1    

Einstein’s  Garden  Society  Award:  Individual  Project  Reports  2015    

Your  Lost  Organ    

Amy  Seakins  (December  2015)  

   

Executive  summary    Your  Lost  Organ  was  a  sculptural  modelling  workshop  and  installation  engaging  audiences  with  the  human  placenta  and  research  exploring  placental  biology.  The  project  was  produced  by  Einstein’s  Garden  in  partnership  with  the  University  of  Bristol.  Collaborators  included  University  of  Bristol  scientists  and  a  sculptor.  The  project  was  piloted  in  Einstein’s  Garden  at  Green  Man  Festival  2015.  In  the  festival  programme  Your  Lost  Organ  was  described  as  follows:    

 You  once  had  a  placenta  —  an  organ  lost  when  your  mother  gave  birth  to  you,  but  certainly  not  a  spare  part.  Join  scientists  and  artists  for  this  playful  exploration  of  what  the  placenta  is  and  does.  Warning:  You  may  get  messy.  

 The  Your  Lost  Organ  activity  facilitated  engaged  and  intensive  interactions  with  the  subject  of  placenta  research,  with  audience  members  becoming  involved  in  placenta  modelling  and  reacting  both  positively  and  negatively  to  the  content  about  placenta  (e.g.  photos  and  stories).      The  activity  facilitated  family  learning  and  groups  of  adults  and  children  were  seen  to  interact  together  in  the  modelling  and  discuss  the  topic.      Interactions  with  the  scientists  as  part  of  the  activity  were  two-­‐way  in  nature  -­‐  both  audience  members  and  scientists  asked  and  answered  questions,  and  the  audience  members  contributed  their  own  stories  and  experiences  to  the  discussion  as  well  as  the  scientists.      Collaborators  felt  that  their  involvement  in  the  project  had  been  very  positive,  and  reported  positive  impacts  on  their  public  engagement  skills,  confidence  and  motivation,  as  well  as  their  understanding  about  the  audience  -­‐  many  were  positively  surprised  by  how  interested  the  audience  were  in  the  activity.    

 

2    

 Collaborators  learned  about  how  art  and  science  can  work  together  in  projects  such  as  Your  Lost  Organ,  and  the  importance  and  potential  of  creative  activities  when  communicating  science.  Many  were  keen  to  participate  in  similar  partnerships  again.        

   Methods      Online  surveys  were  conducted  with  collaborators  before  and  after  the  event,  exploring  their  expectations  and  reflections  on  their  involvement.  Seven  Your  Lost  Organ  collaborators  completed  the  pre-­‐event  survey,  and  five  completed  the  post-­‐event  survey.    Observations  were  conducted  at  the  Green  Man  festival  focusing  on  each  of  the  individual  projects.  Five  observations  were  completed  focusing  on  Your  Lost  Organ,  totalling  76  minutes.      Short  vox  pop  interviews  were  conducted  with  visitors  at  the  festival  to  explore  their  experiences  and  perceptions  of  the  activities.  Eight  visitor  vox  pop  interviews  were  conducted  with  visitors  to  the  Your  Lost  Organ  activity,  involving  three  adult  females,  one  adult  male,  two  male  children,  and  ten  female  children.      Vox  pops  were  also  conducted  with  collaborators  at  the  festival,  investigating  how  they  were  finding  delivering  the  activities.  Three  collaborator  vox  pop  interviews  were  conducted.      Findings    

 1. Sample  

 Of  those  collaborators  taking  part  in  the  pre-­‐event  survey,  four  were  scientists,  one  was  an  arts/engagement  collaborator,  one  was  from  the  University  Public  Engagement  department  and  one  was  an  Associate  Creative  Producer.  Of  those  taking  part  in  the  post-­‐event  survey,  three  were  scientists,  one  was  an  arts/engagement  collaborator  and  one  worked  in  production.      

2. Collaborators’  existing  experiences  of  public  engagement  

 

3    

 For  three  scientists  taking  part  in  Your  Lost  Organ,  this  was  their  first  time  being  involved  in  a  public  engagement  project  of  this  nature,  four  collaborators  had  been  involved  in  similar  projects  before.  Of  those  involved  in  similar  events  before,  activities  included  science  stands  at  festivals  including  Einstein's  Garden,  school  workshops,  family  events,  working  with  adults  with  complex  needs,  and  a  collaborative  arts  project.    In  terms  of  what  motivated  collaborators  to  get  involved,  four  said  that  they  wanted  to  communicate  with  the  public  about  scientific  research,  share  information  and  involve  the  public  with  research.  For  example:  I  also  think  the  placenta  is  an  organ  most  people  know  very  little  about  so  it  is  important  to  provide  the  opportunity  for  people  to  learn  more  about  it  in  an  engaging  way.  Three  collaborators  were  also  interested  in  improving  their  public  engagement  skills  through  the  project:  It  widens  my  own  skill  set  and  allows  me  to  use  those  I  have  acquired  already,  and  to  put  them  to  use  with  a  new  audience  and  using  an  unusual  and  little-­‐understood  subject.      Two  collaborators  were  motivated  by  the  science-­‐art  collaboration,  for  example:  I  was  initially  attracted  to  the  Einstein's  Garden  brainstorming  session  with  different  scientists  and  artists  because  it  sounded  like  a  totally  unique  opportunity  for  me  as  a  scientist.  I  thought  that  working  with  artists  sounded  like  a  fantastic  way  to  create  something  which  appeals  to  the  public.  Two  collaborators  mentioned  that  they  were  motivated  by  the  opportunity  to  build  contacts  and  future  collaborations,  and  finally  one  collaborator  had  been  involved  in  Einstein's  Garden  before  so  was  keen  to  be  involved  again.      

