsibility to saying that the factors themselves lie in there. And so I'm not going to translate everything, probably, because we don't have that much time, but there are a lot of different things, like just saying the interest, the educational background, the age, the financial resources, illness, the language, the values people hold, like there are a lot of things that affect if they are reached by science communication, and reached can have also three layers, reached meaning does the information actually reach them? Like, do they read about an event, do they know about an event that it can go to, then feel they invited, or do they feel invited? Like, even if they have the information, do they think it is for them, do they actually make the decision to join or participate? And then the last, like, if they are there, does the information, the way it is presented, or whatever the dialogue and the way it is presented, actually include them and give them the possibility to interact with the others. So this is all going across basically as a three-dimensional matrix, so we left it out here in this level. Social factors include disabilities, gender, ethical backgrounds, regional setting, so a lot of different things. And of course, these factors mean different things in different regional or national settings. We focused our research primarily now on science communication in Germany, since this is our background and our research focus. Of course, in other countries, there might be other factors that are included or factors that are much more important than here in Germany. So of course, there's this international perspective as well. What are we doing in the project? After this really rather theoretical desktop research, we are now working with three exemplary groups who has been chosen by an advisory board. So this would be citizens in a marginalized city quarter. We're going to Berlin in Schwandau, which we chose. Students in vocational professional education, the Berufsschule, because that's an area which usually is left out because you have science communication formats for students or younger students and then for adults, but really nothing for in between. And then young Muslims rather religiously rooted. We just say, of course, that's not the religion, the main factor, there are also a lot of cultural factors and socioeconomic factors. And yeah, but we want to engage with them. What are we going to do? We start with focus groups. We first want to address stakeholders since we just know from our desktop research what's going on there. So we have, for each of these groups, we have a first round of focus groups with stakeholders, which would be the street workers, the representatives, the, I don't know, people engaged already in the community that they tell us, okay, what is going on? What is important? What should we know? What should we consider? Then a second round of focus groups with actually members of these groups themselves telling them about their life realities, about their values, about their interests, about their views on science and science communication, about the topics they're interested in, the topics they're not interested in. And then in the main part, we actually want to host three participatory workshops where they are developing formats of science communication on a topic they are interested on in the way they want to communicate about. So it's totally open. What comes out of this, we don't know yet, so it will be in the next year, starting the next year. So they can decide, okay, we just want to have a lecture series, very basic, but presented in a certain way. We want to have a science hip hop workshop, or I don't know what. So there's whatever comes out there, they are going to implement this, and we are going to see how this works in the end. If they're happy with the format they developed, if it worked, what the scientists think about it, that participated in the format, and then in the end, actually, what comes out of that? On all sides, like what do the participants take out of it, how the deformant overall work, and yeah. That's the research. One question, we started a little late, how much time do we actually have left? Okay, so the question to you would be, are there any questions at the moment? Because in the last part, I would introduce some practical experiences from various different other projects where I tried various innovative ways, that's now the main title of the talk, how to reach various groups, or how to interact. But through the aspects, rather theoretically, I presented so far, are there any questions or comments? So thanks, it was very fun so far. Just one question, maybe we could reflect on that in the more practical part. So I was thinking about, does everybody have to care about science, where's the line between empowering people and becoming paternalistic? No, definitely not everybody has to care about science. In every aspect, I think in some, so this is the example we saw when we went to, we had the first workshop in Berlin, Spandau, like people there, they have very serious problems at hand, unemployment, the quarter development, crime, drug addiction and all these things. Like, I don't want, they don't have an interest in talking about astronomy. And I shouldn't force them to talk about astronomy. I can make an offer and say, well, that's an interesting way and look, you can see the stars even here in the city, but you shouldn't force everybody in there. I think on the other hand, on more broader issues, it might be worthwhile to use some, let's say nudging or a little pushing and say, okay, it's an important democratic discourse. Let's say currently on genetically modified organisms. They are not interested in that because they think it's not relevant for their lives. So they are left out of the democratic discourse, they're left out of the societal decision making on the issue. So I think this might be worthwhile to push it actually a little bit and try to, well, you cannot force people, of course, but try to push people to make it relevant to them, to show them the relevance. Of course, then they again have to decide if they see it and adapt it or not. Thank you for the presentation. I have a challenge, I wouldn't say, like a problem in my research, because I have my own project homepage and I wanted to write blog posts and that the people in the regions I'm working can comment on that. I mean, it's a really nice tool, but I think a lot of people don't know about my homepage for sure. Do you have any advice on how to spread a little bit like this information? Should I go to newspapers and make advertisement? I don't know. Like how to reach people. Who is your target group? It's like everybody who uses nature. I don't know, it's like the tourists, the farmers who live there, the inhabitants. OK, so you have a certain region. And you want to address all people living there, working there. Yes, yeah. And tourists. I think this would be the first step to actually think about who your audience is comprised of. Of course, you cannot again reach. So there is no broad public, actually. You have to think if there are certain parts you can reach in a certain way. So you say, if you have farmers, probably you can reach them if you post something or write something about in the farmer's journal like the Alcatraff Report, because they read that. And others read different things or go to different events. So you actually need to think what are the main groups and where are the main channels you can reach them. But, and so this is a second word, I'm very skeptical about online dialogues and commentings because usually it doesn't really work well. A, there are so many people who have new, so there are so many people having projects and say, OK, we created a new platform. Now everybody should come to my platform and comment on this. And I think that's a good thing. Everybody should come to my platform and comment on my issue. Like there are a thousand other platforms which they have much more personal benefit out there. So it might be an interesting approach to actually put your content to other platforms and even use it, even if you think it's evil, but use platforms where people actually are. Like share links on your blog post on Facebook, Twitter, or then if you want to reach the youth, Snapchat or Instagram, try to reach them there, work with influencers. Say, OK, can you share something? Well, not the Instagram influencers, but the more... Well, probably it might even work like their approaches, but actually trying to find access points to the people. Just putting it out there and just a newspaper advertisement would be probably read by people 60 years plus. So you need to find other ways for the other segments of the audience. But it will still be difficult. So I think personal interaction is a very important part. So try to go to events, personally present your thing. And when I have a 10-minute talk on some kind of local festivity and say, so if you're interested now, then later on go to my blog and comment on that. Thank you very much. I have a question related to your project. Can these focus groups or like the groups of stakeholders also choose the topic that is the center of the science communication? Yes. And bring to this... So in the focus groups we don't have a topic, we don't talk about topics, we just want to know what is their general, whatever, situation, what their assumptions. So topics will be then chosen in the workshops where they say, okay, we are interested in X and then do that. And link to this, do you think that the format of communication is linked also to the content or is there some content that needs some specific way of communication? I don't think necessarily. So I can't think of examples right now. I think it might very well be that there are some types of content that are more suited for certain ways of communication, but I don't think there's any exclusion. In principle you can communicate everything on every channel. It's just a question of the people are there and if the people are using that channel or interested in that format. So I would choose the format really depending on the audience or not audience participants when it's a dialogue and not on the content. Okay. Then for the second part now, these are just some really short impressions from practical projects I did on other occasions. Some of them already reflect some viewpoints from the project, but we can discuss that later on. I think five or six examples of different ways to communicate science. If you have questions on a certain project, please just raise your hands immediately and then we can address it right there or you can raise it at the end. So the first thing, going where people are and making the topic accessible. So in the next three projects I'm going to present, they are all associated with the science years, seas and oceans. The Federal Ministry of Research and Education in Germany hosts each year a science year where they highlight a certain topic and provide funding for science communication on that. In 2016-17 it was the special occasion that it was two years, but the issues were seas and oceans. Two years, two topics now. So I have several projects now that address this issue. I'm not a marine biologist or something like that. There was just funding available to try new formats of science communication. So I just used that topic and I actually don't care about the topic at hand. I'm really more interested in the formats and ways and evaluating ways. It could be anything. So this was the first thing, making seas and oceans accessible to people not living at the coast. What do we have to do here with the ocean? Nothing, principle. But people who are not vegans are eating fish sometimes. So we thought this might be an interesting access point talking about people, about fisheries, sustainable fisheries, and as J.R. as... Whatever, green stuff floating around in the ocean, as potential source for proteins and nutrition. And we decided, okay, we host an event that's actually based in a sushi restaurant. So people were sitting in the sushi restaurant. Here on this running sushi there were some information pieces also going around together with the sushi and the salad and all the things. scientists were giving presentations talking about fisheries, sustainable fisheries, the green stuff, you know that, and people could have a discussion on their tables afterwards and, okay, what are we actually eating? Was it actually good that we had this eel or was it rather problematic that it served here in the restaurant? And just reflecting on what you're actually doing there. It was a very nice format, but so this is probably a disclaimer I have to say about a lot of these things. They are not reaching the diversity in audience I was actually intended to. Like I was thinking about so many innovative ways, but still to many of these formats, still the majority of participants is academic, an academic background. So there's something still I have not found the answer myself, but I'm continuously trying to make it more broadly accessible. So this was the one thing. Then the other thing also, again, season oceans, the same problem. What connections do we have to the ocean? Do you see the ocean in Karlsruhe or in Erlangen or somewhere? And saying, okay, well, if people can't come to the ocean regularly, we bring the ocean to the people. So we used empty shop windows in the nine different German cities and had full window projections of underwater films and some documentary movies about the ocean and life in the ocean that basically turned into virtual aquarium in the inner cities of these sounds. And in addition, we had public lectures on the sidewalk outside on certain dates where people walking by could stop and then heard presentations on marine biology, underwater exploration, geology, what else on all topics relating to the issue. And we also showed documentary movies with sound. I think we have these chairs placed in front of the shop window and people could actually stop by for some outdoor cinema and just watch in the middle of the city underwater movies. Then there's another project, exploring the intersection of art and science. This was a science street art project I did with the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Light back in Erlangen. These were school students. And we had some introduction in the Max Planck Institute where they visited the laboratory and saw cool lasers and stuff. And then we created street graffiti with chalk. So it was allowed by the city and placed this chalk graffiti all over the city. So it was fun for them. But then also all the people walking by, first they were shocked, oh my god, all these new students are vandalizing our city all over. But when they stopped, we actually, some people were standing around and handing out flyers with background information on the project, on the scientific research that is represented in there. And yes, it had two effects on the students participating and all the citizens walking by. And yeah, this another project where we had a lot of fun. Several of them. It's one big thing I'm very much interested in is the communication of science through comics. So there is literature and empirical evidence that comics can be a very good tool to communicate scientific contents. They're used in school contexts or even in university contexts. But what we explored here, and again, like I said, topic sees in the ocean that was on board of this exhibition ship MS Wissenschaft. So this is a ship that goes around German rivers with an exhibition on the topic of each science here. And they also have side events. So we had the side events. These were eight school workshops each year, where students were asked to draw their own comics. And with these comics, they were asked to express their views on season ocean and on the future development of season oceans, like not talking about, oh, what are your hopes? What do you think are the risks and the benefits? Like, that doesn't really work well with 12 year olds, but I giving them a creative way to express their views on the science and on the future. And they were free to produce science fiction stories that don't need to be necessarily somehow realistic. So these were underwater cities presented there. But there's also very much, just a second, there's very, there are very much interesting points in there. So this was a, from another comic workshop I did with Akartek, the German Academy for Engineering, where they had to express their views on or had to, where they were asked to express their views on artificial photosynthesis, whatever, sunlight, you know. On the future development as a potential energy source, the risks, the benefits and their assumptions. And so this is very interesting, I don't have to assume. So basically in this comic, and they draw, there's some kind of nano dome over a city where some catalytical cells produced electricity with artificial photosynthesis. And so everybody here is happy. But what this student draws, one guy that's not happy over there, and he complains that one of the pillars of this dome is directly in his backyard. And so they are basically addressing this typical, not in my backyard or whatever, San Florian's principle. They are addressing these issues, which I discussed on societal and technical and scientific developments. They address also these kinds of things in the comics. So it's a very interesting tool. And this is also part of the reason why I wasn't here at the beginning of the week, because on Tuesday we had a second workshop with Akartek also on artificial photosynthesis, you know, photosynthesis. Three years later and see, okay, what has changed and what do they do? Okay, so you had a question. Concerning this method with the comics, because I wanted to do that with like eighth graders or 14 year old kids, but they really, they were like blocked. I said, okay, you can draw anything, you can make a storyline, you could even make a video. But it seemed to me that this was like reaching too high. They were just, I don't know, maybe we didn't give them enough time. We had like a day workshop. But that was really like, I thought we were going to do it. But then they were all like, oh, no, we cannot draw. So I'm wondering whether you are giving them any like starting point or like helping them out, giving them ideas, or you just give them like a couple of pens and they just get going. Okay, so one overall remark, it is difficult and time is the most important factor, like all these things were one day or even half day workshops. That is actually not enough. There are some results, but to have real good results, you would actually need to have either a full day workshop with preparation in class before that, or have a two or three day workshop to actually go much more in depth. So I think that's, that's also a shortcoming of all these things I presented. And then again, you just can't give them a paper and say, do something. We had a lot of structured input before that, not structured input, structured phases before that. We tried under all circumstances not to influence them, but we had phases. And of course, there was an input presentation on the MSWissen shaft. They had one hour to visit the exhibition and think about the things. But then we had phases where we asked them to structure their knowledge and their perceptions. Or first, list all your things you found in the exhibition, or list all the interesting points you had in the presentation and recollect that on cards. And then we had an input on comic drawing. It's okay, what is important? What does a comic need? It needs a setting, a plot and actors. Okay, now you have again 15 minutes in, they worked in groups from two to five people, depending on the workshop. Okay, think about potential actors, potential settings, potential plots, things that could happen in your, in your comic. And then again, they, they got individual feedback and then we're asked to actually finally compile it. And also for the drawing part, there was some kind of exercise in the beginning, just a scribble exercise. I said, okay, well, you just now had 20 minutes and look what you have produced in that. So it is possible to, to activate them. Still, it is difficult and not every time successful, but with these very structured approaches, it's possible to do that. Okay, then, oh, yeah, and so this, I almost forgot that. This is something we did with the comic workshop on board of the MS Wissenschaft. They only had half a day. So what you saw, it was really very rough. These were sketches, some were a bit more colored with some more