Science and Heritage Symposium

A lot of people find working on their PhD a lonely ordeal. Fortunately for me, there are ten of us PhD students working with the same programme, together with a number of post-docs (2 of which are in my same department and office), and other research projects. All of us are part of the AHRC/EPSRC Science and Heritage (S&H) Programme.

Earlier this week the S&H programme organised a symposium in Oxford for us ten PhD students to have the opportunity to present our work to each other and to other guests from the heritage and related fields.

Monday was dedicated to a development workshop. This allowed us to first of all get to know each other and each other’s work better before starting to get ready for the presentations the next day. We are a mixed bunch of people, at different points in our PhD project and from different backgrounds. I found the workshop useful in giving me a better sense of belonging to something bigger, and also in giving support as I realised that problems I have faced and am facing are quite common for others in the group.

Monday night then our supervisors, invited guests and the programme’s advisory board joined us in Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford, for a silver-service dinner followed by drinks. I appreciated the fact that on the dinner table we weren’t bunched by ‘status’, but we were all sitting together, giving all of us time to talk to someone from the advisory board, or someone working in the field, as they were sitting right next to you.

Tuesday was then the day of the actual symposium. I was first up, which was good as I got it over and done with quickly, but not as good as I wasn’t so sure what to expect. Also me and the guy who was up second got bombarded with questions (a grand total of 12 each!) which then tapered off significantly towards the end of the day.

I feel like I gained a lot from the day’s events. First of all it was a good opportunity to take some time to reassess where I am in the project to be able to present the work done, and also to go forward from there and formulate the plans for the coming weeks and months. However, even more useful than that was the interest of the audience there in discussing the work with me. Even though the question and answer session left me mentally exhausted, that and the discussions arising from it has helped me to formulate my thoughts better to be able to speak about the work in a hopefully more coherent manner. It has also shown me that I need to practise thinking on my feet more and formulating quick coherent answers in English. I have also pinpointed issues in the way I present my work, such as glossing over aspects of my work that maybe I should spend more time explaining.

I didn’t know much of what to expect from the symposium. However, it has definitely given me quite a bit to think about, particularly on the way I handle answering questions when I don’t have much time to think, and the need for me to think more about where the person asking the question is coming from in my answer (rather than just being happy that I got a somewhat coherent answer out). Hopefully it will only help to improve my skills and make me a better academic.

A very fruitful two days. Hopefully I get more such opportunities as any experience can only help to make you better!

Filed under: Events and Activities, advisory board, AHRC, development workshop, EPSRC, Lady Margaret Hall, PhD students, Science and Heritage programme

Making some Scientific Busking Noise

A few months ago I had written about being accepted as one of the EPSRC NOISEmakers. Following the introductory meeting we had received a list of training courses which were available for us to follow. The first one I will be attending was yesterday: Science Busking.

The training was given by David Price from Science Made Simple. I arrived just on the dot of 10am and found most of the others already there. David was busy discussing with the other participants. I must admit it took me a while to get used to his accent (I am so never around any native English speakers that I still struggling for the first few seconds to understand a heavily accented English speaker!)

‘What is science busking?’ was one of the first questions which passed through my head. As its name implies, it consists of busking routines with science as their basis. As was written in the information e-mail we had received, it “takes live demonstrations and interpretations to people who may never have thought of stepping foot in a science centre or museum”.

Following the brief introduction, we soon got stuck into the thick of it. Throughout the day we made a glovaphone, learned how to make flying cups, filmed ourselves ‘mystery busking’, and in total were exposed to over 20 science busking demonstrations. My favourite demo? Probably the vortex bottles:

We then ended the day actually busking on the streets of London! The plan was that we busk to each other in groups, but another meeting was going on so off to the streets we went!

As I have hinted previously, I find that the most useful courses and workshops are the ones where you really get stuck in and do stuff. On this point this workshop definitely succeeded! I am being extremely picky in fact in finding something negative to say! But if I had to it would have to be that I would have liked a bit more constructive criticism…I found the criticism a bit too positive…but maybe we were that good then 😉

Looking forward to the next NOISE courses…and of course to getting stuck into activities through NOISE!

Filed under: Events and Activities, Public Engagement, constructive criticism, David Price, EPSRC, flying cups, glovaphone, NOISE, NOISE workshops, NOISEmakers, science busking, Science Made Simple, spinning cups, vortex bottles

NOISEmakers – an Introductory Meeting

As I wrote in a previous post, earlier this year I got accepted onto the EPSRC NOISEmaker‘s programme. Yesterday was the introductory meeting so I eagerly went off to meet the others and learn more about what will happen in the coming year.

First up was a small lunch over which all us NOISEmakers got to know each other better and just in general chatted along. This was then followed by a short presentation about what will be happening in the coming months. They told us about the workshops on podcasting, writing, media training etc they are preparing and I can’t wait to start learning more about these different opportunities! There is also the possibility to attend a number of science festivals and other events. So it looks like it will be a good time (and the other people in the programme are nice – so looking forward to seeing them around!)