3. Collaborators'  perceptions  before  the  festival    Before  the  festival,  when  asked  what  had  concerned  them  before  taking  part  in  the  project,  three  collaborators  mentioned  time  constraints,  for  example:  I  was  initially  worried  about  the  time  requirement  in  organising  this  event.  Two  collaborators  said  that  they  were  concerned  about  creating  an  equal  partnership  and  compromise  between  science  and  arts  collaborators.  For  example:  There  is  always  a  risk  that  collaboration  and  the  development  of  such  an  activity  can  result  in  distinctly  different  objectives  and  solutions.  Related  to  this  concern,  two  collaborators  were  worried  about  pitching  information  at  the  right  level  for  the  audience:  I  had  concerns  that  I  would  have  to  simplify  the  research  too  much,  or  'dumb  it  down'.  But  now  I  think  that  while  we  are  simplifying  it,  that  is  only  for  the  initial  engagement,  and  this  simplification  facilitates  discussion  much  more  than  overloading  people  straight  away  and  scaring  them  away.  Finally,  two  collaborators  were  concerned  about  the  audience  reaction  to  the  activity,  and  one  mentioned  the  risk  of  not  creating  a  good  quality  project  due  to  its  experimental  nature.  Looking  forward  to  the  festival  itself,  collaborators  were  concerned  about  drawing  audiences  into  the  activity,  their  reactions  to  the  content,  and  being  able  to  answer  questions.  One  collaborator  was  also  nervous  about  only  seeing  the  materials  and  equipment  the  day  before  delivery.      When  asked  about  what  they  were  looking  forward  to  about  delivering  the  project  at  the  festival,  five  said  that  they  were  looking  forward  to  seeing  the  audiences'  responses  to  the  activity  and  interacting  with  participants.  This  is  despite  some  of  the  collaborators'  concerns  also  being  around  these  interactions.  For  example:  Working  with  people  of  all  ages  and  backgrounds  and  hoping  to  get  them  interested  in  science  and  to  be  able  to  take  away  an  interesting  fact  that  will  leave  them  wanting  to  know  a  little  bit  more  about  the  field.  Other  collaborators  were  looking  forward  to  working  in  a  more  creative  way  than  they  normally  would  do.      Collaborators  were  aiming  for  a  range  of  outcomes  as  a  result  of  their  involvement  in  the  project,  with  some  collaborators  mentioning  more  than  one  area.  Three  collaborators  said  that  they  were  hoping  to  improve  their  skills  in  public  engagement,  and  gain  new  ideas  about  how  to  communicate  their  research  and  build  audience  interest  in  the  area.  For  example:  I  am  hoping  to  be  able  to  learn  how  to  talk  about  my  work  and  some  of  the  complex  issues  surrounding  it  to  the  general  public  and  being  able  to  get  people  interested  in  science.  Three  collaborators  were  also  looking  to  develop  collaborative  relationships  as  part  of  this  project,  for  example:  Learning  about  the  process  of  collaboration  between  artists  and  scientists,  and  

 

4    

how  to  make  these  collaborations  work.  Ideas  and  contacts  for  future  projects  and  collaborations.  Finally,  one  collaborator  was  hoping  to  gain  a  new  perspective  on  their  research  work  as  part  of  the  project:  I  hope  interesting  questions  and  comments  will  enable  me  to  see  my  work  from  a  slightly  different  perspective  and  to  learn  what  the  general  public  thinks  is  important  in  this  field  of  research.    Collaborators  were  asked  whether  they  felt  that  the  ideas  had  been  carried  through  from  the  ideas  generation  workshop  to  the  festival.  Two  collaborators  felt  that  the  ideas  had  been  transferred  right  through  to  the  festival,  although  the  letter  activity  could  have  been  more  developed.  Two  collaborators  felt  that  the  ideas  from  the  workshop  had  been  more  about  identifying  collaborators  rather  than  activities  or  content,  although  the  process  had  enabled  them  to  understand  the  development  of  these  projects  in  more  detail.  One  collaborator  had  not  been  present  in  the  ideas  generation  workshop.    