talented, well, graphically talented students, but they were really sketches. And we said, well, there are some very good ideas in there and would be really a shame if we can't use that anymore because the originals, they, you can't show them around. So we had the comic artist who was present as a coach at these workshops. Actually, I said with him together, we took ideas from the various comics, from the different groups, from eight different classes and say, okay, what are really interesting ideas in there and put that back into stories we compiled on our own. So these were stories developed by us, but based on ideas from the students or collecting or combining ideas from the students to have a professional publication in the end that can be passed around and also reach more people beyond the participants of the comic. What's also very important, what was important for me that we have, the stories could be total science fiction. Like here, it's a robotic areola that cleans the oceans. Of course, that's not a realistic scientific, future scenario, but we wanted to give them the freedom to express, well, probably, who knows? And we wanted to give them the freedom to express whatever they want, but we included these so-called science facts on the basis where we actually commented on these issues like, ah, yeah, well, this might very well be pollution is a big problem, but not here and another comic until we have floating islands of solid garbage. This is not realistic at the moment. Or how much, when we had another comic about flooding of land, okay, how much would the flooding actually go with the current models on temperature rise and sea level rise? So to actually put the scientific stories, the science fiction stories into context. And if you're interested, I have some of these here. So this comic workshop was done in two years with two different comic artists, so we have two different comic stories. And if you're interested in that, you can take one with you afterwards. But the whole comic is also available online under a CC license, so you can also download it. Okay, so then another thing, trying to reach other people. So I said, before that, the typical audience of scientific events is actually old and male. So you might think that old people are overrepresented in science communication, but it's a very tiny subset of old people. So we thought, okay, we want to include more generations also on future discussions. So the current science year, haha, new funding source, is on the future of work. And we thought, okay, when we want to talk about the future of work, we want to also talk about the past of the future of the work. So what did people 30 years ago think about the future of work? What has happened since then? And are there repeating things like this important, I didn't include it here. There's this picture series of the German magazine Spiegel. They had covers like 20 years apart, each with some dramatic robots, stealing jobs, like, okay, it's the same thing every 20 years. So obviously nothing really has changed. It's just the same topics that arise. And so we are hosting a series of events. And this is currently running, where we actually go into elderly living, elderly housing centers, whatever. We basically host the discussions with experts, with senior citizens. We also wanted to have an intergenerational dialogue, also have young people coming to that. That was rather difficult. Really nobody wanted to come to the elderly living place. So we are really trying hard to solve that for the next occasions, but asking them what they think about the past and the developments, what they have seen, how work has changed for them, and what they now think about future developments to also give them an essay. Of course, this is something I'm always saying, why I'm very much pro-youth engagement. Like the usual people sitting in committees and boards deciding on future issues, they are all dead when these issues actually arise 10 years from now, or 20 years from now. Well, that's true. Like all the professors, they are talking about the future, they are not living in that future anymore. So it is important to actually talk with young people about the future. But then again, also the old people have to say something. They have important experiences you can include in that discussion. And that's what you're trying here and that. And a very important success factor definitely, you have to have cake and coffee. This really makes people come. So this is definitely important. And the independent of age, probably we should have different cakes and different catering for youngers, but very important. Okay, let me just quickly see. Oh yeah, one more. And then we are done. This is another thing. And this I've done with the Quartier Zukunft in Karlsruhe. I'm a board game fan. And there are a lot of, there are several board games that actually are made with a specific scientific purpose out of scientific projects, or especially these older games. Some probably know that in the beginnings of the environmental movement, they are really, they're interesting, but they have shitty game mechanics. You can't really play them because they are not developed by game designers, but by environmental activists. And they were meant well, but not executed well. But they are new games, like the keep cool climate climate change game, which are really fun to play and a way to engage on issues. And then you can discuss the issues. Plus, there are other games who have scientific topics who are purely entertainment games and probably also not very realistically, like Funchen Schlaggitzer on energy supply or there's a game on evolution and various other things. But you can also use them as an occasion to talk about the issue behind that. So the idea is that we haven't done that so far to accompany these board game evenings with short presentations or short reflection discussions on the issues at hand, like what have we learned, what have we learned about it and is it realistically or not. And so this is a very interesting approach and actually works really, really well. But again, like here, it's a really a question of which people do we reach. So there are only the people who are, I would say basically it's a local agenda group that's showing up to these meeting at no one beyond, except when I'm pushing some students to show up. So they also, you need to think about other ways to make it more accessible and attractive. And I'm also still thinking about that. There are occasionally other people coming, so it is in principle working, but not overall. So this was the very quick overview on some practical projects. And this would actually be the end of my presentation. Almost, just you said I had 20 further more minutes. And then, no, you might have asked and I just briefly addressed that this is one last remark. I haven't talked about online communication. This is not my focus. If you have a question about another question about that I can comment briefly on that by very much my personal focus is on real events on real interaction. And so if you have a question, you can ask that, but I didn't include any slides and now I'm really finished. Yeah, thank you very much, Philipp. And we have a couple more minutes, I would say, for some questions in addition, although the very attractive cake is waiting outside. So thanks. I think it was really motivating. And now to get a realistic idea of especially maybe scaling levels and downscaling, if we talk about PhD students, maybe you could mention the range of the budget that you have for these kind of projects and also how big your team is. And if there are any funding resources for PhD students or also NGOs. Wow, so the funding range really varies. So this ocean shop window, these window projections, this was a project funded for a year and there I got 150,000 from the ministry. This was a full-scale grant. There was a my position partially paid for that and another one and I hired some external designers to do that. So there was a huge budget for that. Also the current, the senior citizen dialogue on the future of work is the same range. I also applied for the full possibility of the science year fundings. The others had much less like the business buffet had 10,000 euros. It was a special competition. The board game evening is not funded. The science street art thing I actually did as a freelancer. So I think there was, I personally got two or three day, I say that day charges on that and the comic workshop also that I did that as a freelancer. I did an evaluation on the site. I don't have the results. Therefore I didn't show them. And there I was paid for the days as a researcher as a freelancer. So the funding sources, yes and no. So there is money available for the project. For example, for the DFG, they have a special part on science communication you can apply for when you already have a DFG funded project. For others, you either find a special call like the science year, which is very interesting, artificial intelligence next year, if that's interesting for someone. And then for the smaller ones, I think the most promising way is actually to look at foundations and smaller foundations because when you want to say we are a group and as a PhD student, you probably don't want to go all into science communication. You want to do some science communication with your projects. You probably need 2000 or 5000 euros. And this would be something you could really try with foundations or there are many smaller foundations who couldn't fund 500,000 euro projects, but who can very well fund 5000 euro communication projects or 10,000 something like that. Thank you very much for the presentation. I found it very interesting and there was a question that I was thinking about all the time that you're trying to reach a broader public or a broader range of citizens, but somehow it, sometimes it's not very easy. And I was wondering if maybe in your thinking process or like who's in your team and maybe sometimes because each one of us is a certain demographic, then some things we will miss necessarily. And I was wondering if that was something you thought about already or yeah, not like thinking about other demographics not only to reach but also include them in how to reach other people. So yes, on the, on like in our research project, we're definitely doing this because we have the time and the money and the whole scope of that. For the other projects, the time resources and also the financial resources are very much limited. So I had some talks like with the people from the local quarter on the board game evening, Hazel, what do you think? Are you interested in that? But it's on a very much more on an informal level. A lot of these things I'm actually doing alone because nobody else is participating. And this is an issue. Definitely we have the diversity problem in academia as well. It's a bit different in our subject in the science communication field because they have the gender relation is actually swapped to other fields. It's actually much more difficult to find other males to work with, which is a rather interesting thing. But especially in culture diversity or language diversity, it's very much homogeneous there. And so I'm doing this on a personal level with talks but not on a formalized way or inclusion in that. I think the major problem with all these things is that they are one time events. And this is something I think I briefly addressed it in the project. One time events are very good because they can attract excitement, they can attract public visibility. It's like, hey, there's this cool sushi event. And then even the Barton Wuppenberg TV was there and was showing it. So it was good. But then you would formally establish something would actually need to have follow up events. So this is what we're trying with our other research project. Since at this stage, I was only interested in trying the format, see if it works. I was actually from the beginning on not really expecting it to have long lasting effects along because this is not what this was supposed to be. Okay, I would suggest one last question. And then we see Philip back again after the coffee break and after the talk from Bastjan with his exercise. And even during the discussion with Bastanis, I guess he will be in the room. So he can also interact and you can meet him in the coffee break. So at the cake. It's a very short and very specific question. Like about this in the sushi restaurant talking about sustainable fisheries. How open is a shop like the restaurant owner to a topic like this? Because I mean, I doubt that all the people would like run away then and oh my God, I'm eating unsustainable fish maybe. But like, yeah. He was actually very okay with that. Although I have to say I think in the beginning, it was because he didn't really understand the whole scope of the issue. Like, no, no, we explained it a lot. There were language barriers. And but he said, okay, well, you attract people to my restaurant, I'm fine, do whatever you want. So this was definitely his priority, because it was a really it was a rather big restaurant we chose for that, which is not that very well. I say that visited usually. So he had this financial interest at the very beginning. And it was it was an evening and a lunch event. And it was full sold out. So this was his main interest. And he didn't really care about the rest. The second thing and it's very difficult. So we didn't want to have a completely unreflected menu. So we actually really had to force him and it was a long negotiations back in force, because then he pretended he didn't understand that he just didn't want to do it. For this event, we actually made him to buy only certified fish to do a minimum step, which he doesn't do otherwise, like to have a bare minimum of sustainability. But then in the end, for him, it was the only thing that counted that it was a sold out restaurant. And he was in the in the television, in the news and journals. So that was the main aspect for him. And in general, do you have problems with that? Like getting the people, the like hosts, the places you use as hosts, if it's not like a city public place, like a school or something, but more something like a restaurant. Especially city public places are worse. Like for the when I'm doing public events, they have they have the clear. And so their capitalism works in the one tiny place where it actually does. I pay the money to rent the place or they have the incentive to have people to show up. And then they are happy with that. But if you want to support from public places, which actually supposed to be for the public, no, we don't have time. Now, then there would be another initiative coming now, we can do that, we can support that. Well, they are usually actually much more difficult to get. And that it's okay, they have a lot of things to do. And especially if you talk about NGOs and local initiatives, they don't get paid for their job, they're doing it all on the side. And I can't force them to do another event just because I asked them to do it. So I understand that very well. But yes. Okay, then thank you very much again, Philipp.
 This is the old aura of the University of Heidelberg,  like the very traditional mode, the high professors  are talking from the podium, promoting the truth  to the uneducated public, and in a very formal,  very hierarchical, very traditional setting.  And of course, you all know you're in the midst  of all that during your projects.  Like science communication today looks a lot different.  There's so many things.  You already mentioned the science lens, and I thought,  well, I use just that as an opener.  This is outdoor science lab I hosted in Karlsruhe  during the Science Festival in 2015.  Like it's a completely different mode  of communicating science.  Like there are a lot of people.  It's an outdoor festival.  They're having fun.  They're drinking beer.  So it's a totally different picture.  Before, so this was, yeah, it's a very, very pictorial start  into the topic, but going back a little bit,  laying the foundation, what are we actually talking about?  I just showed you two very dominant pictures,  giving impressions of science communications,  but I want to start asking you what your perceptions  and your expectations of science communication are.  You mentioned that it has been brought up the last days,  one or two times, and it has been brought up yesterday  when I was here.  So what do you think of when you think of science communication?  What do you expect from science communication  in your projects?  Are there any opinions or what do you want to know  about science communication?  Yes?  I think that it's important to get the message across.  Say again?  To get the message across that you want to communicate.  Okay, so which message, from whom?  I mean, about your research, for example,  but I think what is most difficult is try to pitch  what is it important to communicate,  because we tend to just drown into our research,  and when we start to explain our own research,  we talk and talk and talk,  and then we don't really communicate.  Okay.  I think.  Are there any other?  Yes, please just make the round.  Probably it's the easiest way for the microphone.  Oh.  Yeah, I was just thinking that you don't have to jump around.  Sure, so I think there might be actually a difference  between communicating scientific results  and communicating about science,  like kind of marketing of science and society itself.  I think there are maybe these two kind of strategies.  Okay, and what is it for you?  When you hear science communication,  what do you think about?  Actually more like the marketing kind of thing  from my experience?  And for me, the first thing that comes to my mind,  or what I expect from my research is to be accessible,  and that's what communicating,  like that's one of the challenges of communicating science  or communicating about science.  Okay.  Yeah.  There was one more over this.  Yeah, for me, science communication is something like  how we can translate the knowledge  between a stakeholder as Pamela says something  like our results, but the idea is that  it's translate information because we need to share  same language.  Okay, so I don't see any immediate responses  with just some quick gathering,  getting to know what you think about it,  somehow some impressions.  So of course I also started with a definition here,  and actually it's all included in there,  and that would be probably the first message.  Science communication is also a very broad umbrella term  that's not really defined.  Some people are using it in a special narrow way,  either as a positive approach or either as a,  well, negative approach,  decrying some forms of communications,  like, oh, science communication, that's just marketing,  and because the other thing is science journalism,  and that's the truth.  And the most broad, and I think the most applicable  definition would be it's basically,  and even shorter than that,  it's communicating about science,  about all aspects of science,  and communication between all different actors,  like not only scientists talking to the public,  but also then, and then Bastia I think is going a bit more  into that later on, scientists talking to scientists,  public talking to scientists,  like it's all communication processes  that somehow involve some aspects of science.  What I am going to focus, and this,  well, obvious, already with the chosen examples,  is external science communication.  This means communication going beyond the boundaries  of scientific institutions.  And please note that there's also no direction  included in there, that of course,  communicating, translating your results,  making them accessible to the public,  to lay people is one part,  but also the communication back from the public,  to the institutions is also part of that definition.  And there's all these different aspects  that would be included in that definition,  like the traditional science PR,  the department, science journalism,  private science, YouTubers, science,  activists, organizations, NGOs that communicate  about scientists, scientists that personally talk  about something that have personal Twitter accounts  or what else not.  So the forms are not really limited.  I'm not going more into detail about science journalism,  that's not my area of expertise.  I'm more talking now and the following about scientists  in one way or the other, communicating with others  and especially communicating with lay people.  And I think this is a very important aspect  and you discussed it the last days,  you discussed it yesterday,  the sole question of experts versus non-experts.  