The last part of the meeting was a presentation by Alok Jha, a science journalist at the Guardian.He spoke to us about how science journalism works. He also presented the point of view of the journalist when it comes to working with scientists, and their needs, to make us aware of how things often work out. It is of course always interesting to put yourself in the other person’s shoes so quite a useful presentation.

End of the meeting then meant a trip down to the pub! There the head of public engagement of UCL met up with three out of four (out of twelve) of the new NOISEmakers from UCL and we had a bit of a chat (and a drink). I must admit he is highly entertaining – so looking forward to what comes out of that! The UCL NOISEmakers look like a very nice bunch, as are all the others, so on to our NOISEmaking!

PS: I also learnt that there were more than/around 60 applicants for the programme and only 12 got chosen – WOW – I’m impressed by myself 🙂

Filed under: Events and Activities, Alok Jha, EPSRC, Guardian, Media Training, NOISE, NOISEmakers, podcasting, public engagements, science festivals

I’m a NOISEmaker!

I’m sure whoever knows me would say: That’s obvious! However, this time round it’s NOISE i.e. ‘New Outlooks In Science and Engineering’, a UK-wide campaign funded by the Engineering & Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC). Initiated in 2000, the aims of this programme is to provide early career researchers with the tools to communicate the importance and relevance of their research to a wide public audience.

So how did I get there?

In the middle of March I received an e-mail about the possibility of applying for this programme. Knowing the importance of constantly striving to improve my presentation and communication skills I didn’t hesitate much in filling in the application and sending it off. Around a week later I received an e-mail that I had been short-listed. This however meant that I had an interview 3 days later, for which I needed to prepare a 5-minute presentation about my research and a demonstration of some scientific concept for 14-19 year olds. At first I panicked and was thinking of not going, particularly as I was very busy with my experimental work. However, after thinking about it I realised that the opportunity was too big to refuse. So I prepared the presentation, and a short demonstration of the concept of material build-up and degradation, with a specific focus on photographs.

The day of the interview dawned. I was a bit apprehensive, particularly as I did not have much time to practice (particularly the demonstration). Anyways, after a day working away in the laboratory and analysing data, I set off to central London to the Grayling offices, where the interview was to be held. I arrive a bit early and have the time to relax in the lobby for a while before being called in. The interview passed by in a blur. Was it because I spoke very fast? Or because it was short? Or because it was a busy time? I will never know because very soon I out and off on my way.

Then this week I received an e-mail from NOISE: Congratulations! It said. They would love to have me as a NOISEmaker. Would I be interested? Of course! So after a bit of a discussion with my supervisor about it, I accepted.

What does this mean from here on? Well, these are the opportunities being a NOISEmaker provides you with:

• Training – for media interviews, TV appearances, delivering presentations and more
• Events – talks and demonstrations (for example, at the British Science Festival and Cheltenham Science Festival)
• Website – personal profiles, articles and blogs (www.noisemakers.org.uk)
• Media – interviews on the radio, TV and in print

Looking forward to learning and experiencing more!

Filed under: Events and Activities, applying for a programme, communication skills, demonstration, early-career researchers, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, EPSRC, interview, New Outlooks In Science and Engineering, NOISE, NOISEmakers, presentation skills, Public engagement, training

“Price? No Object!

…Climate change: the challenge to cultural heritage”

This was the name of an activity I attended last week at The Royal Institution. The event was organised as part of  EGOR: Environmental Guidelines Opportunities and Risks research cluster, which was sponsored by the AHRC/EPSRC Science and Heritage Research Programme (the same programme sponsoring my PhD). The event was organised to “encourage the audience to think more deeply about the complex issues relating to heritage, the effects of climate change and the threats it poses to survival”. And if that was the aim, I think they succeeded.

It was a different kind of event to what I would normally expect, bringing different elements that you would not normally expect to see used in such a manner. I think it could have gone seriously wrong. Luckily it didn’t…And if the aim was to encourage the audience to think […], I think they succeeded.

So what was different? And how could it have gone wrong?

The main focus of the event was probably a performance…yes, a performance…by Kandu Arts For Sustainable
Development:

Kandu works with individuals and groups across the statutory and third sectors, with businesses and industry to assist in understanding social, environmental and economic impacts and responsibility in effecting positive, sustainable change. Using their unique methodology encompassing creative arts and personal development, Kandu contributes to policy development at local and national levels.

So how did they do this? The way they went round to achieving this was by first presenting a 5-10minute play. This they then repeated with one difference: the audience was asked to intervene where they thought they should by calling freeze and explaining what they would change. But did the audience participate?

