Meet the Scientist: The Value of Short Interactions Between Scientists and Students

TL;DR: In this article, the authors argue that a way to provide students with a more realistic view of scientists and their work is to provide them with the opportunity to interact with scientists during short, discussion-based sessions.

Abstract: Students have been reported to have stereotypical views of scientists as middle-aged white men in lab coats. We argue that a way to provide students with a more realistic view of scientists and their work is to provide them with the opportunity to interact with scientists during short, discussion-based sessions. For that reason, 20 scientists from 8 professional areas were asked to share their experiences of becoming and being a scientist, in short sessions with groups of 7–8 students. The student sample consisted of 223 students between 13 and 15 years. Student and scientist questionnaires were used before and after the sessions to assess students’ views of scientists and their work, and scientists’ experiences of interacting with students. The pre-session questionnaires revealed that students considered scientists as ‘boring’ and ‘nerdy’ whereas after the sessions students focused extensively on how ‘normal’ the scientists appeared to be. The face-to-face interactions with scientists allowed students to view scientists as approachable and normal people, and to begin to understand the range of scientific areas and careers that exist. Scientists viewed the scientist–student interactions as a vehicle for science communication. Implications discussed include the need for future training courses to focus on developing science communicators’ questioning and interaction skills for effective interactions with students.

Summary

Students

• The authors argue that a way to provide students with a more realistic view of scientists and their work is to provide them with the opportunity to interact with scientists during short, discussion-based sessions.
• As a result, the images of scientists and their work held by the majority of school students are partial, simplified representations creating and establishing stereotypes (Smith & Mackie, 2000), which are not representative of scientists.

Theoretical Framework

• One seminal study was that of Chambers (1983), who first used the ‘Draw-A-Scientist’ Test (DAST) to determine young students’ views of scientists and their work and to establish at what stage of children’s lives these views develop.
• The studies reviewed here would suggest that students’ images of scientists and their work persist and are stereotypical since they do not provide a comprehensive view of scientists as professionals and as normal people nor do they indicate the range of activities scientists engage in as part of their profession.
• As a result, students distance themselves from science and begin to consider it as ‘not for me’ (Archer, 2013), which has implications when deciding whether they would like to follow a science career.
• After the meeting with the scientists, students were asked to state which of the questions asked during their sessions with scientists they thought were most useful.

Context of Study

• The Meet the Scientist sessions are part of a wider initiative at the authors’ institution to promote health literacy through science education.
• The LifeLab programme involves a professional development day for science teachers, a scheme of work incorporating lesson plans and resources for 10 school-based lessons and a ‘hands-on’ practical day in an out-of-school context.
• As part of this day, students take part in Meet the Scientist sessions where they have the opportunity to meet and talk to scientists, from both academic and clinical backgrounds.

Methodology

• Fifty-six scientists who had previously indicated that they were interested in participating in public engagement activities were invited to take part in the Meet the Scientist sessions.
• Scientists were informed that they would have short sessions with secondary school students where they would be providing information about their work as scientists and would be answering students’ questions.
• A mixed methods approach to collecting and analysing data was used (Creswell, 2009).
• The student questionnaires were administrated on the same day as the Meet the Scientist sessions, which took place at the authors’ institution, and aimed to answer the first research question of this study.
• All student participants completed the pre- and post- questionnaires.

Findings

• Students’ Views of Scientists and their Work Overall, in 61% of responses, students made 111 references to scientists as ‘clever’, ‘smart’, ‘intelligent’, ‘brainy’ or used a combination of these when describing what kind of people scientists are.
• Overall, 49% of students stated that the scientists they met were not as they had expected them to be, providing a range of reasons in support of their answers, as summarised in Table 2. Students’ expectations of the scientists’ appearance and personality were the two most commonly cited reasons.
• As one student noted, ‘I thought they would be quite boring but actually they were quite interesting’ (PostS111).
• Table 3 provides a summary of the main themes that emerged from the students’ responses to this question.