We can discuss it later on.  There's one thing, there's institutionalized hierarchies  versus the public, but there is expertise.  And I see there are differences in expertise  that also need to be addressed in communication.  And I already forgot to mention it,  like translating knowledge, like transforming messages  to various levels of expertise.  This is also part of science communication.  But even going one step back more  to even more basic foundations  because I think that's very important.  That's my message I want to get across to our students  but also to others when I talk about science communication.  Many have the expectation and the desire  or science communication,  just tell us the five tricks that we need to know  then we can talk better about our research.  Like what are the five key lessons on PowerPoint slides  or how do I do a YouTube video?  So of course there are some very fundamental basics  but they're not that difficult  and you can't talk about what you probably can.  Talk an hour about that.  But I think any sufficient reflexive human being  can actually think about,  okay, is this PowerPoint slide?  Understandable to my grandmother, to my grandfather,  to my neighbor with a different academic  or non-academic background.  So you don't need to read a detailed training test.  Basic thinking should be enough.  And I don't know, that's really my opinion.  Of course you can have some examples  and can get better at that, but the basics are there.  I think it's much more important  to talk about the underlying assumptions  about the interaction of science and society  and what your expectations are towards communication,  what your expectations are towards your communication partners.  And you are probably much more ahead of that  since you're already discussing that in your research projects  and in your understanding of transdisciplinarity.  But a lot of others aren't.  And I think it's very important.  I wanted also to present it to you to discuss it with you.  And also I mentioned yesterday  is it regarding the real world laboratories,  is it just a new thing or new rebranding?  And also for science communication issues.  A lot of these things and a lot of these insights  I will present later on will sound very familiar to you.  You have reached them from the perspective  of transdisciplinarity research,  but also very other disciplines come to similar conclusions  just here now from the framing of communication sciences  and science communication.  This is one very important aspect  and also important for media-lized science communication,  meaning through science journalism.  These two keywords brought up by Peter Weingart,  scientification of society and socialization of science.  It's not much anymore that you have disjunct,  political scientific institutions that do some research  and present it through every half year.  And that's it.  There's much more societal discussions going on  in research institutions about priorities, research agendas.  But also there's much more scientific insights  involved in policy making and in societal developments  in any aspect.  It's not also the big things climate change,  but it goes back to quarter development.  All these things, basically the research you are doing  is, in many of your projects,  is a picture of these two main phenomena.  So there's this one very naive thinking that many,  well, let's say some natural scientists fall trap into  when they think, oh, we're just doing pure science,  we have nothing to do with society,  we have nothing to do with politics,  and that there may be very few cases  where this might be true,  but in general, it's very much intertwined.  So this, you need to know when you communicate about science.  It's not about just telling the truth  in a very understandable way.  And then this effect, it's called medialization  or medialization, depends on who you ask.  These also, these effects that influence the way  we communicate, like there's an extensification  of public presence.  Like universities used to have just one press officer  20 years, then now the PR departments have grown,  the numbers, they have much more activities,  so there's much more public communications.  In the earlier times, whatever you go back 100 years,  like the experts just communicated with each other  and they wrote letters and had their scientific meetings  and sometimes aristocrats invited to some salons  where the higher class had some exchange about science,  but now the science is really in the public  and you have to deal with that.  There's a polarization of communication,  where that's also part of your work.  This can be very good when you have various views,  when you have multiple viewpoints on an issue  and you have to deal with that  from a communications perspective,  this can be also very bad.  And I brought up the example yesterday  and this is the case here again,  like when you have a discussion on climate change  in the media and the media say,  okay, we need to present a balanced view.  We have one expert on one opinion  and the other expert on the counter opinion,  then they present one scientist talking 10 minutes  about why human-driven climate change is a thing  and then they have another scientist  equally getting 10 minutes talking about,  okay, why human-driven climate change  probably is not a thing.  And so it's a problem you have to deal with,  and somehow.  Then the whole polarization issue  that scientists have through the socialization  and politicization, it gets much more controversial  because it's very much from the beginning  on intertwined with political processes.  And there was just two or three weeks of paper coming out  and I forgot to wrote down the original quote,  it was about the polarization on the views of climate change  between Republicans and Democrats in the United States.  And there was this very interesting quotation  citing some Republicans saying,  well, I actually thought that climate change  might have been a thing,  but in the moment I learned that Al Gore  was opposing, or was working against climate change,  I thought, okay, now that's an issue on the other side  and I'm totally against it.  So basically, political processes  interfering with communication processes.  And of course, not for all areas,  like if you're doing, what, I think basic geometry,  that's probably not the case.  And then this big criticism of communication  for reputation in science,  that institutions and personal scientists  are using communication just to gain public reputation,  to gain reputation by politicians,  just to support their standing,  just to gain potential support  by funding institutions, by politicians.  So just all these findings and there's not a neutral,  well neutral, of course, not a trying to be neutral  press release, but every headline is just following  this mass media logic of having a very,  say, appealing headline.  Researchers from university,  IGS have cured cancer, like you all know these things,  or chocolate is good for you, chocolate is bad for you.  Like all these things because that generates views,  that generates reads, that generates clicks.  And scientists and science communicators  are much ever growing and dependent on these logic,  and that's also a bad thing.  That necessarily it's also good,  like if you want to reach people with something  you need to know how to frame the audience,  to get the message across, that's one thing,  but then if you do it for everything,  yeah, it also falls out of line.  So this is the current landscape.  Going back, like I said at the beginning,  science communication basically is everything  to communicate somehow about on and for science.  Was there always this divide between scientists  that need to translate to the public?  And so if you look at that historically,  basically it's a way back and forth.  In the very early beginnings,  it's okay, scientists was only done by rich people,  aristocrats who did that as a hobby,  but they needed public support to show  that they get some money from their duke,  or from their, whatever, from the king.  So they had huge public demonstrations on the marketplace,  where a lot of people actually watched that.  The famous example of the,  in Magdeburg Hothbolts by Otto von Gehlke,  where they demonstrated the vacuum pressure,  like he did that on the marketplace  with thousands of people watching.  And there's also a public demonstration.  There was no scientific communities,  so the public was also needed as evidence  that actually the experiment took place  and the experiment had a certain outcome.  There, thousands of people saw that,  because there was no peer review  and stuff like that back then.  Then science became much more specialized,  much more technicized,  so-called ivory tower and okay, we're just  within our scientific communities  and working with ourselves because it's so complicated  and now the push in the last years or the last decades  basically back to the public,  public involvement and all these things.  And it has been framed in various different places.  In the beginning it was just about  communicating scientific literacy  and then the public engagement  and all these things probably here  just showing you some of these areas.  And now you might wonder what has that to do  with science communication.  And I say back to the beginning actually a lot  because how to design a PowerPoint slide  is not the important part about science communication,  but what assumptions about the goals,  about the purposes of science communication  underlie your actions.  And so all these things have a lot in common, I would say.  It's different framings from different academic disciplines.  They are all describing processes of opening up  scientific communication to non-traditional  institutionalized scientists in various aspects.  And all of them are basically about communicating,  communicating back and forth between publics  and what between various different publics.  So this is the landscape of science communication.  And just to make it also clear  since in the very beginning I asked,  what do you think, what do you expect  from science communication?  And you mentioned making clear,  translating your results to the public.  And that of course, that is one key part  of science communication.  There's no question about that.  But also this could be a legitimate goal.  If you want to communicate about your field,  you want to attract possible new students,  possible probably PhD students,  you want to communicate that the research you're doing  is important, that it's worthwhile  pursuing that research.  Then this whole aspect of justification,  legitimation of science.  I framed it in a rather negative way in the first comment,  but it doesn't have to be that.  Like there is this pressure to legitimize your work  when you're publicly funded through taxes.  Okay, you have to show what you are doing.  This is not working.  You have to show what you are doing  to give the public the possibility  to actually think about it and discuss about  the underlying issues.  And also then, of course, like scientists doing science  because they think it's cool and important  what they are doing, and their goal  is to raise acceptance for their work.  This can be negative because there might be  different viewpoints about certain areas of science  or certain aspects, but it is a goal  and you have to discuss if it's legitimate or not.  And then, especially the last part,  which you are doing is integral part  of your transdisciplinary research,  the exchange and dialogue of society.  Also that is science communication.  The hosting of forums, several people can do that themselves  for others, like science communicators  are actually asked to host events,  to host town hall meetings, to host whatever dialogue  workshops and include public input into scientific processes  into priority settings by research institutions.  Then also, then this is very much in the research process  where scientists doing this themselves,  gathering input from the public corporation.  This would be this whole thing,  co-designed corporations, citizen science projects,  but that basically also has a communication component.  It's very important to note, some people now say,  okay, citizen science is a new cool  form of science communication.  Technically, this is true, but what they are meaning,  okay, it's a cool new way if we give people  the opportunity to collaborate somehow,  they think it's good, they just think  at that from a marketing or PR perspective.  That's not the case, but it is a form  of science communication.  And, oh yeah, that's just, no, of course,  there's something, I should not go over that,  excitement and fun.  So people actually enjoy talking about science  and people actually enjoy, or might enjoy,  hearing about science.  They have fun at a science festival at a science center.  And this is often overlooked because it's all about,  probably 80% of people say science communication  is about communicating knowledge, educating people,  that's everything, but the fun part is really important.  And that is, for me, it's really important  to have it there.  People enjoy being at a science lab  and talking about their research because,  you're a PhD student who actually enjoys  when you're talking about your research.  Like, there are 300 people in a room,  they paid entrance fees to listen  to what you are researching on.  Like, that's a cool thing.  And then in a science center,  like, when you have these very basic experimental settings  and teaching children the very basic principles  and basic experiment, that's a fun entertainment.  They don't need to learn a lot about that,  but just need to learn that it's fun  to be curious, to be experimenting.  So, I really want to, I think I made clear  that I think this is important.  Okay, so this is the summary.  I want to leave here the most important part,  and this is something in the communication  or science communication research  was called the deficit model, like these early stages  of science communication where you thought,  okay, science communication is just about  communicating results to the public.  And when you communicate that results to the public,  they think it's cool what you're doing.  It's just a question of information.  If I just tell people long enough  that nuclear power is a good thing  and physically very well understood,  which it probably is, people will like it afterwards.  And that's obviously not the case  because there's a whole lot of different issues  surrounded by that.  And I think that can also not,  second to the fun part,  this can also not be overemphasized enough.  Like, we are not living in this deficit model anymore.  And a lot of traditional people in science communication,  like probably some of these old school press offices  you might meet at your universities  who have this job for 40 years,  they still think in this mode.  Or professors who also have that job for 30, 40 years,  who think, okay, we're doing science,  we know what is right,  and we just have to tell the stupid people  what we are doing, and then they will like us.  You will meet this a lot, this thinking.  Probably not in your field,  but when you're talking to others,  it's very present still.  Yeah, and then there are a lot of forms of science  communication, there's a lot going on,  there's a lot of institutions experimenting,  if you're, it's a German website only,  I don't know an English equivalent.  So if you know German,  you might want to visit the page,  Wissenschafts Kommunikation DE,  and they have a huge overview  of different forms of science communication.  You can click through,  there's some resources and further links.  So there's a lot of stuff going on.  I don't wanna focus on these issues  in this very broad aspect.  I want to raise another question,  and the question you already addressed  when you introduced me,  the question we have in our research project,  who is actually reached by science communication,  by all these, even by all these nice efforts,  like by all these science,  who is going to science them?  And this is something you're also probably aware of  from your own experience,  that actually science communication  usually is not reaching a broad public.  Usually I always say the typical audience  of whatever academic event,  evening lecture, and even to some degree science slam,  is old, male, white, and highly educated.  Typically a teacher or an engineer in retirement.  That's the prototype of the audience.  Of course, like it varies and there are differences,  but in general you see that a lot.  And, okay, this is the German quotation,  especially left it here,  because here also again,  on the plus side, they are really addressing,  okay, we are not reaching the broad public,  we are not reaching not formally educated people enough,  and all these things are so, this is good,  but then again,  the information that should be brought in,  those who should be brought to knowledge and information.  Like this is, then again,  reflecting this very old deficit model again,  even in a otherwise really reflected report.  So, you see there's a lot of work still to be done.  So what are we doing?  We started a practical, a practice and a research project,  Science for All,  together with Wissenschaft and Dialogue Science and Dialogue,  this is a practical science communication organization  based in Berlin.  They are organizing our events and we are doing the research,  this whole thing is funded by the Robert Bosch Foundation.  And we are asking the question,  who is actually not reached by science communication?  For what reasons?  What do they think about science and science communication?  And what do they want?  What do they expect from science communication?  This publication, this is one,  we are doing the main project,  but we are also doing several side things to the project.  So this illustration, for example,  is from a project description  in something that's called Easy Language, Leichte Sprache.  That's a formalized way of language,  and I don't know if that exists in English  or in other languages as well,  I only know it so far from German.  It's a formalized language that is based on very simple  and easy to understand,  grammatical and verbal rules,  so that people with a different language background  or people with educational problems  can easily understand that even if you're describing  very complex issues,  it's accompanied by illustrations,  so then there are many ways to access the information in there.  Okay, but that's just a side note.  So what are we doing here?  We started with a review,  actually saying who is described as not being reached  by communication.  This is something not only happening to science communication,  but also to many other fields,  political education, health communication,  adult education,  so we included all these works in our review,  and we found two basic things.  It's a very difficult problem, actually,  naming the problem.  A very typical term used in the literature  is hard to reach audiences or hard to reach groups.  It has the advantage, it addresses that the communicator  has actually the duty to reach them,  because it's hard for him to reach,  so it's the responsibilities laid on the communicator,  but then again it also implies somehow  that it's the fault of the groups,  okay, they are hard to reach,  what can we do about that?  So it's a difficult term,  and all the others underrepresented, uneducated,  I don't know if there's a better translation  for a Bildungsfern.  All these definitions have a lot of, well,  plus sides and downsides and implications,  so we decided to go with the most neutral possible...  I'm sorry, I'm sorry.  Definitions they just not reach groups,  as it has a very descriptive term.  And also the assumption of groups  is a very problematic term.  It applies homogeneity and a self, how do I say?  Selbstzuschreibung, a self-assigning of people  to various groups that in reality is not present,  and also you cannot really describe groups,  because a lot of factors actually coming together.  And we see that when you look in the reviews,  for example, there's from a review on traffic safety,  then the groups, they identified there,  it's socioeconomically disadvantaged people over 65 years,  that's really specific,  it's socially disadvantaged,  educational deprived parents,  but then also there's a group of migrants.  Like there are so many things going on,  like it's...  