The play was divided into two:

First half: Half-way through the ‘first-half’ the programme manager for the Science and Heritage Programme for the AHRC intervened to make a comment. The actors followed her changes (sort of! The ‘mother’ in the play was not happy with her suggestion of having a shower rather than a bath not to waste water :)) and the performance continued. End of the first half…no other intervention. But just as the first half ended, one man intervened, going quite a bit back…and the floodgates of comments opened…what was on the verge of becoming a very awkward time turned into a hilarious and fun event which was also thought-provoking. The people were participating, and the actors were keeping us entertained as they dealt with the comments put to them and new discussion threads they needed to continue (whilst keeping in character!).

Second half: The second half continued much in the same vein as the end of the first half…the banter continued with freezing of freezes, and people getting over-freezed and what-not freezed. However, what definitely emerged from this was the real complexity of the issues at hand: Is safeguarding artefacts in a museum essential should we be in a situation of low power availability? What makes an artefact important for safekeeping and others not? It was also definitely entertaining seeing both my supervisors (who are also the principal and co-investigators for this research cluster) and the head of the centre I am based in, dragged down to the ‘stage’ (the location was similar to an amphitheatre) to take part in the performance and interact with the actors to bring their point across.

After a while however it was time out for all comments, as we moved on to the next part of the programme. This involved a person playing a stringed instrument he has built himself (cannot remember the name…if anyone is reading this who was there and remembers, leave a comment!), followed by a presentation by Dr Jonathan Ashley-Smith, former Head of Conservation at the V&A who spoke about the challenges of environmental guidelines.

All in all, a successful event, especially considering that I wasn’t even going to go! I had received e-mails and been told about it, but for some reason I didn’t note it down in my calendar, so it just slipped my mind. Luckily on the day a colleague at TNA e-mailed me to tell me she had an extra ticket if I wanted to join them, so off I went. So thanks Sarah…and thank you all for your enlightening discussions which I had the opportunity to experience!

Reading

You can read more about Climate Change and the Heritage Environment in the following reports:

Report commissioned by English Heritage.

Report by UNESCO

Filed under: Events and Activities, AHRC, audience intervention, audience participation, Climate change, colleagues, cultural heritage, effects of climate change, EGOR, Environmental Guidelines, EPSRC, freezing, interventions, Jonathan Ashley Smith, Kand Arts for Sustainable Development, Museums, Price? No Object, Science and Heritage Research Programme, sustainable heritage, The Royal Institution, thought-provoking, TNA

Monitoring Meetings

My PhD is part of the AHRC/EPSRC-supported Science and Heritage Programme. A few weekd ago I received an e-mail from the Programme Coordinator that the Programme Director wanted to meet up with me and my supervisors from UCL and the TNA to see how the research is progressing and any problems etc.

The monitoring meeting was set for the 12th of June. For this meeting I had to prepare a presentation focussing on the research which has been carried out. I was a bit apprehensive about the presentation, because following my short presentation at the 1st research meeting, I knew my supervisor thought that my presentation skills were quite appalling. I think I however was more apprehensive about the mock presentation scheduled with my supervisor and another research assistant, than with the actual one (possibly because after the second one it would be all over ;)).

The day of the mock presentation arrived, and I was slightly nervous. Now normally I don’t mind presentations much (possibly cos I enjoy that the attention is on me? O:)), but this time round I really wanted to make some kind of decent impression! Everything set up and off I go! It went quite well, and happily my supervisor said that my presentation skills have improved…phewww! He suggested a number of changes to my presentation, which I was happy to oblige with seeing as they were very valid, and back to my offices I went to finalise the presentation.

Friday arrived…monitoring meeting day! I went up to the meeting room early to set up the desk-projector and make sure that everything was working well. After a while my supervisors arrived, and then the programme director.

Meetings: started!

First I gave my presentation, followed by a general discussion all together and a number of questions. Then, the programme director talked to my supervisors alone (wish to have been a fly on that wall ;)) and then me alone, as had been planned.

How do I think it went?

I think it went OK. I was asked some questions which I think I answered quite well, but then was asked about my ‘research hypothesis’, and just couldn’t think what that was! I kept on thinking about research questions, and then just gave up and gave my answer as research questions (after stupidly asking: emm…what’s the research hypothesis?) Oh well!

Other than that, my supervisors seemed happy, the programme director seemed happy…so I’m happy…won’t hit myself over the not-so-bright things I said, and hope to improve for the next time 🙂

All in all however I think that one important thing hopefully sunk into my brain now: not everyone in the heritage field is from chemistry! I always approach presenting my work as though the people have my background. But after the research meeting presentation, and more so after this one, I realise that my approach is completely wrong! I approached these meetings as me ‘showing off’ what I have been doing. Now that I realise that in front of me when I rpesent I will have people from a wide variety of disciplines, from architects, to conservators, to archaologists, and conservators, I realise that the most important thing is not the details what I have been doing (even if I have been told to speak about my research), but to give them the overall picture of the project, with limited if any specific details. Then, if they are interested in a specific part, they can ask me further questions after the general idea has been obtained.

Wish me luck for my next one, whenever that is 🙂

Filed under: Events and Activities, AHRC, EPSRC, heritage research, monitoring meeting, presentation, presentation skills, Science and heritage, supervisor