4. Collaborators’  perceptions  following  the  festival    Collaborators  were  asked  about  their  perceptions  of  the  overall  experience  of  delivering  the  project  at  the  festival.  All  five  rated  this  as  very  positive.  When  commenting  on  their  ratings,  all  collaborators  mentioned  the  positive  response  they  had  from  the  audience,  for  example:  Far  more  interest  than  we  were  expecting  and  so  much  genuine  engagement  with  people  of  different  ages.  Other  comments  included  that  the  project  was  well  supported,  and  that  the  experience  had  renewed  the  collaborator's  enthusiasm  for  science.      Collaborators  were  asked  about  the  most  rewarding  aspect  of  the  experience.  All  five  collaborators  responding  in  the  post-­‐event  survey  said  that  the  reaction  and  response  from  the  audience  was  the  most  rewarding  aspect.  They  enjoyed  the  conversations  they  had  with  those  taking  part,  and  felt  that  the  experience  had  enabled  the  audience  to  learn  and  become  interested  in  the  topic.  In  particular,  the  collaborators  found  it  valuable  to  see  families  interacting  through  the  activity:  Seeing  families  playing  and  talking  together,  and  learning  from  each  other  as  much  as  from  the  scientists.  Often,  the  subject  matter  seemed  to  raise  issues  that  these  families  may  never  have  talked  about  but  got  really  interested  and  engaged  in,  because  all  had  their  own  personal  stories  connected  to  the  subject.  As  this  collaborator  touches  upon,  many  audience  members  also  shared  their  own  stories  relating  to  the  subject.  For  one  collaborator,  working  with  children  in  particular  was  especially  rewarding:  I  also  found  working  with  children  really  rewarding.  I  have  never  worked  with  kids  before  and  I  was  worried  they  wouldn't  be  interested  or  wouldn't  understand,  but  they  absorbed  loads  of  information  and  it  was  really  fun  to  make  lots  of  mad  models  with  them.    Collaborators  were  also  asked  about  the  most  challenging  aspect  of  the  experience.  Three  collaborators  mentioned  that  they  found  adapting  the  type  and  level  of  information  to  each  audience  or  group  the  most  challenging  aspect,  for  example:  Gauging  the  depth  of  information  required  to  engage  public  but  not  swamp  them  in  information.  In  particular,  collaborators  found  it  difficult  to  talk  to  pregnant  women  about  some  of  the  risks  and  issues,  for  example:  The  most  challenging  point  was  discussing  the  potential  effects  of  exposures  to  pregnant  women  which  is  part  of  our  research,  I  found  it  sometimes  difficult  talking  to  women  who  were  expecting  about  these  risks  which  we  are  exploring  as  I  didn't  want  to  cause  them  stress  or  extra  worry.  Two  other  collaborators  felt  that  keeping  the  energy  levels  high  was  the  most  challenging  factor,  as  they  were  interacting  with  more  visitors  than  expected.      

5. Impacts  on  collaborators      Collaborators  were  asked  whether  their  experience  with  the  project  had  impacts  on  their  ideas  about  public  engagement  with  science.  Three  collaborators  felt  that  the  project  had  developed  their  ideas  about  public  engagement  approaches  and  formats,  and  in  particular  the  potential  of  creative  techniques  in  engaging  audiences.  For  example:  That  through  a  creative  activity  you  can  generate  interest  in  a  scientific  subject  -­‐  younger  participants  go  for  the  creative  activity  more  readily  and  then  become  curious  about  the  subject,  whilst  older  or  more  reserved  participants  engage  with  the  science  and  then  move  in  to  the  creative  aspect.    Having  them  work  in  tandem  is  a  powerful  tool  for  engaging  with  the  public.  One  collaborator  

 

5    

added  in  their  vox  pop  interview:  I  think  one  of  the  things  I’ve  found  is  that  sometimes  you  have  to  just  let  people  be  creative  or  definitely  let  children  be  creative  and  sort  of  drag  their  parents  in  with  them  and  you  can  have  really  interesting  conversations  with  them.    Two  collaborators  developed  their  understanding  of  the  audience,  for  example:  It  has  also  shown  me  how  interested  people  are  in  research  and  science  and  how  eager  they  are  to  learn  about  it.  I  always  worry  that  I  am  boring  people  when  I  talk  about  what  I  do,  but  not  anymore.  Finally,  one  collaborator  said  that  the  project  had  encouraged  them  to  see  public  engagement  with  science  as  something  which  is  important  and  positive  to  be  involved  in.      Collaborators  commented  on  whether  their  experience  had  led  them  to  consider  their  everyday  work  in  a  new  way.  Two  collaborators  said  that  the  experience  had  led  them  to  be  more  enthusiastic  about  collaborations  with  artists  and  scientists  and  that  they  would  look  to  continue  working  in  this  way  in  future.  For  example,  one  scientist  said:  I'd  like  to  keep  working  with  artists  on  more  interdisciplinary  projects.  I  do  occasionally  do  this,  but  it's  reinforced  that  and  reminded  me  what  great  fun  it  is  and  how  it  opens  your  mind  up.  It's  very  easy  to  get  bogged  down  in  writing  about  science  day-­‐to-­‐day.  Another  collaborator  mentioned  in  the  vox  pop  interviews:  It  was  great,  it  was  actually  really  interesting  as  a  scientist  it’s  very  insular  and  you  only  ever  work  with  other  scientists  so  it  was  nice  to  work  with  people  who  are  from  a  completely  different  field  and  the  artist,  working  with  him  and  the  production  assistant  and  see  how  these  sort  of  things  come  together  and  the  level  of  details  that  they  actually  think  about,  with  these  things  I  never  even  thought  you  would  have  to  think  about  –  it  was  interesting,  I  learnt  a  lot  from  it  as  well.    Two  other  collaborators  said  that  the  experience  had  led  them  to  think  further  about  how  they  communicate  their  work,  especially  relevant  for  one  collaborator  who  was  just  about  to  start  a  new  job  as  a  school  technician.  One  collaborator  mentioned  in  their  vox  pop  how  their  experience  had  enabled  them  to  learn  from  the  visitors:  I’m  surprised  that  I’ve  actually  learnt  quite  a  lot  from  people  because  I’ve  been  researching  placenta  for  two  years  so  I  thought  I’d  kind  of  covered  it  all  but  I  hadn’t  at  all,  and  I  guess  mothers  will  know  a  lot  about  it  when  they  are  pregnant,  so  I’ve  actually  got  a  few  nuggets,  things  that  I  haven’t  really  thought  about  before.  Finally,  one  scientist  explained  how  the  project  and  audience  interaction  involved  had  shaped  how  they  felt  about  their  own  research:  Some  people  asked  questions  about  things  I  just  haven't  considered  before.  For  example,  with  overdue  babies  it  is  dangerous  for  them  to  stay  in  the  womb  because  the  placenta  isn't  functioning  as  well  after  40  weeks.  Although  things  like  this  won't  directly  affect  my  research  I  think  it  is  good  for  me  to  think  about  them.    The  project  has  also  boosted  my  motivation  for  research  (which  often  lags  with  failing  experiments  etc.)  and  getting  back  to  working  hard.      When  asked  about  other  impacts,  collaborators  rated  their  experiences  on  a  scale  of  1  (not  at  all)  to  10  (totally  changed).  Impacts  were  very  positive  in  nature.      The  average  rating  for  learning  about  art  and/or  science  was  7.6.  An  example  of  a  comment  from  a  scientist:  Re  enthused  interest  in  scientific  research  after  positive  response  from  the  festival.  Brilliant  to  see  how  well  science  and  art  can  collaborate  to  make  subjects  accessible.  One  collaborator  described  in  the  vox  pop  interviews  how  he  had  learned  from  other  scientists:  And  also  we  had  another  scientist  come  over  who  was  an  ethicist  who  mentioned  some  beliefs  about  placentas  that  none  of  us  had  ever  heard  of  so  those  were  highlights.    The  average  rating  for  confidence  in  public  engagement  was  8.2.  One  collaborator  explained  their  rating:  I  am  much  more  confident  now,  particularly  in  working  with  children,  which  I  have  not  done  before.  I  also  feel  like  I  have  been  asked  so  many  questions  over  the  weekend  I  am  prepared  for  anything  now.  Another  collaborator  said  that  their  renewed  confidence  might  also  help  with  presentation  skills.      The  average  rating  for  impacts  on  skills  in  public  engagement  was  7.8.  Collaborators  commented,  for  example:  I  have  never  had  to  explain  my  research  in  any  great  detail  to  non-­‐scientists  before.  I  have  now  