Yeah, so obviously groups is a very difficult concept,  so for our research,  we decided that we go with exclusion factors.  Like we take this, the group descriptions,  and some other works also described exclusion factors,  and try to sort, like who is actually not reached.  And so I just want to...  So something went wrong,  I'm going to translate probably some of the most important parts.  Let me give, before you try to read it yourself,  let me give you the big picture first,  so do not try to read it.  No, just...  Okay, so this is probably a practical lesson  for science communication,  if you want to efficiently communicate science,  don't do that.  Because now obviously everybody tries to read it,  and that's not working.  We sorted these factors into three main groups,  like individual factors that lay mainly within the individual,  as it's called, social factors that derive from the interaction  of individuals with others of a group,  whatever definition of group it is,  of others in a societal setting,  and then structural conditions mainly lie  on the side of the science communicator.  Of course, individual factors,  the description does not mean that it's the individual's fault,  like okay, they're not interested,  so they must be interested first,  and then we can communicate to them,  no, it's way around,  like we have to make it interesting to them.  So it's not an assign of individual responsibility  to saying that the factors themselves lie in there.  And so I'm not going to translate everything,  probably, because we don't have that much time,  but there are a lot of different things,  like just saying the interest, the educational background,  the age, the financial resources, illness,  the language, the values people hold,  like there are a lot of things that affect  if they are reached by science communication,  and reached can have also three layers,  reached meaning does the information actually reach them?  Like, do they read about an event,  do they know about an event that it can go to,  then feel they invited, or do they feel invited?  Like, even if they have the information,  do they think it is for them,  do they actually make the decision to join or participate?  And then the last, like, if they are there,  does the information, the way it is presented,  or whatever the dialogue and the way it is presented,  actually include them and give them the possibility  to interact with the others.  So this is all going across basically  as a three-dimensional matrix,  so we left it out here in this level.  Social factors include disabilities,  gender, ethical backgrounds, regional setting,  so a lot of different things.  And of course, these factors mean different things  in different regional or national settings.  We focused our research primarily now  on science communication in Germany,  since this is our background and our research focus.  Of course, in other countries,  there might be other factors that are included  or factors that are much more important  than here in Germany.  So of course, there's this international perspective as well.  What are we doing in the project?  After this really rather theoretical desktop research,  we are now working with three exemplary groups  who has been chosen by an advisory board.  So this would be citizens in a marginalized city quarter.  We're going to Berlin in Schwandau, which we chose.  Students in vocational professional education,  the Berufsschule, because that's an area  which usually is left out  because you have science communication formats  for students or younger students and then for adults,  but really nothing for in between.  And then young Muslims rather religiously rooted.  We just say, of course, that's not the religion,  the main factor, there are also a lot of cultural factors  and socioeconomic factors.  And yeah, but we want to engage with them.  What are we going to do?  We start with focus groups.  We first want to address stakeholders  since we just know from our desktop research  what's going on there.  So we have, for each of these groups,  we have a first round of focus groups with stakeholders,  which would be the street workers, the representatives,  the, I don't know, people engaged already in the community  that they tell us, okay, what is going on?  What is important?  What should we know?  What should we consider?  Then a second round of focus groups  with actually members of these groups themselves  telling them about their life realities,  about their values, about their interests,  about their views on science and science communication,  about the topics they're interested in,  the topics they're not interested in.  And then in the main part,  we actually want to host three participatory workshops  where they are developing formats of science communication  on a topic they are interested on  in the way they want to communicate about.  So it's totally open.  What comes out of this, we don't know yet,  so it will be in the next year, starting the next year.  So they can decide, okay,  we just want to have a lecture series, very basic,  but presented in a certain way.  We want to have a science hip hop workshop,  or I don't know what.  So there's whatever comes out there,  they are going to implement this,  and we are going to see how this works in the end.  If they're happy with the format they developed,  if it worked, what the scientists think about it,  that participated in the format,  and then in the end, actually, what comes out of that?  On all sides, like what do the participants take out of it,  how the deformant overall work, and yeah.  That's the research.  One question, we started a little late,  how much time do we actually have left?  Okay, so the question to you would be,  are there any questions at the moment?  Because in the last part,  I would introduce some practical experiences  from various different other projects  where I tried various innovative ways,  that's now the main title of the talk,  how to reach various groups, or how to interact.  But through the aspects, rather theoretically,  I presented so far, are there any questions or comments?  So thanks, it was very fun so far.  Just one question, maybe we could reflect on that  in the more practical part.  So I was thinking about, does everybody have to care  about science, where's the line between empowering people  and becoming paternalistic?  No, definitely not everybody has to care about science.  In every aspect, I think in some,  so this is the example we saw when we went to,  we had the first workshop in Berlin, Spandau,  like people there, they have very serious problems at hand,  unemployment, the quarter development, crime,  drug addiction and all these things.  Like, I don't want, they don't have an interest  in talking about astronomy.  And I shouldn't force them to talk about astronomy.  I can make an offer and say, well, that's an interesting way  and look, you can see the stars even here in the city,  but you shouldn't force everybody in there.  I think on the other hand, on more broader issues,  it might be worthwhile to use some,  let's say nudging or a little pushing and say,  okay, it's an important democratic discourse.  Let's say currently on genetically modified organisms.  They are not interested in that because they think  it's not relevant for their lives.  So they are left out of the democratic discourse,  they're left out of the societal decision making  on the issue.  So I think this might be worthwhile to push it actually  a little bit and try to, well, you cannot force people,  of course, but try to push people to make it relevant to them,  to show them the relevance.  Of course, then they again have to decide  if they see it and adapt it or not.  Thank you for the presentation.  I have a challenge, I wouldn't say,  like a problem in my research,  because I have my own project homepage  and I wanted to write blog posts  and that the people in the regions I'm working  can comment on that.  I mean, it's a really nice tool,  but I think a lot of people don't know  about my homepage for sure.  Do you have any advice on how to spread a little bit  like this information?  Should I go to newspapers and make advertisement?  I don't know.  Like how to reach people.  Who is your target group?  It's like everybody who uses nature.  I don't know, it's like the tourists,  the farmers who live there, the inhabitants.  OK, so you have a certain region.  And you want to address all people living there,  working there.  Yes, yeah.  And tourists.  I think this would be the first step  to actually think about who your audience is comprised of.  Of course, you cannot again reach.  So there is no broad public, actually.  You have to think if there are certain parts  you can reach in a certain way.  So you say, if you have farmers,  probably you can reach them if you post something  or write something about in the farmer's journal  like the Alcatraff Report,  because they read that.  And others read different things or go to different events.  So you actually need to think what are the main groups  and where are the main channels you can reach them.  But, and so this is a second word,  I'm very skeptical about online dialogues and commentings  because usually it doesn't really work well.  A, there are so many people who have new,  so there are so many people having projects  and say, OK, we created a new platform.  Now everybody should come to my platform  and comment on this.  And I think that's a good thing.  Everybody should come to my platform and comment on my issue.  Like there are a thousand other platforms  which they have much more personal benefit out there.  So it might be an interesting approach  to actually put your content to other platforms  and even use it, even if you think it's evil,  but use platforms where people actually are.  Like share links on your blog post on Facebook, Twitter,  or then if you want to reach the youth,  Snapchat or Instagram,  try to reach them there, work with influencers.  Say, OK, can you share something?  Well, not the Instagram influencers, but the more...  Well, probably it might even work like their approaches,  but actually trying to find access points to the people.  Just putting it out there and just a newspaper advertisement  would be probably read by people 60 years plus.  So you need to find other ways for the other segments  of the audience.  But it will still be difficult.  So I think personal interaction is a very important part.  So try to go to events, personally present your thing.  And when I have a 10-minute talk on some kind of local festivity  and say, so if you're interested now,  then later on go to my blog and comment on that.  Thank you very much.  I have a question related to your project.  Can these focus groups or like the groups of stakeholders  also choose the topic that is the center of the science communication?  Yes.  And bring to this...  So in the focus groups we don't have a topic,  we don't talk about topics, we just want to know  what is their general, whatever, situation, what their assumptions.  So topics will be then chosen in the workshops where they say,  okay, we are interested in X and then do that.  And link to this, do you think that the format of communication  is linked also to the content  or is there some content that needs some specific way of communication?  I don't think necessarily.  So I can't think of examples right now.  I think it might very well be that there are some types of content  that are more suited for certain ways of communication,  but I don't think there's any exclusion.  In principle you can communicate everything on every channel.  It's just a question of the people are there and if the people are using that channel  or interested in that format.  So I would choose the format really depending on the audience  or not audience participants when it's a dialogue and not on the content.  Okay. Then for the second part now, these are just some really short impressions  from practical projects I did on other occasions.  Some of them already reflect some viewpoints from the project,  but we can discuss that later on.  I think five or six examples of different ways to communicate science.  If you have questions on a certain project, please just raise your hands immediately  and then we can address it right there or you can raise it at the end.  So the first thing, going where people are and making the topic accessible.  So in the next three projects I'm going to present,  they are all associated with the science years, seas and oceans.  The Federal Ministry of Research and Education in Germany  hosts each year a science year where they highlight a certain topic  and provide funding for science communication on that.  In 2016-17 it was the special occasion that it was two years,  but the issues were seas and oceans.  Two years, two topics now.  So I have several projects now that address this issue.  I'm not a marine biologist or something like that.  There was just funding available to try new formats of science communication.  So I just used that topic and I actually don't care about the topic at hand.  I'm really more interested in the formats and ways and evaluating ways.  It could be anything.  So this was the first thing, making seas and oceans accessible to people  not living at the coast.  What do we have to do here with the ocean?  Nothing, principle.  But people who are not vegans are eating fish sometimes.  So we thought this might be an interesting access point  talking about people, about fisheries, sustainable fisheries,  and as J.R. as...  Whatever, green stuff floating around in the ocean,  as potential source for proteins and nutrition.  And we decided, okay, we host an event that's actually based in a sushi restaurant.  So people were sitting in the sushi restaurant.  Here on this running sushi there were some information pieces  also going around together with the sushi and the salad and all the things.  scientists were giving presentations talking about fisheries, sustainable fisheries, the  green stuff, you know that, and people could have a discussion on their tables afterwards  and, okay, what are we actually eating? Was it actually good that we had this eel or was  it rather problematic that it served here in the restaurant? And just reflecting on  what you're actually doing there. It was a very nice format, but so this is probably  a disclaimer I have to say about a lot of these things. They are not reaching the diversity  in audience I was actually intended to. Like I was thinking about so many innovative ways,  but still to many of these formats, still the majority of participants is academic,  an academic background. So there's something still I have not found the answer myself,  but I'm continuously trying to make it more broadly accessible. So this was the one thing.  Then the other thing also, again, season oceans, the same problem. What connections do we have  to the ocean? Do you see the ocean in Karlsruhe or in Erlangen or somewhere? And saying, okay,  well, if people can't come to the ocean regularly, we bring the ocean to the people. So we used  empty shop windows in the nine different German cities and had full window projections of  underwater films and some documentary movies about the ocean and life in the ocean that  basically turned into virtual aquarium in the inner cities of these sounds. And in addition,  we had public lectures on the sidewalk outside on certain dates where people walking by could  stop and then heard presentations on marine biology, underwater exploration, geology,  what else on all topics relating to the issue. And we also showed documentary movies with sound.  I think we have these chairs placed in front of the shop window and people could actually stop by  for some outdoor cinema and just watch in the middle of the city underwater movies.  Then there's another project, exploring the intersection of art and science. This was a  science street art project I did with the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Light back  in Erlangen. These were school students. And we had some introduction in the Max Planck Institute  where they visited the laboratory and saw cool lasers and stuff. And then we created street  graffiti with chalk. So it was allowed by the city and placed this chalk graffiti all over the  city. So it was fun for them. But then also all the people walking by, first they were shocked,  oh my god, all these new students are vandalizing our city all over. But when they stopped,  we actually, some people were standing around and handing out flyers with background information  on the project, on the scientific research that is represented in there. And yes, it had two  effects on the students participating and all the citizens walking by. And yeah, this another  project where we had a lot of fun. Several of them. It's one big thing I'm very much interested in  is the communication of science through comics. So there is literature and empirical evidence  that comics can be a very good tool to communicate scientific contents. They're used in school  contexts or even in university contexts. But what we explored here, and again, like I said,  topic sees in the ocean that was on board of this exhibition ship MS Wissenschaft. So this is a ship  that goes around German rivers with an exhibition on the topic of each science here. And they also  have side events. So we had the side events. These were eight school workshops each year,  where students were asked to draw their own comics. And with these comics, they were asked to  express their views on season ocean and on the future development of season oceans, like not  talking about, oh, what are your hopes? What do you think are the risks and the benefits? Like,  that doesn't really work well with 12 year olds, but I giving them a creative way to express their  views on the science and on the future. And they were free to produce science fiction stories that  don't need to be necessarily somehow realistic. So these were underwater cities presented there.  But there's also very much, just a second, there's very, there are very much interesting points in  there. So this was a, from another comic workshop I did with Akartek, the German Academy for Engineering,  where they had to express their views on or had to, where they were asked to express their views  on artificial photosynthesis, whatever, sunlight, you know. On the future development as a potential  energy source, the risks, the benefits and their assumptions. And so this is very interesting,  I don't have to assume. So basically in this comic, and they draw, there's some kind of nano dome over  a city where some catalytical cells produced electricity with artificial photosynthesis. And  so everybody here is happy. But what this student draws, one guy that's not happy over there, and  he complains that one of the pillars of this dome is directly in his backyard. And so they are  basically addressing this typical, not in my backyard or whatever, San Florian's principle.  They are addressing these issues, which I discussed on societal and technical and scientific  developments. They address also these kinds of things in the comics. So it's a very interesting  tool. And this is also part of the reason why I wasn't here at the beginning of the week,  because on Tuesday we had a second workshop with Akartek also on artificial photosynthesis,  you know, photosynthesis. Three years later and see, okay, what has changed and what do they do?  Okay, so you had a question. Concerning this method with the comics, because I wanted to do  that with like eighth graders or 14 year old kids, but they really, they were like blocked. I said,  okay, you can draw anything, you can make a storyline, you could even make a video. But it  seemed to me that this was like reaching too high. They were just, I don't know, maybe we didn't  give them enough time. We had like a day workshop. But that was really like, I thought we were  going to do it. But then they were all like, oh, no, we cannot draw. So I'm wondering whether you  are giving them any like starting point or like helping them out, giving them ideas, or you just  give them like a couple of pens and they just get going. Okay, so one overall remark, it is  difficult and time is the most important factor, like all these things were one day or even half  day workshops. That is actually not enough. There are some results, but to have real good results,  you would actually need to have either a full day workshop with preparation in class before that,  or have a two or three day workshop to actually go much more in depth. So I think that's, that's  also a shortcoming of all these things I presented. And then again, you just can't give them a paper  and say, do something. We had a lot of structured input before that, not structured input, structured  phases before that. We tried under all circumstances not to influence them, but we had phases. And of  course, there was an input presentation on the MSWissen shaft. They had one hour to visit the  exhibition and think about the things. But then we had phases where we asked them to structure  their knowledge and their perceptions. Or first, list all your things you found in the exhibition,  or list all the interesting points you had in the presentation and recollect that on cards. And then  we had an input on comic drawing. It's okay, what is important? What does a comic need? It needs a  setting, a plot and actors. Okay, now you have again 15 minutes in, they worked in groups from  two to five people, depending on the workshop. Okay, think about potential actors, potential  settings, potential plots, things that could happen in your, in your comic. And then again,  they, they got individual feedback and then we're asked to actually finally compile it. And also  for the drawing part, there was some kind of exercise in the beginning, just a scribble exercise.  