Scientist–student Discursive Interactions

• As the aim of this study is to determine to what extent scientist–student interactions are valuable for students and scientists and investigate the nature of such interactions, the authors analysed the discursive interactions between students and scientists, looking for features that would indicate participation and engagement.
• Thus, within their study, students’ questions were considered as an indicator of attempts to actively engage with the topic under discussion and to make links with their existing knowledge and experiences (Chin & Osborne, 2008; France & Bay, 2010; Morgan & Saxton, 1991; van Zee, Iwasyk, Kurose, Simpson, & Wild, 2001).
• Okay, so I study asthma, I want to know why some children get asthma and some children don’t.
• When scientists were discussing the nature of their work, they attempted to engage with the students by presenting it to a level that they believed students could understand.
• She said: we’re doing an intervention at the moment with women of childbearing age that are having young babies or that have children under the age of five and what we’re trying to do is tackle or look at some of the things that might influence their diets [ . . . ].

Scientists’ Perspectives on Interacting with Students

• Scientists’ views and perceived potential benefit on themselves and on the students were explored through pre- and post-session open-ended questionnaires.
• I also hope they’ll see how enthusiastic about it all the authors are!’ (Sc15m_pre).
• The scientists’ responses indicate that they still considered the sessions a worthwhile experience for the students as follows: I thought the students would be more interested in the career path to becoming a scientist and less so in the actual science.
• I think meeting people who have been through some of the stages they require may help them.
• Scientists seemed to have a positive stance towards public engagement, a factor found to be significant in motivating them to take part more systematically in such events (Poliakoff & Webb, 2007).

Discussion

• Meeting scientists and interacting with them in a friendly and informal context allowed students to alter their prototypical (and predominantly stereotypical) images of scientists (Hannover & Kessels, 2004) and consequently, narrow the gap between perceived and actual images of scientists.
• Smith and Mackie (2000) discuss how stereotypes of groups of people can be altered or rejected by individuals if they get in contact and interact with members of these groups.
• Students’ experiences of school science often lead them to associate science careers with the three traditional science subjects that they are taught in secondary school.
• Students were given the opportunity to interact with scientists beyond the transmission model often adopted in science communication interactions (Bray et al., 2012) and one-way communication, which is frequently perceived by scientists as the norm in science communication events (Davies, 2008; Nielsen et al., 2007; Royal Society, 2006).
• The number and nature of student questions indicate that the majority of participating scientists put the students first, and the scientists’ reflections on their own ability and skills of engaging and interacting with students showed that they had considered their audience and how they could have improved these interactions.

Conclusions and Implications

• The aim of this study was to explore the value and nature of short, face-to-face interactions between scientists and teenage students.
• Learning with and from scientists (Hodson, 2012) through face-to-face interactions with scientists allowed students to view scientists as approachable, ordinary people, and start to understand the range of scientific areas and careers that exist.
• The questions that students ask can be seen as a negotiation of meaning and attempts to establish links between themselves and the scientists (France & Bay, 2010) and thus narrow the gap between perceived and actual images of scientists.
• The questioning taking place during the sessions posed a challenge for the scientists, who were not all prepared to answer some of these questions (e.g. about their own career pathway) or were not able to do so at a level that the students would find interesting or engaging.
• This suggests that training is required that prepares scientists to ask a range of both closed and open-ended questions as a means of maximising engagement and participation.

Figures

Table 6. A summary of students’ questions during the discussion sessions

Table 3. A summary of students’ responses to the question ‘What (if anything) surprised you about the scientists you met?’

Table 5. Strategies for engaging students in the 49 sessions

Table 1. Students’ most common descriptions of scientists

Figure 2. The scientists’ views on the potential impact of discussion sessions on themselves

Table 4. Coding scheme derived from the Meet the Scientist transcripts

Table 2. Students’ responses to the question: ‘Were the scientists as you expected them to be?’