 

6    

done  it  loads  of  times  to  loads  of  different  people.  I  feel  like  I  am  now  much  more  able  to  do  this  without  boring  or  confusing  people.    Collaborators  were  asked  ‘Before  taking  part  in  this  project  how  involved  would  you  have  considered  yourself  in  public  engagement  with  science  (e.g.  do  you  participate  in  many  events  and  activities?)  (1-­‐10  scale,  1  –  not  engaged  at  all,  10  extremely  engaged)’  and  they  responded  with  an  average  rating  of  4.6,  indicating  that  they  were  not  greatly  experienced  in  the  area.  For  example,  this  collaborator  explained  their  limited  experience  with  public  engagement  activities:  I  have  done  minimal  public  engagement  and  this  has  mostly  been  at  conferences  and  not  in  front  of  the  general  public.    When  asked  whether  their  experience  had  made  them  more  or  less  likely  to  be  involved  in  similar  public  engagement  events  in  future  (1-­‐  much  less  likely,  5  –  much  more  likely),  the  average  rating  was  4.4,  suggesting  that  collaborators  had  been  positively  affected  in  terms  of  their  motivation  in  public  engagement.  One  collaborator  explained  their  ‘5  –  much  more  likely’  rating:  Einstein's  Garden  was  fun,  educational,  engaging  and  motivating.  Would  love  to  be  involved  in  future  science  communication  events.      

6. Audience  interactions  and  behaviours      Observations  provided  a  snapshot  of  audience  behaviours  whilst  participating  in  the  activity.  Five  observations  were  conducted,  of  29  visitors  in  total,  and  on  average  each  observation  was  15  minutes.  In  all  five  observations  visitors  were  seen  to  be  making  placenta  models  from  plasticine  and  discussing  these  with  others  (in  three  observations  this  was  amongst  their  family,  in  four  with  researchers).    Six  visitors  also  mentioned  in  vox  pops  that  they  had  been  enjoying  modelling  placenta  from  plasticine.  One  of  the  collaborators  mentioned  how  some  audience  members  participated  in  the  modelling  in  an  involved  way:  Two  young  sisters  yesterday  who  were  here  for  about  two  hours  modelling  completely  intensely  together  were  creating  these  absolutely  ambitious  pottery  tree  sculptures,  because  it’s  effectively  like  a  tree  where  the  umbilical  cord  connects  with  the  placenta  and  then  you  get  the  villi,  all  the  veins  going  off  so  they  went  with  that  tree  motif  really  well  and  built  up  layers  and  layers  and  layers  and  so  you  could  just  see  them  completely  engrossed  doing  some  quite  high  level  modelling.      Discussions  between  scientists  and  visitors  were  observed  to  be  two-­‐way  in  nature  -­‐  both  visitors  and  researchers  were  asking  questions  and  answering.  Five  visitors  spoke  in  vox  pops  about  their  interactions  with  scientists.  For  example:  Yeah,  yeah  so  I  just  chatted  to  one  scientist  from  the  university  of  Bristol  and  she  was  telling  me  about  how  they’re  doing  all  this  really  cutting  edge  research  and  learning  about  the  human  placenta  and  its  role  in  development  and  how  it  can  affect,  it  affects  people  all  the  way  to  their  adult  life  which  I  didn’t  really  know  anything  about  at  all.  In  three  observations  visitors  drew  from  their  own  experience  and  offered  this  to  the  discussion,  for  example:  The  girl  on  her  own  told  a  story  about  when  she  found  a  sheep  placenta  in  a  field.      Audience  members  were  asked  in  vox  pops  whether  the  venue  and  context  of  a  music  festival  was  suited  to  the  activity.  Of  those  asked,  all  three  visitors  said  that  the  festival  was  a  good  location  for  the  activity,  with  some  adding  that  they  had  not  expected  to  be  doing  something  similar  at  the  festival.  For  example,  one  visitor  explains  that  they  particularly  appreciated  the  access  to  experts  at  the  festival:  Yes  I  would  in  fact  I  think  having  activities  at  a  festival  like  this  is  a  really  good  way  of  engaging  people,  it  gives  them  a  really  excellent  opportunity  to  come  and  explore  and  to  learn  things  that  they  probably  wouldn’t  otherwise  and  it  has  the  experts  here.      