I said, okay, well, you just now had 20 minutes and look what you have produced in that. So it is  possible to, to activate them. Still, it is difficult and not every time successful, but with  these very structured approaches, it's possible to do that. Okay, then, oh, yeah, and so this,  I almost forgot that. This is something we did with the comic workshop on board of the MS  Wissenschaft. They only had half a day. So what you saw, it was really very rough. These were  sketches, some were a bit more colored with some more talented, well, graphically talented students,  but they were really sketches. And we said, well, there are some very good ideas in there and  would be really a shame if we can't use that anymore because the originals, they, you can't show  them around. So we had the comic artist who was present as a coach at these workshops. Actually,  I said with him together, we took ideas from the various comics, from the different groups,  from eight different classes and say, okay, what are really interesting ideas in there and put that  back into stories we compiled on our own. So these were stories developed by us, but based on ideas  from the students or collecting or combining ideas from the students to have a professional  publication in the end that can be passed around and also reach more people beyond the participants  of the comic. What's also very important, what was important for me that we have, the stories  could be total science fiction. Like here, it's a robotic areola that cleans the oceans. Of course,  that's not a realistic scientific, future scenario, but we wanted to give them the freedom to express,  well, probably, who knows? And we wanted to give them the freedom to express whatever they want,  but we included these so-called science facts on the basis where we actually commented on these  issues like, ah, yeah, well, this might very well be pollution is a big problem, but not here and  another comic until we have floating islands of solid garbage. This is not realistic at the moment.  Or how much, when we had another comic about flooding of land, okay, how much would the flooding  actually go with the current models on temperature rise and sea level rise? So to actually put the  scientific stories, the science fiction stories into context. And if you're interested, I have some  of these here. So this comic workshop was done in two years with two different comic artists,  so we have two different comic stories. And if you're interested in that, you can take one with  you afterwards. But the whole comic is also available online under a CC license, so you can also download it.  Okay, so then another thing, trying to reach other people. So I said, before that, the typical  audience of scientific events is actually old and male. So you might think that old people are  overrepresented in science communication, but it's a very tiny subset of old people. So we thought,  okay, we want to include more generations also on future discussions. So the current science year,  haha, new funding source, is on the future of work. And we thought, okay, when we want to talk  about the future of work, we want to also talk about the past of the future of the work. So what  did people 30 years ago think about the future of work? What has happened since then? And are  there repeating things like this important, I didn't include it here. There's this picture series of  the German magazine Spiegel. They had covers like 20 years apart, each with some dramatic robots,  stealing jobs, like, okay, it's the same thing every 20 years. So obviously nothing really has  changed. It's just the same topics that arise. And so we are hosting a series of events. And this  is currently running, where we actually go into elderly living, elderly housing centers, whatever.  We basically host the discussions with experts, with senior citizens. We also wanted to have  an intergenerational dialogue, also have young people coming to that. That was rather difficult.  Really nobody wanted to come to the elderly living place. So we are really trying hard to solve  that for the next occasions, but asking them what they think about the past and the developments,  what they have seen, how work has changed for them, and what they now think about future  developments to also give them an essay. Of course, this is something I'm always saying,  why I'm very much pro-youth engagement. Like the usual people sitting in committees and boards  deciding on future issues, they are all dead when these issues actually arise 10 years from now,  or 20 years from now. Well, that's true. Like all the professors, they are talking about the future,  they are not living in that future anymore. So it is important to actually talk with young  people about the future. But then again, also the old people have to say something. They have  important experiences you can include in that discussion. And that's what you're trying here  and that. And a very important success factor definitely, you have to have cake and coffee.  This really makes people come. So this is definitely important. And the independent of age,  probably we should have different cakes and different catering for youngers, but very important.  Okay, let me just quickly see. Oh yeah, one more. And then we are done. This is another thing. And  this I've done with the Quartier Zukunft in Karlsruhe. I'm a board game fan. And there are a lot  of, there are several board games that actually are made with a specific scientific purpose out  of scientific projects, or especially these older games. Some probably know that in the  beginnings of the environmental movement, they are really, they're interesting, but they have  shitty game mechanics. You can't really play them because they are not developed by game designers,  but by environmental activists. And they were meant well, but not executed well. But they are  new games, like the keep cool climate climate change game, which are really fun to play and  a way to engage on issues. And then you can discuss the issues. Plus, there are other games who  have scientific topics who are purely entertainment games and probably also not very realistically,  like Funchen Schlaggitzer on energy supply or there's a game on evolution and various other  things. But you can also use them as an occasion to talk about the issue behind that. So the idea is  that we haven't done that so far to accompany these board game evenings with short presentations or  short reflection discussions on the issues at hand, like what have we learned, what have we learned  about it and is it realistically or not. And so this is a very interesting approach and actually  works really, really well. But again, like here, it's a really a question of which people do we  reach. So there are only the people who are, I would say basically it's a local agenda group  that's showing up to these meeting at no one beyond, except when I'm pushing some students to show up.  So they also, you need to think about other ways to make it more accessible and attractive. And I'm  also still thinking about that. There are occasionally other people coming, so it is in principle  working, but not overall. So this was the very quick overview on some practical projects. And this  would actually be the end of my presentation. Almost, just you said I had 20 further more minutes.  And then, no, you might have asked and I just briefly addressed that this is one last remark. I  haven't talked about online communication. This is not my focus. If you have a question about  another question about that I can comment briefly on that by very much my personal focus is on real  events on real interaction. And so if you have a question, you can ask that, but I didn't include  any slides and now I'm really finished. Yeah, thank you very much, Philipp. And we have a couple  more minutes, I would say, for some questions in addition, although the very attractive cake is  waiting outside. So thanks. I think it was really motivating. And now to get a realistic idea of  especially maybe scaling levels and downscaling, if we talk about PhD students, maybe you could  mention the range of the budget that you have for these kind of projects and also how big your team  is. And if there are any funding resources for PhD students or also NGOs. Wow, so the funding  range really varies. So this ocean shop window, these window projections, this was a project  funded for a year and there I got 150,000 from the ministry. This was a full-scale grant. There  was a my position partially paid for that and another one and I hired some external designers  to do that. So there was a huge budget for that. Also the current, the senior citizen dialogue on  the future of work is the same range. I also applied for the full possibility of the science year  fundings. The others had much less like the business buffet had 10,000 euros. It was a special  competition. The board game evening is not funded. The science street art thing I actually did as a  freelancer. So I think there was, I personally got two or three day, I say that day charges on  that and the comic workshop also that I did that as a freelancer. I did an evaluation on the site.  I don't have the results. Therefore I didn't show them. And there I was paid for the days as a  researcher as a freelancer. So the funding sources, yes and no. So there is money available  for the project. For example, for the DFG, they have a special part on science communication you  can apply for when you already have a DFG funded project. For others, you either find a special  call like the science year, which is very interesting, artificial intelligence next year,  if that's interesting for someone. And then for the smaller ones, I think the most promising  way is actually to look at foundations and smaller foundations because when you want to say we are a  group and as a PhD student, you probably don't want to go all into science communication. You  want to do some science communication with your projects. You probably need 2000 or 5000 euros.  And this would be something you could really try with foundations or there are many smaller  foundations who couldn't fund 500,000 euro projects, but who can very well fund 5000 euro  communication projects or 10,000 something like that. Thank you very much for the presentation.  I found it very interesting and there was a question that I was thinking about all the time  that you're trying to reach a broader public or a broader range of citizens, but somehow it,  sometimes it's not very easy. And I was wondering if maybe in your thinking process or like who's  in your team and maybe sometimes because each one of us is a certain demographic, then some things  we will miss necessarily. And I was wondering if that was something you thought about already or  yeah, not like thinking about other demographics not only to reach but also include them in how to  reach other people. So yes, on the, on like in our research project, we're definitely doing this  because we have the time and the money and the whole scope of that. For the other projects,  the time resources and also the financial resources are very much limited. So I had some  talks like with the people from the local quarter on the board game evening, Hazel,  what do you think? Are you interested in that? But it's on a very much more on an informal level.  A lot of these things I'm actually doing alone because nobody else is participating. And this is  an issue. Definitely we have the diversity problem in academia as well. It's a bit different in our  subject in the science communication field because they have the gender relation is actually swapped  to other fields. It's actually much more difficult to find other males to work with,  which is a rather interesting thing. But especially in culture diversity or language  diversity, it's very much homogeneous there. And so I'm doing this on a personal level with  talks but not on a formalized way or inclusion in that. I think the major problem with all these  things is that they are one time events. And this is something I think I briefly  addressed it in the project. One time events are very good because they can attract excitement,  they can attract public visibility. It's like, hey, there's this cool sushi event. And then even  the Barton Wuppenberg TV was there and was showing it. So it was good. But then you would formally  establish something would actually need to have follow up events. So this is what we're trying  with our other research project. Since at this stage, I was only interested in trying the  format, see if it works. I was actually from the beginning on not really expecting it to have long  lasting effects along because this is not what this was supposed to be. Okay, I would suggest  one last question. And then we see Philip back again after the coffee break and after the talk  from Bastjan with his exercise. And even during the discussion with Bastanis, I guess he will be  in the room. So he can also interact and you can meet him in the coffee break. So at the cake.  It's a very short and very specific question. Like about this in the sushi restaurant talking  about sustainable fisheries. How open is a shop like the restaurant owner to a topic like this?  Because I mean, I doubt that all the people would like run away then and oh my God, I'm eating  unsustainable fish maybe. But like, yeah. He was actually very okay with that. Although I have to  say I think in the beginning, it was because he didn't really understand the whole scope of the  issue. Like, no, no, we explained it a lot. There were language barriers. And but he said,  okay, well, you attract people to my restaurant, I'm fine, do whatever you want. So this was  definitely his priority, because it was a really it was a rather big restaurant we chose for that,  which is not that very well. I say that visited usually. So he had this financial interest at  the very beginning. And it was it was an evening and a lunch event. And it was full sold out. So  this was his main interest. And he didn't really care about the rest. The second thing and it's  very difficult. So we didn't want to have a completely unreflected menu. So we actually really  had to force him and it was a long negotiations back in force, because then he pretended he didn't  understand that he just didn't want to do it. For this event, we actually made him to buy only  certified fish to do a minimum step, which he doesn't do otherwise, like to have a bare minimum  of sustainability. But then in the end, for him, it was the only thing that counted that it was a  sold out restaurant. And he was in the in the television, in the news and journals. So that was  the main aspect for him. And in general, do you have problems with that? Like getting the people,  the like hosts, the places you use as hosts, if it's not like a city public place, like a school  or something, but more something like a restaurant. Especially city public places are worse. Like for  the when I'm doing public events, they have they have the clear. And so their capitalism works in  the one tiny place where it actually does. I pay the money to rent the place or they have the  incentive to have people to show up. And then they are happy with that. But if you want to support  from public places, which actually supposed to be for the public, no, we don't have time. Now,  then there would be another initiative coming now, we can do that, we can support that. Well,  they are usually actually much more difficult to get. And that it's okay, they have a lot of  things to do. And especially if you talk about NGOs and local initiatives, they don't get paid  for their job, they're doing it all on the side. And I can't force them to do another event just  because I asked them to do it. So I understand that very well. But yes. Okay, then thank you very  much again, Philipp.
Schroegel_Innovative_Ways_0_431.png Schroegel_Innovative_Ways_432_491.png Schroegel_Innovative_Ways_492_1067.png Schroegel_Innovative_Ways_1068_1415.png Schroegel_Innovative_Ways_1416_1619.png Schroegel_Innovative_Ways_1620_1823.png Schroegel_Innovative_Ways_1824_2483.png Schroegel_Innovative_Ways_2484_3983.png Schroegel_Innovative_Ways_3984_4283.png Schroegel_Innovative_Ways_4284_4355.png Schroegel_Innovative_Ways_4356_4931.png Schroegel_Innovative_Ways_4932_5147.png Schroegel_Innovative_Ways_5148_5459.png Schroegel_Innovative_Ways_5460_5603.png Schroegel_Innovative_Ways_5604_5795.png Schroegel_Innovative_Ways_5796_6143.png Schroegel_Innovative_Ways_6144_6371.png Schroegel_Innovative_Ways_6372_7919.png Schroegel_Innovative_Ways_7920_8279.png Schroegel_Innovative_Ways_8280_11231.png Schroegel_Innovative_Ways_11232_11531.png Schroegel_Innovative_Ways_11532_11915.png Schroegel_Innovative_Ways_11916_12359.png Schroegel_Innovative_Ways_12360_14063.png Schroegel_Innovative_Ways_14064_21635.png Schroegel_Innovative_Ways_21636_21731.png Schroegel_Innovative_Ways_21732_32603.png Schroegel_Innovative_Ways_32604_33299.png Schroegel_Innovative_Ways_33300_48299.png Schroegel_Innovative_Ways_48300_48887.png Schroegel_Innovative_Ways_48888_49679.png Schroegel_Innovative_Ways_49680_50003.png Schroegel_Innovative_Ways_50004_51815.png Schroegel_Innovative_Ways_51816_52007.png Schroegel_Innovative_Ways_52008_52967.png Schroegel_Innovative_Ways_52968_53255.png Schroegel_Innovative_Ways_53256_53555.png Schroegel_Innovative_Ways_53556_53819.png Schroegel_Innovative_Ways_53820_55451.png Schroegel_Innovative_Ways_55452_55739.png Schroegel_Innovative_Ways_55740_56015.png Schroegel_Innovative_Ways_56016_69527.png Schroegel_Innovative_Ways_69528_69875.png Schroegel_Innovative_Ways_69876_74747.png Schroegel_Innovative_Ways_74748_81827.png Schroegel_Innovative_Ways_81828_82043.png Schroegel_Innovative_Ways_82044_82823.png Schroegel_Innovative_Ways_82824_83495.png Schroegel_Innovative_Ways_83496_84083.png Schroegel_Innovative_Ways_84084_84407.png Schroegel_Innovative_Ways_84408_85103.png Schroegel_Innovative_Ways_85104_85283.png Schroegel_Innovative_Ways_85284_86351.png Schroegel_Innovative_Ways_86352_88259.png Schroegel_Innovative_Ways_88260_88607.png Schroegel_Innovative_Ways_88608_89375.png Schroegel_Innovative_Ways_89376_89843.png Schroegel_Innovative_Ways_89844_91607.png Schroegel_Innovative_Ways_91608_94343.png Schroegel_Innovative_Ways_94344_94535.png Schroegel_Innovative_Ways_94536_94740.png