Figure 1. The scientists’ views on the potential impact of the sessions on students

Full text

Meet the Scientist: The Value of Short
Interactions Between Scientists and
Students
Kathryn Woods-Townsend
a,b
, Andri Christodoulou
a
∗
,
Willeke Rietdijk
a
, Jenny Byrne
a
, Janice B. Griffiths
a,c
and
Marcus M. Grace
a
a
Southampton Education School, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK;
b
NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre in Nutrition, University Hospital
Southampton, NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK;
c
Mathematics and Science
Learning Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
Students have been repor ted to have stereotypical views of scientists as middle-aged white men in
lab coats. We argue that a way to provide students with a more realistic view of scientists and
their work is to provide them with the opportunity to interact with scientists during short,
discussion-based sessions. For that reason, 20 scientists from 8 professional areas were asked to
share their experiences of becoming and being a scientist, in short sessions with groups of 7 –8
students. The student sample consisted of 223 students between 13 and 15 years. Student and
scientist questionnaires were used before and after the sessions to assess students’ views of
scientists and their work, and scientists’ experiences of interacting with students. The pre-session
questionnaires revealed that students considered scientists as ‘boring’ and ‘nerdy’ whereas after
the sessions students focused extensively on how ‘normal’ the scientists appeared to be. The face-
to-face interactions with scientists allowed students to view scientists as approachable and normal
people, and to begin to understand the range of scientific areas and careers that exist. Scientists
viewed the scientist–student interactions as a vehicle for science communication. Implications
discussed include the need for future training courses to focus on developing science
communicators’ questioning and interaction skills for effective interactions with students.
Keywords: Secondary education; Views of scientists; Scientist – student interactions;
LifeLab; Scientists’ views of public engagement
International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 2015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2015.1016134
∗
Corresponding author. Southampton Education School, University of Southampton, South-
ampton, UK. Email: a.christodoulou@soton.ac.uk
# 2015 Taylor & Francis

One way of making science accessible to the public and providing opportunities to
engage with it is through public engagement events where scientists are in a position
to interact with public audiences (Besley & Tanner, 2011). Science communication
through public engagement is perceived as aiming at educating the public about
current scientific developments, and often their ethical and moral implications
(Bauer & Jensen, 2011; Davies, 2008; Mathews, Kalfoglou, & Hudson, 2005). As a
consequence of taking part in such events, individuals might learn more about the
content of science, enhance their views of science and scientists (Christidou, 2010;
Christidou & Kouvatas, 2013) and, in the case of school students, also gain an
insight into a wider range of science career possibilities than those that are currently
available to them during their secondary education years (Archer, 2013; Cleaves,
2005).
Yet, school-aged students’ views of scientists as middle-aged white men in lab coats
are widely reported to dominate students’ views (Barman, 1999; Chambers, 1983;
Finson, 2002). These views, often reinforced by the way scientists are portrayed in
the popular media (Reis & Galvao, 2007), ignore social aspects of communication
and interaction as characteristics of scientists’ work (Hodson, 2012), portray
science as a predominantly masculine domain (Christidou & Kouvatas, 2013) and
often restrict scientific disciplines to lab-based work. As a result, the images of
scientists and their work held by the majority of school students are partial, simplified
representations creating and establishing stereotypes (Smith & Mackie, 2000), which
are not representative of scientists. In this study, we argue that a way to provide stu-
dents with a more realistic view of scientists and their work is to provide them with the
opportunity to learn about science and how science works from practising scientists
during short, discussion-based sessions. Such interactions might be of value not
only for the students but also for the scientists, who can use such opportunities to
further their public engagement record and skills.
There is an increasing number of calls for science communication to become
more prevalent within scientific institutions (Davies, Mbete, Fegan, Molyneux, &
Kinyanjui, 2012; European Commission, 2008; Leshner, 2003; McCombs, Ufnar,
& Shepherd, 2007). However, this poses a challenge for some scientists since a
number of studies report that many scientists lack the appropriate skills for effective
science communication, or that they are not offered sufficient training oppor tunities
in developing the communication skills needed (Davies et al., 2012; Ecklund, James,
& Lincoln, 2012; Royal Society, 2006). Reported barriers to science communication
engagement include time (Mathews et al., 2005), the perception that those who
actively engage with science communication are ‘not good enough’ (Royal Society,
2006, p. 3) compared to practising scientists or academics, and scientists’ own percep-
tions of their science communication skills (Ecklund et al., 2012).
The Royal Society (2006) reports on a survey of about 3,000 scientists which has
identified clear gaps in the training of scientists that would allow them to engage
meaningfully and actively in science communication, with 73% of scientists stating
2 K. Woods-Townsend et al.