7. Impacts  on  the  audience    Collaborators  were  asked  how  they  felt  the  audience  had  responded  to  the  project,  and  if  there  were  things  which  they  felt  had  worked  particularly  well.  All  collaborators  mentioned  the  clay  modelling  of  placentas  worked  well  to  get  the  audience  to  engage  in  a  hands-­‐on  way  and  draw  them  into  conversations.  For  example:  I  think  the  hands-­‐on  method  of  modelling  their  own  placentas  out  of  clay  made  it  fun  and  an  

 

7    

appealing  task  for  the  children  and  this  also  drew  the  adults  into  having  conversations  whilst  the  children  were  making.    Whilst  in  all  observations  visitors  were  seen  to  be  engaged  and  positively  reacting  to  the  activity  (e.g.  smiling,  laughing,  showing  their  model  to  others  proudly),  in  three  instances  visitors  were  seen  to  react  less  positively  to  the  content  and  looked  less  happy.  For  example:  Another  woman  (friends  with  the  first)  comes  over  and  asks  what  they’re  doing.  The  mum  explains.  They  begin  a  conversation  about  eating  placentas.  The  older  one  listening  in  looks  intrigued  and  slightly  disgusted.  Visitors  in  five  vox  pops  also  mentioned  some  degree  of  negative  reaction  to  the  placenta,  for  example  finding  the  idea  of  eating  it  unappealing,  or  the  pictures  of  the  placenta  difficult  to  look  at:  They  were  quite  gruesome  but  what  do  you  expect,  you  can’t  expect  something  nice  and  clean.  These  kinds  of  reactions  are  also  important  alongside  the  more  positive  responses  as  they  also  indicate  involvement  and  engagement  with  the  subject.  One  collaborator  describes  these  kind  of  reactions:  We  thought  that  people  would  be  a  bit  scared  and  I  don’t  really  want  to  look  at  those,  we  might  have  some  problems  with  things  like  that  but  actually  everyone’s  been  really,  a  bit  grossed  out  but  oh  that’s  really  interesting,  the  kids  come  up,  kids  just  love  gross  things,  they’re  like  urgghh  that’s  horrible  but  they  really  like  it.    Visitors  were  observed  to  be  learning  from  their  interactions  -­‐  making  audible  comments  about  discovering  something,  and  there  was  one  discussion  about  future  study  in  science  facilitated  by  the  activity:  The  discussion  moved  on  to  the  girl’s  plans  for  university  and  future  careers  (girl  still  unsure  but  did  like  science).  Visitors  in  six  vox  pops  talked  about  learning  about  the  placenta  as  a  result  of  their  participation  in  the  activity,  particularly  about  the  connection  to  the  umbilical  cord,  and  the  role  of  the  placenta.  One  of  the  collaborators  also  spoke  about  how  families  were  learning  from  one  another  in  the  activity:  I  mean  mothers  have  an  attachment  to  it  and  so  it’s  been  really  nice  to  see  families  there  and  the  mother  will  explain  to  her  kid  about  how  she  fed  her  while  she  was  in  her  womb,  that’s  been  a  really  nice  aspect  to  see  the  families  interacting  with  it  and  teaching  their  kids  about  it  that’s  been  really  fun.    Five  visitors  interviewed  in  vox  pops  said  that  they  had  become  more  interested  in  science  as  a  result  of  the  interaction,  for  example:  Yes  definitely  more  interested,  yeah  I  think  when  you  come  here  and  you  see  things,  you  see  workshops  it  can  bring  it  to  a  level  that  you  understand  because  a  lot  of  people  think  science  is  complicated,  it  brings  it  to  a  level  that  everyone  can  understand.    Visitors  were  asked  in  the  vox  pop  interviews  whether  they  would  like  to  see  a  real  placenta  as  part  of  the  workshop.  Most  visitors  (in  six  vox  pops)  were  keen  on  seeing  a  real  one  and  some  had  even  expected  one  to  be  there,  despite  mentioning  any  negative  reactions  to  the  pictures  or  information  about  the  placenta  as  discussed  above.  Some  visitors  were  even  keen  to  hold  one,  and  others  had  questions  about  whether  the  placenta  could  be  kept  alive  to  show  others.  Two  visitors  however  felt  that  they  would  not  like  to  see  a  real  placenta  -­‐  one  child  said  that  it  would  be  'gruesome'  and  one  woman  said  that  she  felt  it  might  discourage  people  from  engaging:  I  think  possibly  a  lot  of  people  would  be  put  off  by  that,  I  think  anything  medical  like  that  and  sometimes  to  do  with  pregnancy  and  to  do  with  babies,  makes  people  quite  squeamish  so  I  think  maybe  if  they  did  have  people  would  turn  the  other  way.    When  asked  what  the  audience  did  not  find  as  engaging,  all  collaborators  said  that  the  'write  a  letter  to  your  lost  organ'  had  not  been  as  effective  as  the  other  activities  however  the  team  had  experimented  with  different  formats  and  by  the  end  of  the  festival  had  adapted  it.  For  example:  The  letter  writing  did  not  work  so  well,  but  by  the  last  day  we  had  experimented  enough  to  find  a  way  to  encourage  more  participants  -­‐  pinning  the  letters  to  a  tree!    Six  visitors  were  asked  in  vox  pops  whether  they  would  recommend  the  activity  to  others  and  would  participate  again,  and  all  said  yes.  For  example,  one  answered:  Highly  recommend  it,  absolutely,  fun  for  the  whole  family.    