This is the old aura of the University of Heidelberg, like the very traditional mode, the high professors are talking from the podium, promoting the truth to the uneducated public, and in a very formal, very hierarchical, very traditional setting. And of course, you all know you're in the midst of all that during your projects. Like science communication today looks a lot different. There's so many things. You already mentioned the science lens, and I thought, well, I use just that as an opener. This is outdoor science lab I hosted in Karlsruhe during the Science Festival in 2015. Like it's a completely different mode of communicating science. Like there are a lot of people. It's an outdoor festival. They're having fun. They're drinking beer. So it's a totally different picture. Before, so this was, yeah, it's a very, very pictorial start into the topic, but going back a little bit, laying the foundation, what are we actually talking about? I just showed you two very dominant pictures, giving impressions of science communications, but I want to start asking you what your perceptions and your expectations of science communication are. You mentioned that it has been brought up the last days, one or two times, and it has been brought up yesterday when I was here. So what do you think of when you think of science communication? What do you expect from science communication in your projects? Are there any opinions or what do you want to know about science communication? Yes? I think that it's important to get the message across. Say again? To get the message across that you want to communicate. Okay, so which message, from whom? I mean, about your research, for example, but I think what is most difficult is try to pitch what is it important to communicate, because we tend to just drown into our research, and when we start to explain our own research, we talk and talk and talk, and then we don't really communicate. Okay. I think. Are there any other? Yes, please just make the round. Probably it's the easiest way for the microphone. Oh. Yeah, I was just thinking that you don't have to jump around. Sure, so I think there might be actually a difference between communicating scientific results and communicating about science, like kind of marketing of science and society itself. I think there are maybe these two kind of strategies. Okay, and what is it for you? When you hear science communication, what do you think about? Actually more like the marketing kind of thing from my experience? And for me, the first thing that comes to my mind, or what I expect from my research is to be accessible, and that's what communicating, like that's one of the challenges of communicating science or communicating about science. Okay. Yeah. There was one more over this. Yeah, for me, science communication is something like how we can translate the knowledge between a stakeholder as Pamela says something like our results, but the idea is that it's translate information because we need to share same language. Okay, so I don't see any immediate responses with just some quick gathering, getting to know what you think about it, somehow some impressions. So of course I also started with a definition here, and actually it's all included in there, and that would be probably the first message. Science communication is also a very broad umbrella term that's not really defined. Some people are using it in a special narrow way, either as a positive approach or either as a, well, negative approach, decrying some forms of communications, like, oh, science communication, that's just marketing, and because the other thing is science journalism, and that's the truth. And the most broad, and I think the most applicable definition would be it's basically, and even shorter than that, it's communicating about science, about all aspects of science, and communication between all different actors, like not only scientists talking to the public, but also then, and then Bastia I think is going a bit more into that later on, scientists talking to scientists, public talking to scientists, like it's all communication processes that somehow involve some aspects of science. What I am going to focus, and this, well, obvious, already with the chosen examples, is external science communication. This means communication going beyond the boundaries of scientific institutions. And please note that there's also no direction included in there, that of course, communicating, translating your results, making them accessible to the public, to lay people is one part, but also the communication back from the public, to the institutions is also part of that definition. And there's all these different aspects that would be included in that definition, like the traditional science PR, the department, science journalism, private science, YouTubers, science, activists, organizations, NGOs that communicate about scientists, scientists that personally talk about something that have personal Twitter accounts or what else not. So the forms are not really limited. I'm not going more into detail about science journalism, that's not my area of expertise. I'm more talking now and the following about scientists in one way or the other, communicating with others and especially communicating with lay people. And I think this is a very important aspect and you discussed it the last days, you discussed it yesterday, the sole question of experts versus non-experts. We can discuss it later on. There's one thing, there's institutionalized hierarchies versus the public, but there is expertise. And I see there are differences in expertise that also need to be addressed in communication. And I already forgot to mention it, like translating knowledge, like transforming messages to various levels of expertise. This is also part of science communication. But even going one step back more to even more basic foundations because I think that's very important. That's my message I want to get across to our students but also to others when I talk about science communication. Many have the expectation and the desire or science communication, just tell us the five tricks that we need to know then we can talk better about our research. Like what are the five key lessons on PowerPoint slides or how do I do a YouTube video? So of course there are some very fundamental basics but they're not that difficult and you can't talk about what you probably can. Talk an hour about that. But I think any sufficient reflexive human being can actually think about, okay, is this PowerPoint slide? Understandable to my grandmother, to my grandfather, to my neighbor with a different academic or non-academic background. So you don't need to read a detailed training test. Basic thinking should be enough. And I don't know, that's really my opinion. Of course you can have some examples and can get better at that, but the basics are there. I think it's much more important to talk about the underlying assumptions about the interaction of science and society and what your expectations are towards communication, what your expectations are towards your communication partners. And you are probably much more ahead of that since you're already discussing that in your research projects and in your understanding of transdisciplinarity. But a lot of others aren't. And I think it's very important. I wanted also to present it to you to discuss it with you. And also I mentioned yesterday is it regarding the real world laboratories, is it just a new thing or new rebranding? And also for science communication issues. A lot of these things and a lot of these insights I will present later on will sound very familiar to you. You have reached them from the perspective of transdisciplinarity research, but also very other disciplines come to similar conclusions just here now from the framing of communication sciences and science communication. This is one very important aspect and also important for media-lized science communication, meaning through science journalism. These two keywords brought up by Peter Weingart, scientification of society and socialization of science. It's not much anymore that you have disjunct, political scientific institutions that do some research and present it through every half year. And that's it. There's much more societal discussions going on in research institutions about priorities, research agendas. But also there's much more scientific insights involved in policy making and in societal developments in any aspect. It's not also the big things climate change, but it goes back to quarter development. All these things, basically the research you are doing is, in many of your projects, is a picture of these two main phenomena. So there's this one very naive thinking that many, well, let's say some natural scientists fall trap into when they think, oh, we're just doing pure science, we have nothing to do with society, we have nothing to do with politics, and that there may be very few cases where this might be true, but in general, it's very much intertwined. So this, you need to know when you communicate about science. It's not about just telling the truth in a very understandable way. And then this effect, it's called medialization or medialization, depends on who you ask. These also, these effects that influence the way we communicate, like there's an extensification of public presence. Like universities used to have just one press officer 20 years, then now the PR departments have grown, the numbers, they have much more activities, so there's much more public communications. In the earlier times, whatever you go back 100 years, like the experts just communicated with each other and they wrote letters and had their scientific meetings and sometimes aristocrats invited to some salons where the higher class had some exchange about science, but now the science is really in the public and you have to deal with that. There's a polarization of communication, where that's also part of your work. This can be very good when you have various views, when you have multiple viewpoints on an issue and you have to deal with that from a communications perspective, this can be also very bad. And I brought up the example yesterday and this is the case here again, like when you have a discussion on climate change in the media and the media say, okay, we need to present a balanced view. We have one expert on one opinion and the other expert on the counter opinion, then they present one scientist talking 10 minutes about why human-driven climate change is a thing and then they have another scientist equally getting 10 minutes talking about, okay, why human-driven climate change probably is not a thing. And so it's a problem you have to deal with, and somehow. Then the whole polarization issue that scientists have through the socialization and politicization, it gets much more controversial because it's very much from the beginning on intertwined with political processes. And there was just two or three weeks of paper coming out and I forgot to wrote down the original quote, it was about the polarization on the views of climate change between Republicans and Democrats in the United States. And there was this very interesting quotation citing some Republicans saying, well, I actually thought that climate change might have been a thing, but in the moment I learned that Al Gore was opposing, or was working against climate change, I thought, okay, now that's an issue on the other side and I'm totally against it. So basically, political processes interfering with communication processes. And of course, not for all areas, like if you're doing, what, I think basic geometry, that's probably not the case. And then this big criticism of communication for reputation in science, that institutions and personal scientists are using communication just to gain public reputation, to gain reputation by politicians, just to support their standing, just to gain potential support by funding institutions, by politicians. So just all these findings and there's not a neutral, well neutral, of course, not a trying to be neutral press release, but every headline is just following this mass media logic of having a very, say, appealing headline. Researchers from university, IGS have cured cancer, like you all know these things, or chocolate is good for you, chocolate is bad for you. Like all these things because that generates views, that generates reads, that generates clicks. And scientists and science communicators are much ever growing and dependent on these logic, and that's also a bad thing. That necessarily it's also good, like if you want to reach people with something you need to know how to frame the audience, to get the message across, that's one thing, but then if you do it for everything, yeah, it also falls out of line. So this is the current landscape. Going back, like I said at the beginning, science communication basically is everything to communicate somehow about on and for science. Was there always this divide between scientists that need to translate to the public? And so if you look at that historically, basically it's a way back and forth. In the very early beginnings, it's okay, scientists was only done by rich people, aristocrats who did that as a hobby, but they needed public support to show that they get some money from their duke, or from their, whatever, from the king. So they had huge public demonstrations on the marketplace, where a lot of people actually watched that. The famous example of the, in Magdeburg Hothbolts by Otto von Gehlke, where they demonstrated the vacuum pressure, like he did that on the marketplace with thousands of people watching. And there's also a public demonstration. There was no scientific communities, so the public was also needed as evidence that actually the experiment took place and the experiment had a certain outcome. There, thousands of people saw that, because there was no peer review and stuff like that back then. Then science became much more specialized, much more technicized, so-called ivory tower and okay, we're just within our scientific communities and working with ourselves because it's so complicated and now the push in the last years or the last decades basically back to the public, public involvement and all these things. And it has been framed in various different places. In the beginning it was just about communicating scientific literacy and then the public engagement and all these things probably here just showing you some of these areas. And now you might wonder what has that to do with science communication. And I say back to the beginning actually a lot because how to design a PowerPoint slide is not the important part about science communication, but what assumptions about the goals, about the purposes of science communication underlie your actions. And so all these things have a lot in common, I would say. It's different framings from different academic disciplines. They are all describing processes of opening up scientific communication to non-traditional institutionalized scientists in various aspects. And all of them are basically about communicating, communicating back and forth between publics and what between various different publics. So this is the landscape of science communication. And just to make it also clear since in the very beginning I asked, what do you think, what do you expect from science communication? And you mentioned making clear, translating your results to the public. And that of course, that is one key part of science communication. There's no question about that. But also this could be a legitimate goal. If you want to communicate about your field, you want to attract possible new students, possible probably PhD students, you want to communicate that the research you're doing is important, that it's worthwhile pursuing that research. Then this whole aspect of justification, legitimation of science. I framed it in a rather negative way in the first comment, but it doesn't have to be that. Like there is this pressure to legitimize your work when you're publicly funded through taxes. Okay, you have to show what you are doing. This is not working. You have to show what you are doing to give the public the possibility to actually think about it and discuss about the underlying issues. And also then, of course, like scientists doing science because they think it's cool and important what they are doing, and their goal is to raise acceptance for their work. This can be negative because there might be different viewpoints about certain areas of science or certain aspects, but it is a goal and you have to discuss if it's legitimate or not. And then, especially the last part, which you are doing is integral part of your transdisciplinary research, the exchange and dialogue of society. Also that is science communication. The hosting of forums, several people can do that themselves for others, like science communicators are actually asked to host events, to host town hall meetings, to host whatever dialogue workshops and include public input into scientific processes into priority settings by research institutions. Then also, then this is very much in the research process where scientists doing this themselves, gathering input from the public corporation. This would be this whole thing, co-designed corporations, citizen science projects, but that basically also has a communication component. It's very important to note, some people now say, okay, citizen science is a new cool form of science communication. Technically, this is true, but what they are meaning, okay, it's a cool new way if we give people the opportunity to collaborate somehow, they think it's good, they just think at that from a marketing or PR perspective. That's not the case, but it is a form of science communication. And, oh yeah, that's just, no, of course, there's something, I should not go over that, excitement and fun. So people actually enjoy talking about science and people actually enjoy, or might enjoy, hearing about science. They have fun at a science festival at a science center. And this is often overlooked because it's all about, probably 80% of people say science communication is about communicating knowledge, educating people, that's everything, but the fun part is really important. And that is, for me, it's really important to have it there. People enjoy being at a science lab and talking about their research because, you're a PhD student who actually enjoys when you're talking about your research. Like, there are 300 people in a room, they paid entrance fees to listen to what you are researching on. Like, that's a cool thing. And then in a science center, like, when you have these very basic experimental settings and teaching children the very basic principles and basic experiment, that's a fun entertainment. They don't need to learn a lot about that, but just need to learn that it's fun to be curious, to be experimenting. So, I really want to, I think I made clear that I think this is important. Okay, so this is the summary. I want to leave here the most important part, and this is something in the communication or science communication research was called the deficit model, like these early stages of science communication where you thought, okay, science communication is just about communicating results to the public. And when you communicate that results to the public, they think it's cool what you're doing. It's just a question of information. If I just tell people long enough that nuclear power is a good thing and physically very well understood, which it probably is, people will like it afterwards. And that's obviously not the case because there's a whole lot of different issues surrounded by that. And I think that can also not, second to the fun part, this can also not be overemphasized enough. Like, we are not living in this deficit model anymore. And a lot of traditional people in science communication, like probably some of these old school press offices you might meet at your universities who have this job for 40 years, they still think in this mode. Or professors who also have that job for 30, 40 years, who think, okay, we're doing science, we know what is right, and we just have to tell the stupid people what we are doing, and then they will like us. You will meet this a lot, this thinking. Probably not in your field, but when you're talking to others, it's very present still. Yeah, and then there are a lot of forms of science communication, there's a lot going on, there's a lot of institutions experimenting, if you're, it's a German website only, I don't know an English equivalent. So if you know German, you might want to visit the page, Wissenschafts Kommunikation DE, and they have a huge overview of different forms of science communication. You can click through, there's some resources and further links. So there's a lot of stuff going on. I don't wanna focus on these issues in this very broad aspect. I want to raise another question, and the question you already addressed when you introduced me, the question we have in our research project, who is actually reached by science communication, by all these, even by all these nice efforts, like by all these science, who is going to science them? And this is something you're also probably aware of from your own experience, that actually science communication usually is not reaching a broad public. Usually I always say the typical audience of whatever academic event, evening lecture, and even to some degree science slam, is old, male, white, and highly educated. Typically a teacher or an engineer in retirement. That's the prototype of the audience. Of course, like it varies and there are differences, but in general you see that a lot. And, okay, this is the German quotation, especially left it here, because