that they had never received any public engagement training. Although currently there
are some studies that investigate scientists’ perspectives on public engagement or
science communication (Davies 2008; Poliakoff & Webb, 2007; Royal Society,
2006), these studies mainly focus on interactions with adults, leaving a gap in the
literature about scientists’ views on interactions with school-aged students, as well
as how such interactions should be structured to allow maximum positive effect on
students. Thus, the aim of this study was to explore the nature of short but reflective,
discussion-based sessions between scientists and school students. The research
questions guiding this study are:
1. What is the value of short, discussion-based interactions between scientists and
school students for the development of students’ views of scientists and their work?
2. What are the elements of these short, discussion-based sessions that create oppor-
tunities for effective engagement of scientists with students?
3. What do scientists think the potential impact of short, discussion-based inter-
actions between scientists and school students is on themselves and on students?
Theoretical Framework
Students’ Views of Scientists and their Work
Students’ views of scientists and their work have been the subject of various studies for
a number of decades (Barman, 1999; Chambers, 1983; Finson, 2002; Ford, 2006;
Huber & Burton, 1995; Mead & Metraux, 1957; Rawson & McCool, 2014;
Ruiz-Malle
´
n & Escalas, 2012). One seminal study was that of Chambers (1983),
who first used the ‘Draw-A-Scientist’ Test (DAST) to determine young students’
views of scientists and their work and to establish at what stage of children’s lives
these views develop. Using seven common indicators identified in the literature (lab
coat; eyeglasses; facial growth of hair; symbols of research, such as instruments and
equipment; symbols of knowledge, such as books; technology; and science-related
captions, such as symbols and equations), he analysed the drawings of almost
5,000 primary school children from Canada, Australia and the USA. He found chil-
dren’s images of scientists started developing in their second year of schooling and
that these developed into stereotypical views which became more prevalent as children
got older. These images presented scientists as predominantly white males wearing a
lab coat and surrounded by traditional science equipment. Chambers (1983) also
found that some children attributed negative images to scientists, portraying them
as monsters and ‘mad scientists’. More recent studies, conducted by Newton and
Newton (1998) in the UK, and Buldu (2006) in Turkey, have yielded results
similar to those of Chambers (1983) although variations of the dominance of stereo-
typical views are also reported. For instance, Huber and Burton (1995) found that 9 –
12-year-old boys hold more stereotypical images of scientists than girls. Fung (2002)
compared Hong Kong Chinese primary and secondary students’ images of scientists
using the DAST and also found similar trends, with older students having more
Meet the Scientist 3