8. Improvements  and  suggestions  

 

8    

 Collaborators  were  very  happy  with  how  the  project  turned  out.  Some  had  suggestions  for  improvements  which  could  be  incorporated  into  future  work,  including  that  the  recruitment  of  artists  and  scientists  could  have  been  more  streamlined  and  the  initial  development  process  adapted  to  get  the  project  development  moving  more  quickly.    One  visitor  added  that  they  would  have  liked  timed  discussion  sessions  as  well  as  the  modelling,  to  be  able  to  hear  more  about  the  work  of  the  researchers  and  to  raise  the  profile  of  placenta  research.        In  terms  of  things  which  worked  well,  the  collaborators  felt  that  everything  was  really  well  organised  and  one  added:  Having  several  days  to  test  out  different  engagement  approaches  at  the  festival  was  really  helpful  and  I  feel  like  several  people  on  the  team  gained  confidence  and  useful  skills  just  in  that  short  time.    

       

 

9    

Einstein’s  Garden  Society  Award:  Individual  Project  Redelivery  Reports  2016    

Your  Lost  Organ  Redelivery  Report    

Karen  Smith  (November  2016)    

   

Summary    Your  Lost  Organ  was  a  sculptural  modelling  workshop  and  installation  engaging  audiences  with  research  exploring  placental  biology  and  the  human  placenta.  The  project  was  produced  by  Einstein’s  Garden  in  partnership  with  the  University  of  Bristol.  Collaborators  included  University  of  Bristol  scientists  and  a  sculptor.  The  project  was  piloted  in  Einstein’s  Garden  at  Green  Man  Festival  2015,  and  redelivered  at  Hengrove  Park  Playground,  Bristol,  on  21  and  22  May  2016.    For  Hengrove  Park  the  publicity  included  description  of:      

‘A  playful  and  inspiring  workshop…In  this  free  ‘science  and  crafts’  workshop  from  Green  Man's  Einstein's  Garden,  have  fun  modelling  with  clay  alongside  scientists  from  the  University  of  Bristol.  They’ll  be  sharing  some  fascinating  placenta  facts  and  answering  questions  about  their  research  into  this  amazing  organ.  Meanwhile  you  can  get  creative  by  moulding  your  own  placenta  and  adding  it  to  our  display!  Drop-­‐in  any  time  between  11am  and  4pm.  This  family  workshop  is  open  to  all  but  

 

10    

particularly  suitable  for  kids  of  primary  school  age  (children  must  be  accompanied  by  a  parent  or  guardian).’    

 

Your  Lost  Organ  activity  at  Hengrove  Park  facilitated  mostly  engaged  and  intensive  interactions  with  the  subject  of  placenta  research.  Audience  members  were  particularly  involved  in  modelling,  mostly  of  the  placenta,  and  reacted  strongly  positively  to  the  content  about  placenta  (for  example,  visual  images  and  narrative).  There  were  no  negative  recorded  reactions  to  the  topic  or  the  activity.    

 The  activity  facilitated  family  learning  and  groups  of  adults  and  children  were  seen  to  interact  together  in  the  modelling  and  discuss  the  topic.  Observation  did  note  a  high  proportion  of  unaccompanied  children  in  groups  and  a  large  group  of  teenagers  were  also  observed  taking  part.        

   Methods      Six  observations  were  conducted  at  Hengrove  Park  focusing  on  Your  Lost  Organ  totalling  nearly  two  hours.    Observations  focused  on  capturing  a  record  of  audience  behaviours  during  participation  in  activities,  interactions  between  audience  members  and  staff,  and  evidence  of  impacts  on  audiences.    