here also again, on the plus side, they are really addressing, okay, we are not reaching the broad public, we are not reaching not formally educated people enough, and all these things are so, this is good, but then again, the information that should be brought in, those who should be brought to knowledge and information. Like this is, then again, reflecting this very old deficit model again, even in a otherwise really reflected report. So, you see there's a lot of work still to be done. So what are we doing? We started a practical, a practice and a research project, Science for All, together with Wissenschaft and Dialogue Science and Dialogue, this is a practical science communication organization based in Berlin. They are organizing our events and we are doing the research, this whole thing is funded by the Robert Bosch Foundation. And we are asking the question, who is actually not reached by science communication? For what reasons? What do they think about science and science communication? And what do they want? What do they expect from science communication? This publication, this is one, we are doing the main project, but we are also doing several side things to the project. So this illustration, for example, is from a project description in something that's called Easy Language, Leichte Sprache. That's a formalized way of language, and I don't know if that exists in English or in other languages as well, I only know it so far from German. It's a formalized language that is based on very simple and easy to understand, grammatical and verbal rules, so that people with a different language background or people with educational problems can easily understand that even if you're describing very complex issues, it's accompanied by illustrations, so then there are many ways to access the information in there. Okay, but that's just a side note. So what are we doing here? We started with a review, actually saying who is described as not being reached by communication. This is something not only happening to science communication, but also to many other fields, political education, health communication, adult education, so we included all these works in our review, and we found two basic things. It's a very difficult problem, actually, naming the problem. A very typical term used in the literature is hard to reach audiences or hard to reach groups. It has the advantage, it addresses that the communicator has actually the duty to reach them, because it's hard for him to reach, so it's the responsibilities laid on the communicator, but then again it also implies somehow that it's the fault of the groups, okay, they are hard to reach, what can we do about that? So it's a difficult term, and all the others underrepresented, uneducated, I don't know if there's a better translation for a Bildungsfern. All these definitions have a lot of, well, plus sides and downsides and implications, so we decided to go with the most neutral possible... I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Definitions they just not reach groups, as it has a very descriptive term. And also the assumption of groups is a very problematic term. It applies homogeneity and a self, how do I say? Selbstzuschreibung, a self-assigning of people to various groups that in reality is not present, and also you cannot really describe groups, because a lot of factors actually coming together. And we see that when you look in the reviews, for example, there's from a review on traffic safety, then the groups, they identified there, it's socioeconomically disadvantaged people over 65 years, that's really specific, it's socially disadvantaged, educational deprived parents, but then also there's a group of migrants. Like there are so many things going on, like it's... Yeah, so obviously groups is a very difficult concept, so for our research, we decided that we go with exclusion factors. Like we take this, the group descriptions, and some other works also described exclusion factors, and try to sort, like who is actually not reached. And so I just want to... So something went wrong, I'm going to translate probably some of the most important parts. Let me give, before you try to read it yourself, let me give you the big picture first, so do not try to read it. No, just... Okay, so this is probably a practical lesson for science communication, if you want to efficiently communicate science, don't do that. Because now obviously everybody tries to read it, and that's not working. We sorted these factors into three main groups, like individual factors that lay mainly within the individual, as it's called, social factors that derive from the interaction of individuals with others of a group, whatever definition of group it is, of others in a societal setting, and then structural conditions mainly lie on the side of the science communicator. Of course, individual factors, the description does not mean that it's the individual's fault, like okay, they're not interested, so they must be interested first, and then we can communicate to them, no, it's way around, like we have to make it interesting to them. So it's not an assign of individual responsibility to saying that the factors themselves lie in there. And so I'm not going to translate everything, probably, because we don't have that much time, but there are a lot of different things, like just saying the interest, the educational background, the age, the financial resources, illness, the language, the values people hold, like there are a lot of things that affect if they are reached by science communication, and reached can have also three layers, reached meaning does the information actually reach them? Like, do they read about an event, do they know about an event that it can go to, then feel they invited, or do they feel invited? Like, even if they have the information, do they think it is for them, do they actually make the decision to join or participate? And then the last, like, if they are there, does the information, the way it is presented, or whatever the dialogue and the way it is presented, actually include them and give them the possibility to interact with the others. So this is all going across basically as a three-dimensional matrix, so we left it out here in this level. Social factors include disabilities, gender, ethical backgrounds, regional setting, so a lot of different things. And of course, these factors mean different things in different regional or national settings. We focused our research primarily now on science communication in Germany, since this is our background and our research focus. Of course, in other countries, there might be other factors that are included or factors that are much more important than here in Germany. So of course, there's this international perspective as well. What are we doing in the project? After this really rather theoretical desktop research, we are now working with three exemplary groups who has been chosen by an advisory board. So this would be citizens in a marginalized city quarter. We're going to Berlin in Schwandau, which we chose. Students in vocational professional education, the Berufsschule, because that's an area which usually is left out because you have science communication formats for students or younger students and then for adults, but really nothing for in between. And then young Muslims rather religiously rooted. We just say, of course, that's not the religion, the main factor, there are also a lot of cultural factors and socioeconomic factors. And yeah, but we want to engage with them. What are we going to do? We start with focus groups. We first want to address stakeholders since we just know from our desktop research what's going on there. So we have, for each of these groups, we have a first round of focus groups with stakeholders, which would be the street workers, the representatives, the, I don't know, people engaged already in the community that they tell us, okay, what is going on? What is important? What should we know? What should we consider? Then a second round of focus groups with actually members of these groups themselves telling them about their life realities, about their values, about their interests, about their views on science and science communication, about the topics they're interested in, the topics they're not interested in. And then in the main part, we actually want to host three participatory workshops where they are developing formats of science communication on a topic they are interested on in the way they want to communicate about. So it's totally open. What comes out of this, we don't know yet, so it will be in the next year, starting the next year. So they can decide, okay, we just want to have a lecture series, very basic, but presented in a certain way. We want to have a science hip hop workshop, or I don't know what. So there's whatever comes out there, they are going to implement this, and we are going to see how this works in the end. If they're happy with the format they developed, if it worked, what the scientists think about it, that participated in the format, and then in the end, actually, what comes out of that? On all sides, like what do the participants take out of it, how the deformant overall work, and yeah. That's the research. One question, we started a little late, how much time do we actually have left? Okay, so the question to you would be, are there any questions at the moment? Because in the last part, I would introduce some practical experiences from various different other projects where I tried various innovative ways, that's now the main title of the talk, how to reach various groups, or how to interact. But through the aspects, rather theoretically, I presented so far, are there any questions or comments? So thanks, it was very fun so far. Just one question, maybe we could reflect on that in the more practical part. So I was thinking about, does everybody have to care about science, where's the line between empowering people and becoming paternalistic? No, definitely not everybody has to care about science. In every aspect, I think in some, so this is the example we saw when we went to, we had the first workshop in Berlin, Spandau, like people there, they have very serious problems at hand, unemployment, the quarter development, crime, drug addiction and all these things. Like, I don't want, they don't have an interest in talking about astronomy. And I shouldn't force them to talk about astronomy. I can make an offer and say, well, that's an interesting way and look, you can see the stars even here in the city, but you shouldn't force everybody in there. I think on the other hand, on more broader issues, it might be worthwhile to use some, let's say nudging or a little pushing and say, okay, it's an important democratic discourse. Let's say currently on genetically modified organisms. They are not interested in that because they think it's not relevant for their lives. So they are left out of the democratic discourse, they're left out of the societal decision making on the issue. So I think this might be worthwhile to push it actually a little bit and try to, well, you cannot force people, of course, but try to push people to make it relevant to them, to show them the relevance. Of course, then they again have to decide if they see it and adapt it or not. Thank you for the presentation. I have a challenge, I wouldn't say, like a problem in my research, because I have my own project homepage and I wanted to write blog posts and that the people in the regions I'm working can comment on that. I mean, it's a really nice tool, but I think a lot of people don't know about my homepage for sure. Do you have any advice on how to spread a little bit like this information? Should I go to newspapers and make advertisement? I don't know. Like how to reach people. Who is your target group? It's like everybody who uses nature. I don't know, it's like the tourists, the farmers who live there, the inhabitants. OK, so you have a certain region. And you want to address all people living there, working there. Yes, yeah. And tourists. I think this would be the first step to actually think about who your audience is comprised of. Of course, you cannot again reach. So there is no broad public, actually. You have to think if there are certain parts you can reach in a certain way. So you say, if you have farmers, probably you can reach them if you post something or write something about in the farmer's journal like the Alcatraff Report, because they read that. And others read different things or go to different events. So you actually need to think what are the main groups and where are the main channels you can reach them. But, and so this is a second word, I'm very skeptical about online dialogues and commentings because usually it doesn't really work well. A, there are so many people who have new, so there are so many people having projects and say, OK, we created a new platform. Now everybody should come to my platform and comment on this. And I think that's a good thing. Everybody should come to my platform and comment on my issue. Like there are a thousand other platforms which they have much more personal benefit out there. So it might be an interesting approach to actually put your content to other platforms and even use it, even if you think it's evil, but use platforms where people actually are. Like share links on your blog post on Facebook, Twitter, or then if you want to reach the youth, Snapchat or Instagram, try to reach them there, work with influencers. Say, OK, can you share something? Well, not the Instagram influencers, but the more... Well, probably it might even work like their approaches, but actually trying to find access points to the people. Just putting it out there and just a newspaper advertisement would be probably read by people 60 years plus. So you need to find other ways for the other segments of the audience. But it will still be difficult. So I think personal interaction is a very important part. So try to go to events, personally present your thing. And when I have a 10-minute talk on some kind of local festivity and say, so if you're interested now, then later on go to my blog and comment on that. Thank you very much. I have a question related to your project. Can these focus groups or like the groups of stakeholders also choose the topic that is the center of the science communication? Yes. And bring to this... So in the focus groups we don't have a topic, we don't talk about topics, we just want to know what is their general, whatever, situation, what their assumptions. So topics will be then chosen in the workshops where they say, okay, we are interested in X and then do that. And link to this, do you think that the format of communication is linked also to the content or is there some content that needs some specific way of communication? I don't think necessarily. So I can't think of examples right now. I think it might very well be that there are some types of content that are more suited for certain ways of communication, but I don't think there's any exclusion. In principle you can communicate everything on every channel. It's just a question of the people are there and if the people are using that channel or interested in that format. So I would choose the format really depending on the audience or not audience participants when it's a dialogue and not on the content. Okay. Then for the second part now, these are just some really short impressions from practical projects I did on other occasions. Some of them already reflect some viewpoints from the project, but we can discuss that later on. I think five or six examples of different ways to communicate science. If you have questions on a certain project, please just raise your hands immediately and then we can address it right there or you can raise it at the end. So the first thing, going where people are and making the topic accessible. So in the next three projects I'm going to present, they are all associated with the science years, seas and oceans. The Federal Ministry of Research and Education in Germany hosts each year a science year where they highlight a certain topic and provide funding for science communication on that. In 2016-17 it was the special occasion that it was two years, but the issues were seas and oceans. Two years, two topics now. So I have several projects now that address this issue. I'm not a marine biologist or something like that. There was just funding available to try new formats of science communication. So I just used that topic and I actually don't care about the topic at hand. I'm really more interested in the formats and ways and evaluating ways. It could be anything. So this was the first thing, making seas and oceans accessible to people not living at the coast. What do we have to do here with the ocean? Nothing, principle. But people who are not vegans are eating fish sometimes. So we thought this might be an interesting access point talking about people, about fisheries, sustainable fisheries, and as J.R. as... Whatever, green stuff floating around in the ocean, as potential source for proteins and nutrition. And we decided, okay, we host an event that's actually based in a sushi restaurant. So people were sitting in the sushi restaurant. Here on this running sushi there were some information pieces also going around together with the sushi and the salad and all the things. scientists were giving presentations talking about fisheries, sustainable fisheries, the green stuff, you know that, and people could have a discussion on their tables afterwards and, okay, what are we actually eating? Was it actually good that we had this eel or was it rather problematic that it served here in the restaurant? And just reflecting on what you're actually doing there. It was a very nice format, but so this is probably a disclaimer I have to say about a lot of these things. They are not reaching the diversity in audience I was actually intended to. Like I was thinking about so many innovative ways, but still to many of these formats, still the majority of participants is academic, an academic background. So there's something still I have not found the answer myself, but I'm continuously trying to make it more broadly accessible. So this was the one thing. Then the other thing also, again, season oceans, the same problem. What connections do we have to the ocean? Do you see the ocean in Karlsruhe or in Erlangen or somewhere? And saying, okay, well, if people can't come to the ocean regularly, we bring the ocean to the people. So we used empty shop windows in the nine different German cities and had full window projections of underwater films and some documentary movies about the ocean and life in the ocean that basically turned into virtual aquarium in the inner cities of these sounds. And in addition, we had public lectures on the sidewalk outside on certain dates where people walking by could stop and then heard presentations on marine biology, underwater exploration, geology, what else on all topics relating to the issue. And we also showed documentary movies with sound. I think we have these chairs placed in front of the shop window and people could actually stop by for some outdoor cinema and just watch in the middle of the city underwater movies. Then there's another project, exploring the intersection of art and science. This was a science street art project I did with the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Light back in Erlangen. These were school students. And we had some introduction in the Max Planck Institute where they visited the laboratory and saw cool lasers and stuff. And then we created street graffiti with chalk. So it was allowed by the city and placed this chalk graffiti all over the city. So it was fun for them. But then also all the people walking by, first they were shocked, oh my god, all these new students are vandalizing our city all over. But when they stopped, we actually, some people were standing around and handing out flyers with background information on the project, on the scientific research that is represented in there. And yes, it had two effects on the students participating and all the citizens walking by. And yeah, this another project where we had a lot of fun. Several of them. It's one big thing I'm very much interested in is the communication of science through comics. So there is literature and empirical evidence that comics can be a very good tool to communicate scientific contents. They're used in school contexts or even in university contexts. But what we explored here, and again, like I said, topic sees in the ocean that was on board of this exhibition ship MS