stereotypical images of scientists than younger students and with scientists being por-
trayed as predominantly male.
Song and Kim (1999) investigated further students’ images of scientists and their
work employing a mixed approach to data collection using not only the DAST
approach but also Likert scale questionnaires and students’ narratives. Their work
with 1,137 Korean students (of ages 11, 13 and 15 years) identified some differences
with images of scientists reported previously—for instance, Korean students
considered scientists to be much younger than the ‘elderly’ or ‘middle-aged’ charac-
terisation reported earlier. More recently, Hillman, Bloodswor th, Tilburgb, Zeeman,
and List (2014) also used a combination of methods to assess 485 primary, middle
and high-school students’ images of scientists and have found that these students’
views, although consistent with the stereotypical images of scientists previously
reported, they were not as dominant as previously reported. Nonetheless, Hillman
et al. (2014) also report that scientists were consistently characterised by their stu-
dents as wearing lab coats, using lab equipment and working in laboratories.
Dagher and Ford (2005) adopted a different methodological approach for assessing
students’ images of scientists and their work, by asking students to investigate real
scientists’ lives and then write the scientists’ biographies. They found that the stu-
dents’ written accounts of scientists at times included personal characteristics of
scientists, such as hobbies and interests. However, this attribution of personal charac-
teristics by students was only specific to the individual scientists they were investi-
gating, and not the way in which students viewed scientists overall.
The studies reviewed here would suggest that students’ images of scientists and
their work persist and are stereotypical since they do not provide a comprehensive
view of scientists as professionals and as normal people nor do they indicate the
range of activities scientists engage in as part of their profession. One reason for the
persistent nature of students’ stereotypical views of scientists might be the way in
which scientists are still por trayed in the media and in popular children’s science
literature (Finson, 2002; Long, Boiarsky, & Thayer, 2001; Rahm, 2007; Rawson &
McCool, 2014; Smith & Mackie, 2000). Reis and Galvao (2007) report two cases
of students that provided narratives of scientists. The analysis of the students’ narra-
tives and interviews clearly demonstrated that these students’ images of scientists were
consistent with stereotypical views reported in the literature and also that these two
students’ stereotypical and negative perceptions of scientific activity were influenced
by the way scientists’ work was portrayed in the media.
Recent research on students’ science aspirations indicates that although 10–14-
year-old students find science enjoyable and believe that scientists do valuable work
that can make a difference in the world, only a handful of them aspire to be a scientist
at this age (Archer, 2013). Archer and colleagues (Archer et al. 2010; DeWitt et al.,
2013) attribute this discrepancy between science interest and science aspirations to
various factors including identity formation and science career advice. Cleaves
(2005) also identified the lack of advice on future careers in science as a factor that
influences students’ decisions to pursue science in post-compulsory education. The
image of science that students hold is ‘highly incompatible’ with the images they
4 K. Woods-Townsend et al.

have, or want to have, of themselves (Hannover & Kessels, 2004, p. 52). As a result,
students distance themselves from science and begin to consider it as ‘not for me’
(Archer, 2013), which has implications when deciding whether they would like to
follow a science career. Consequently, there is a need to address students’ views of
scientists and their work to allow students to develop an inclusive view of science
and its practices. One way to do this is to create oppor tunities for students to directly
interact with practising scientists.
Scientist–student Interactions
The literature on scientist–student interactions is drawn mainly from summer school
programmes and apprenticeship evaluations (Bell, Blair, Crawford, & Lederman,
2003; Bleicher, 1996; Knox, Moynihan, & Markowitz, 2003; Rahm, 2007) and
focuses on how these programmes have influenced students’ attitudes towards
science and students’ conceptual and epistemological understanding. For instance,
Knox et al. (2003) investigated the impact of a summer school programme at a
university research facility on 14–18-year-old students’ interest in science and their
perceived skills in laboratory work. They found that students’ interactions with
scientists and opportunities to do hands-on science in authentic microbiology labora-
tories had a positive influence on these students’ attitudes towards science and their
enthusiasm about science careers. Similarly, Gibson and Chase (2002) found that stu-
dents participating in a summer school programme developed more positive attitudes
towards science and towards science careers compared to students who did not par-
ticipate in the summer school programme.
Bell et al. (2003) found that 15–17-year-old students, who participated in an 8-
week science apprenticeship programme working alongside scientists covering a
range of science procedures including research design, data collection and data
analysis, did not change their views of scientific inquiry and the nature of
science (NOS) considerably. Bell et al. (2003) argue that the extent to which expli-
cit discussions about the NOS and scientists’ work were taking place during these
apprenticeships was vital for whether students would change or not their NOS
views. The only student of the 10 participants who shifted her views of scientific
inquiry was the one who had some explicit discussions about the nature of scientific
knowledge and investigations with her scientist mentor. These findings suggest that
reflection and discussion on scientists’ work are crucial components in attempts to
break away from the inaccurate stereotypical views of scientists that school students
hold. Although Bell et al.’s (2003) conclusions are based on a single student case,
they do indicate the important role that scientists have in such interactions with
students, and that just doing science, even if it is in an authentic context does
not necessarily mean that students will gain an infor med understanding of the
nature of scientific practices or the range of everyday activities that scientists
need to engage in.
Further evidence on the importance of reflective discussions amongst students
and scientists is provided by Rahm (2007), who conducted an in-depth exploration
Meet the Scientist 5