 

Standardised  comment  cards  were  distributed  during  Your  Lost  Organ  at  Hengrove  Park  to  explore  how  Your  Lost  Organ  worked  beyond  the  Einstein’s  Garden  context.  Comment  cards  were  integrated  into  the  activities  and  12  comment  cards  were  collected.  Questions  on  comment  cards  included  asking  visitors  to  rate  their  enjoyment;  how  the  event  had  impacted  on  their  interest  in  the  subject;  and  what  new  learning  they  had  achieved.    

 The  Creative  Producer  also  created  a  written  reflection  on  the  experience  of  Your  Lost  Organ  at  Hengrove  Park.          Findings    

 9. Sample  

Observations  provided  a  snapshot  of  audience  behaviours  whilst  participating  in  Your  Lost  Organ  and  the  different  approaches  of  staff  working  on  the  project.  Six  observations  were  conducted  of  22  visitors  in  total.    Observations  ranged  between  13  minutes  to  27  minutes  in  length,  two  observations  were  untimed.    Estimated  total  recorded  observation  time  is  one  hour  and  48  minutes.      

 

10. Audience  interactions  and  behaviours      

 

11    

In  six  observations  visitors  were  all  modelling  from  plasticine  (most  modelling  placentas)  and  discussing  their  models  with  others;  both  family  and  collaborators  (artist  and  researchers).  The  observations  also  demonstrate  the  challenge  of  engaging  people  with  the  science  behind  the  activities.  Whilst  the  comment  cards  all  demonstrate  strong  enjoyment  and  positive  impact  on  increased  interest  in  science,  two  of  the  observations  suggest  that  in  some  cases,  whilst  groups  were  modelling  and  engaging  with  the  modelling,  there  was  a  lack  of  interest  in  the  science:  ‘A  Scientist  is  engaging  them  with  placenta  –  talking  about  umbilical  cord  and  role  of  placenta,  they  don’t  seem  interested  in  the  science,  only  the  modelling’.        

In  comparison  to  the  engagement  reported  in  Your  Lost  Organ  at  Green  Man  Festival,  the  engagement  at  Hengrove  Park  was  observed  at  times  to  be  more  challenging  for  collaborators.  However,  in  most  cases  the  observations  reported  similar  activity  to  Green  Man,  with  visitors  and  researchers  engaging  in  experience  and  interaction,  and  family  groups  sharing  experience  and  interacting  with  each  other.  The  below  is  an  example  in  detail  from  one  observation  with  a  mother  and  three  children  comprised  of  one  adult  female,  one  older  daughter  and  two  younger  children:    

 

‘Conversations  about  baby,  where  baby  comes  from  (mummy),  talk  about  having  a  placenta  once.  

Mum  and  daughter  helping  kids  to  make  baby  models.  Mum  making  placenta  to  go  with  models;  shared  experience.  Scientist  with  one  of  kids  talking  about  what  placenta  does,  getting  them  to  make  own  placenta.  Talking  about  different  components…Whilst  kids  making  things;  scientist  chats  to  parent  about  more  in  depth  research.  Stories  about  the  placenta:  Mother  talking  about  experience  with  birth.  Older  daughter  asking  mum  questions  about  birth/placenta,  the  process  of  pregnancy.’  

 

Another  group  of  friends  are  observed  to  be  supported  to  make  a  placenta  by  a  friend  who  returns  to  the  activity  after  participating  earlier.    Comments  observed  include:    

‘I  wish  science  wasn’t  so  hard’  

‘This  stuff  makes  me  want  to  know  more  about  science’.  

 

The  observations  occasionally  picked  up  a  challenging  area  for  the  collaborators  at  the  Hengrove  Park  redelivery  regarding  how  visitors  approached  the  modelling.  Some  Hengrove  Park  groups,  particularly  young  children  and  teenagers  were  less  focused  or  engaged  on  the  science  and  more  intent  on  making  models  out  of  plasticine  that  were  not  related  to  the  subject,  for  example,  a  ‘cat’  and  an  ‘alien  snowman’.  If  they  were  accompanied,  the  adult  with  them  also  did  not  necessarily  encourage  engagement  with  the  science.  Despite  this,  the  observations  also  suggest  that  in  family  groups,  if  some  of  the  children  are  not  necessarily  engaged  with  the  science,  there  is  still  one  child  who  has  been  engaged  by  the  scientist  or  collaborator.  An  example  of  this  is  in  one  of  the  observations:  ‘One  female  child  is  quieter  and  is  engaged  with  the  scientist:  Quieter  girl  has  modelled  the  baby  and  the  placenta’.    

The  Creative  Producer  observed  the  impact  of  the  weather  on  people  visiting  Hengrove  Park:  ‘The  park  was  obviously  popular  with  people  living  locally,  we  were  amazed  at  how  quickly  it  filled  up  as  soon  as  the  sun  

 

12    

came  out.’  Both  days  were  mild,  but  with  showers  on  the  Saturday  21  May  and  sunny  spells  on  the  Sunday  22  May.  

 

The  Creative  Producer  observed  ‘quite  a  high  proportion  of  unaccompanied  children  in  groups.  The  audience  felt  very  diverse.’    

 

 

 

11. Impacts  on  participants  –  Comment  Cards    Participants  were  asked  if  they  enjoyed  Your  Lost  Organ  at  Hengrove  Park  and  asked  to  rate  their  enjoyment  on  a  scale  of  1:  did  not  enjoy  at  all  to  10:  enjoyed  very  much.    Everyone  (12  out  of  12)  people  scored  their  enjoyment  in  the  top  20%  of  the  scale  (8  to  10)  with  two  thirds  of  people  scoring  10.      