Wissenschaft. So this is a ship that goes around German rivers with an exhibition on the topic of each science here. And they also have side events. So we had the side events. These were eight school workshops each year, where students were asked to draw their own comics. And with these comics, they were asked to express their views on season ocean and on the future development of season oceans, like not talking about, oh, what are your hopes? What do you think are the risks and the benefits? Like, that doesn't really work well with 12 year olds, but I giving them a creative way to express their views on the science and on the future. And they were free to produce science fiction stories that don't need to be necessarily somehow realistic. So these were underwater cities presented there. But there's also very much, just a second, there's very, there are very much interesting points in there. So this was a, from another comic workshop I did with Akartek, the German Academy for Engineering, where they had to express their views on or had to, where they were asked to express their views on artificial photosynthesis, whatever, sunlight, you know. On the future development as a potential energy source, the risks, the benefits and their assumptions. And so this is very interesting, I don't have to assume. So basically in this comic, and they draw, there's some kind of nano dome over a city where some catalytical cells produced electricity with artificial photosynthesis. And so everybody here is happy. But what this student draws, one guy that's not happy over there, and he complains that one of the pillars of this dome is directly in his backyard. And so they are basically addressing this typical, not in my backyard or whatever, San Florian's principle. They are addressing these issues, which I discussed on societal and technical and scientific developments. They address also these kinds of things in the comics. So it's a very interesting tool. And this is also part of the reason why I wasn't here at the beginning of the week, because on Tuesday we had a second workshop with Akartek also on artificial photosynthesis, you know, photosynthesis. Three years later and see, okay, what has changed and what do they do? Okay, so you had a question. Concerning this method with the comics, because I wanted to do that with like eighth graders or 14 year old kids, but they really, they were like blocked. I said, okay, you can draw anything, you can make a storyline, you could even make a video. But it seemed to me that this was like reaching too high. They were just, I don't know, maybe we didn't give them enough time. We had like a day workshop. But that was really like, I thought we were going to do it. But then they were all like, oh, no, we cannot draw. So I'm wondering whether you are giving them any like starting point or like helping them out, giving them ideas, or you just give them like a couple of pens and they just get going. Okay, so one overall remark, it is difficult and time is the most important factor, like all these things were one day or even half day workshops. That is actually not enough. There are some results, but to have real good results, you would actually need to have either a full day workshop with preparation in class before that, or have a two or three day workshop to actually go much more in depth. So I think that's, that's also a shortcoming of all these things I presented. And then again, you just can't give them a paper and say, do something. We had a lot of structured input before that, not structured input, structured phases before that. We tried under all circumstances not to influence them, but we had phases. And of course, there was an input presentation on the MSWissen shaft. They had one hour to visit the exhibition and think about the things. But then we had phases where we asked them to structure their knowledge and their perceptions. Or first, list all your things you found in the exhibition, or list all the interesting points you had in the presentation and recollect that on cards. And then we had an input on comic drawing. It's okay, what is important? What does a comic need? It needs a setting, a plot and actors. Okay, now you have again 15 minutes in, they worked in groups from two to five people, depending on the workshop. Okay, think about potential actors, potential settings, potential plots, things that could happen in your, in your comic. And then again, they, they got individual feedback and then we're asked to actually finally compile it. And also for the drawing part, there was some kind of exercise in the beginning, just a scribble exercise. I said, okay, well, you just now had 20 minutes and look what you have produced in that. So it is possible to, to activate them. Still, it is difficult and not every time successful, but with these very structured approaches, it's possible to do that. Okay, then, oh, yeah, and so this, I almost forgot that. This is something we did with the comic workshop on board of the MS Wissenschaft. They only had half a day. So what you saw, it was really very rough. These were sketches, some were a bit more colored with some more talented, well, graphically talented students, but they were really sketches. And we said, well, there are some very good ideas in there and would be really a shame if we can't use that anymore because the originals, they, you can't show them around. So we had the comic artist who was present as a coach at these workshops. Actually, I said with him together, we took ideas from the various comics, from the different groups, from eight different classes and say, okay, what are really interesting ideas in there and put that back into stories we compiled on our own. So these were stories developed by us, but based on ideas from the students or collecting or combining ideas from the students to have a professional publication in the end that can be passed around and also reach more people beyond the participants of the comic. What's also very important, what was important for me that we have, the stories could be total science fiction. Like here, it's a robotic areola that cleans the oceans. Of course, that's not a realistic scientific, future scenario, but we wanted to give them the freedom to express, well, probably, who knows? And we wanted to give them the freedom to express whatever they want, but we included these so-called science facts on the basis where we actually commented on these issues like, ah, yeah, well, this might very well be pollution is a big problem, but not here and another comic until we have floating islands of solid garbage. This is not realistic at the moment. Or how much, when we had another comic about flooding of land, okay, how much would the flooding actually go with the current models on temperature rise and sea level rise? So to actually put the scientific stories, the science fiction stories into context. And if you're interested, I have some of these here. So this comic workshop was done in two years with two different comic artists, so we have two different comic stories. And if you're interested in that, you can take one with you afterwards. But the whole comic is also available online under a CC license, so you can also download it. Okay, so then another thing, trying to reach other people. So I said, before that, the typical audience of scientific events is actually old and male. So you might think that old people are overrepresented in science communication, but it's a very tiny subset of old people. So we thought, okay, we want to include more generations also on future discussions. So the current science year, haha, new funding source, is on the future of work. And we thought, okay, when we want to talk about the future of work, we want to also talk about the past of the future of the work. So what did people 30 years ago think about the future of work? What has happened since then? And are there repeating things like this important, I didn't include it here. There's this picture series of the German magazine Spiegel. They had covers like 20 years apart, each with some dramatic robots, stealing jobs, like, okay, it's the same thing every 20 years. So obviously nothing really has changed. It's just the same topics that arise. And so we are hosting a series of events. And this is currently running, where we actually go into elderly living, elderly housing centers, whatever. We basically host the discussions with experts, with senior citizens. We also wanted to have an intergenerational dialogue, also have young people coming to that. That was rather difficult. Really nobody wanted to come to the elderly living place. So we are really trying hard to solve that for the next occasions, but asking them what they think about the past and the developments, what they have seen, how work has changed for them, and what they now think about future developments to also give them an essay. Of course, this is something I'm always saying, why I'm very much pro-youth engagement. Like the usual people sitting in committees and boards deciding on future issues, they are all dead when these issues actually arise 10 years from now, or 20 years from now. Well, that's true. Like all the professors, they are talking about the future, they are not living in that future anymore. So it is important to actually talk with young people about the future. But then again, also the old people have to say something. They have important experiences you can include in that discussion. And that's what you're trying here and that. And a very important success factor definitely, you have to have cake and coffee. This really makes people come. So this is definitely important. And the independent of age, probably we should have different cakes and different catering for youngers, but very important. Okay, let me just quickly see. Oh yeah, one more. And then we are done. This is another thing. And this I've done with the Quartier Zukunft in Karlsruhe. I'm a board game fan. And there are a lot of, there are several board games that actually are made with a specific scientific purpose out of scientific projects, or especially these older games. Some probably know that in the beginnings of the environmental movement, they are really, they're interesting, but they have shitty game mechanics. You can't really play them because they are not developed by game designers, but by environmental activists. And they were meant well, but not executed well. But they are new games, like the keep cool climate climate change game, which are really fun to play and a way to engage on issues. And then you can discuss the issues. Plus, there are other games who have scientific topics who are purely entertainment games and probably also not very realistically, like Funchen Schlaggitzer on energy supply or there's a game on evolution and various other things. But you can also use them as an occasion to talk about the issue behind that. So the idea is that we haven't done that so far to accompany these board game evenings with short presentations or short reflection discussions on the issues at hand, like what have we learned, what have we learned about it and is it realistically or not. And so this is a very interesting approach and actually works really, really well. But again, like here, it's a really a question of which people do we reach. So there are only the people who are, I would say basically it's a local agenda group that's showing up to these meeting at no one beyond, except when I'm pushing some students to show up. So they also, you need to think about other ways to make it more accessible and attractive. And I'm also still thinking about that. There are occasionally other people coming, so it is in principle working, but not overall. So this was the very quick overview on some practical projects. And this would actually be the end of my presentation. Almost, just you said I had 20 further more minutes. And then, no, you might have asked and I just briefly addressed that this is one last remark. I haven't talked about online communication. This is not my focus. If you have a question about another question about that I can comment briefly on that by very much my personal focus is on real events on real interaction. And so if you have a question, you can ask that, but I didn't include any slides and now I'm really finished. Yeah, thank you very much, Philipp. And we have a couple more minutes, I would say, for some questions in addition, although the very attractive cake is waiting outside. So thanks. I think it was really motivating. And now to get a realistic idea of especially maybe scaling levels and downscaling, if we talk about PhD students, maybe you could mention the range of the budget that you have for these kind of projects and also how big your team is. And if there are any funding resources for PhD students or also NGOs. Wow, so the funding range really varies. So this ocean shop window, these window projections, this was a project funded for a year and there I got 150,000 from the ministry. This was a full-scale grant. There was a my position partially paid for that and another one and I hired some external designers to do that. So there was a huge budget for that. Also the current, the senior citizen dialogue on the future of work is the same range. I also applied for the full possibility of the science year fundings. The others had much less like the business buffet had 10,000 euros. It was a special competition. The board game evening is not funded. The science street art thing I actually did as a freelancer. So I think there was, I personally got two or three day, I say that day charges on that and the comic workshop also that I did that as a freelancer. I did an evaluation on the site. I don't have the results. Therefore I didn't show them. And there I was paid for the days as a researcher as a freelancer. So the funding sources, yes and no. So there is money available for the project. For example, for the DFG, they have a special part on science communication you can apply for when you already have a DFG funded project. For others, you either find a special call like the science year, which is very interesting, artificial intelligence next year, if that's interesting for someone. And then for the smaller ones, I think the most promising way is actually to look at foundations and smaller foundations because when you want to say we are a group and as a PhD student, you probably don't want to go all into science communication. You want to do some science communication with your projects. You probably need 2000 or 5000 euros. And this would be something you could really try with foundations or there are many smaller foundations who couldn't fund 500,000 euro projects, but who can very well fund 5000 euro communication projects or 10,000 something like that. Thank you very much for the presentation. I found it very interesting and there was a question that I was thinking about all the time that you're trying to reach a broader public or a broader range of citizens, but somehow it, sometimes it's not very easy. And I was wondering if maybe in your thinking process or like who's in your team and maybe sometimes because each one of us is a certain demographic, then some things we will miss necessarily. And I was wondering if that was something you thought about already or yeah, not like thinking about other demographics not only to reach but also include them in how to reach other people. So yes, on the, on like in our research project, we're definitely doing this because we have the time and the money and the whole scope of that. For the other projects, the time resources and also the financial resources are very much limited. So I had some talks like with the people from the local quarter on the board game evening, Hazel, what do you think? Are you interested in that? But it's on a very much more on an informal level. A lot of these things I'm actually doing alone because nobody else is participating. And this is an issue. Definitely we have the diversity problem in academia as well. It's a bit different in our subject in the science communication field because they have the gender relation is actually swapped to other fields. It's actually much more difficult to find other males to work with, which is a rather interesting thing. But especially in culture diversity or language diversity, it's very much homogeneous there. And so I'm doing this on a personal level with talks but not on a formalized way or inclusion in that. I think the major problem with all these things is that they are one time events. And this is something I think I briefly addressed it in the project. One time events are very good because they can attract excitement, they can attract public visibility. It's like, hey, there's this cool sushi event. And then even the Barton Wuppenberg TV was there and was showing it. So it was good. But then you would formally establish something would actually need to have follow up events. So this is what we're trying with our other research project. Since at this stage, I was only interested in trying the format, see if it works. I was actually from the beginning on not really expecting it to have long lasting effects along because this is not what this was supposed to be. Okay, I would suggest one last question. And then we see Philip back again after the coffee break and after the talk from Bastjan with his exercise. And even during the discussion with Bastanis, I guess he will be in the room. So he can also interact and you can meet him in the coffee break. So at the cake. It's a very short and very specific question. Like about this in the sushi restaurant talking about sustainable fisheries. How open is a shop like the restaurant owner to a topic like this? Because I mean, I doubt that all the people would like run away then and oh my God, I'm eating unsustainable fish maybe. But like, yeah. He was actually very okay with that. Although I have to say I think in the beginning, it was because he didn't really understand the whole scope of the issue. Like, no, no, we explained it a lot. There were language barriers. And but he said, okay, well, you attract people to my restaurant, I'm fine, do whatever you want. So this was definitely his priority, because it was a really it was a rather big restaurant we chose for that, which is not that very well. I say that visited usually. So he had this financial interest at the very beginning. And it was it was an evening and a lunch event. And it was full sold out. So this was his main interest. And he didn't really care about the rest. The second thing and it's very difficult. So we didn't want to have a completely unreflected menu. So we actually really had to force him and it was a long negotiations back in force, because then he pretended he didn't understand that he just didn't want to do it. For this event, we actually made him to buy only certified fish to do a minimum step, which he doesn't do otherwise, like to have a bare minimum of sustainability. But then in the end, for him, it was the only thing that counted that it was a sold out restaurant. And he was in the in the television, in the news and journals. So that was the main aspect for him. And in general, do you have problems with that? Like getting the people, the like hosts, the places you use as hosts, if it's not like a city public place, like a school or something, but more something like a restaurant. Especially city public places are worse. Like for the when I'm doing public events, they have they have the clear. And so their capitalism works in the one tiny place where it actually does. I pay the money to rent the place or they have the incentive to have people to show up. And then they are happy with that. But if you want to support from public places, which actually supposed to be for the public, no, we don't have time. Now, then there would be another initiative coming now, we can do that, we can support that. Well, they are usually actually much more difficult to get. And that it's okay, they have a lot of things to do. And especially if you talk about NGOs and local initiatives, they don't get paid for their job, they're doing it all on the side. And I can't force them to do another event just because I asked them to do it. So I understand that very well. But yes. Okay, then thank you very much again, Philipp.
research. Like what are the five key lessons on Science for All, together with Wissenschaft and regional setting, so a lot of different things. it's a dialogue and not on the content. Okay. discussed on societal and technical and So this was the very quick overview on some science communication with your projects. You beginning. And it was it was an evening and a