Frequently asked questions

Q1. What are the contributions mentioned in the paper "Meet the scientist: the value of short interactions between scientists and students" ?

Woods-Townsend et al. this paper explored the value and nature of short, face-to-face interactions between scientists and teenage students and showed how short, discussion-based sessions between students and scientists can have a positive influence on students ' perceptions of scientists and their interest and motivation to learn about current scientific research. 

Q2. What are the future works in "Meet the scientist: the value of short interactions between scientists and students" ?

The students ’ emergent views of scientists as ordinary and approachable individuals are consistent with suggestions that students need to contextualise their experiences of science in order to make the experiences more personal and relevant, enabling students to perceive themselves as future scientists. 

Q3. What were the main categories of questions that were considered as open-ended?

Open-ended questions were considered as those that aimed at higher order skills such as analysis, synthesis and evaluation (Chin, 2007; Morgan & Saxton, 1991). 

Q4. What were the characteristics of the Meet the Scientist sessions?

These characteristics included (a) explicit prompting for student questioning by the scientists, (b) using familiar contexts or links to everyday life through discussing applications and implications of their work and (c) being flexible so as to allow time and space for answering the students’ questions. 

Q5. What was the analysis of the student questioning during the Meet the Scientist sessions?

The analysis of the student questioning during these sessions was theory-driven, based on France and Bay’s (2010) categorisation of student questions to scientists. 

Q6. What is the way to provide students with a more realistic view of scientists?

In this study, the authors argue that a way to provide students with a more realistic view of scientists and their work is to provide them with the opportunity to learn about science and how science works from practising scientists during short, discussion-based sessions. 

Q7. What could be done to improve the effectiveness of the meet the scientist sessions?

Based on the findings of their study and the challenges that scientists faced during the Meet the Scientist sessions, a model of training for face-to-face interactions with school-aged students could be designed, which could maximise the benefits of such interactions for both groups. 

Q8. What factors are involved in the discrepancy between science interest and aspirations?

Archer and colleagues (Archer et al. 2010; DeWitt et al., 2013) attribute this discrepancy between science interest and science aspirations to various factors including identity formation and science career advice. 

Q9. What did the scientists use to explain their work to students?

The scientists presented their work to students by using images (e.g. x-rays), models (e.g. a real heart) or other materials (e.g. an ultrasound machine) to explain concepts and aspects of their work. 

Q10. What did Bell et al. (2003) find about the nature of science?

Bell et al. (2003) found that 15–17-year-old students, who participated in an 8- week science apprenticeship programme working alongside scientists covering a range of science procedures including research design, data collection and data analysis, did not change their views of scientific inquiry and the nature of science (NOS) considerably. 

Q11. How many students were asked to share their experiences of becoming a scientist?

For that reason, 20 scientists from 8 professional areas were asked to share their experiences of becoming and being a scientist, in short sessions with groups of 7–8 students.