 

The  evident  enjoyment  of  activities  supports  the  observations  suggesting  that  people  engaged  meaningfully  and  with  enjoyment  in  the  activities.  The  detail  is  as  follows:  

 

• eight  people  scored  10  • three  people  scored  9  • one  person  scored  8  

 

Your  Lost  Organ  impact  on  participant’s  interest  in  science  

 

13    

10  out  of  the  12  participants  said  that  they  were  now  a  lot  or  a  little  more  interested  in  science  as  a  result  of  Your  Lost  Organ.  Half  (6  people)  said  they  were  a  little  more  interested  in  science  with  4  people  commenting  that  they  were  now  a  lot  more  interested.  Two  people  said  that  the  project  had  not  impacted  on  their  interest  because  they  were  already  interested  in  science.  No  participants  said  they  were  less  interested  or  that  the  project  had  a  negative  impact  on  their  interest  in  science.    

 

Participants  were  asked  if  their  experience  with  Your  Lost  Organ  made  them  more  or  less  likely  to  engage  with  other  science  events,  programmes,  festivals  or  activities  in  the  future.  Participants  were  asked  to  score  on  a  scale  of  one  to  ten  with  1:  a  lot  less  likely  to  10:  that  they  were  a  lot  more  likely.    All  12  people  scored  in  the  top  three  scores  (score  8-­‐10)  with  over  half  (7  people)  scoring  10,  that  they  were  now  a  lot  more  likely  to  engage  with  other  science  based  activities.  Details  were  as  follows:  

 

• seven  people  scored  10    • two  people  scored  9  • three  people  scored  8  

 

When  asked  ‘How  did  you  find  out  about  Your  Lost  Organ?’  All  but  one  person  (11  people)  had  found  out  by  walking  past  the  activity.    One  of  these  people  had  also  seen  the  event  on  Facebook.    One  person  had  found  out  from  a  local  event  listing.    

 

Four  people  suggested  that  making  was  the  best  part  of  the  lost  organ  workshop.  One  person  observed,  for  example,  ‘Making  things  with  clay’.  Another  person  suggested  that  the  modelling  and  explanations  from  the  team  were  the  best  part,  and  a  further  person  thought  the  information  given  was  the  best  part.    Two  people  enjoyed  ‘kids  interested’;  ‘kids  learning’.  One  enjoyed  playing  with  plasticine,  another  enjoyed  ‘chatting  about  placenta’.  One  person  suggested  ‘Celebrating  something  vital  in  life  that  we  rarely  give  a  second  thought’.    

 

Did  anything  surprise  you  about  the  activity  today?  

Some  people  were  not  surprised  by  any  of  the  activity.    Three  people  were  surprised  about  facts  relating  to  the  placenta,  for  example  that  ‘People  eat  placentas’,  ‘Placenta  prints  -­‐  I  have  never  heard  about  them’  and  ‘PES  use’.  One  person  was  surprised  that  ‘My  science  teacher  didn't  teach  me  this  year  7’.    Another  comment  observed  that  the  simplicity  of  the  activity  about  a  very  serious  subject  matter  was  lovely.  One  person  was  surprised  that  the  activity  was  in  a  play  park,  and  another  at  how  good  the  plasticine  models  were.  

 

When  asked  ‘What  do  you  know  about  the  placenta  that  you  didn't  know  before  today?  

Some  people  did  not  discover  anything  new,  whereas  one  person  said  ‘Everything  was  new’  and  another  person  discovered  ‘lots’.    One  person  discovered  ‘That  it  is  regarded  as  an  organ!’  

 

14    

 

Visitors  were  asked  ‘How  do  you  feel  about  the  images  of  real  placentas  being  included  in  the  workshop?’    Ten  people  responded  to  this  question,  all  suggested  they  were  fine  or  even  pleased  about  images  being  included.  One  person  added:    ‘A  bit  weird  but  it  was  good’.  Some  people  also  commented  on  the  quality,  for  example,  ‘very  high  resolution’  and  one  person  said:  ‘Happy  they  are  rather  magnificent!’  

 

12. Improvements  and  suggestions    

When  asked  on  the  comment  cards  what  would  you  change  or  improve?  There  were  few  improvements  suggested.  The  weather  impacted  on  one  person  who  would  have  liked  better  weather,  and  one  person  wanted  ‘free  cats’.    (As  detailed  above,  from  one  of  the  observations,  it  is  clear  that  one  of  the  teenagers  in  a  group  who  did  have  engaging  conversations  with  the  artist  and  researchers,  made  a  cat  instead  of  a  placenta).    One  person  said  ‘Softer  play  dough  would  be  nicer’.  An  observation  suggested  that  the  clay  was  challenging  to  model:  ‘2  girls  are  modelling,  finding  the  clay  quite  hard  but  persevering,  making  models’.  

 One  person  suggested  the  activity  could  be  bigger,  and  this  was  echoed  by  a  comment  that  suggested  ‘Making  more  things’  would  be  an  improvement.    

 Ensuring  that  clay  /  plasticine  is  pliable  enough  to  model  could  be  challenging  in  cold  weather  as  the  material  becomes  less  tactile  and  malleable.