In the course of the workshop, we will refer to these three mini-case studies. Although these are fictional cases, they do tap themes and experiences that CRPA grantees have reported out via interviews and surveys. Please read all three cases before the first session on October 27 at noon.
Mini-case Studies as a downloadable MS-Word File
Mini-case #1: “Watching The Earth Move” Documentary Project
Description:
In this project, researchers at a seismology lab in California are showing how data from sensing stations around the world give an unprecedented amount of real time information on earthquakes and deep earth structures. The video will show how this data is collected and used, highlighting its potential value in predicting earthquakes and their severity, as well as advancing engineering and mining science.
Media/Outreach Partner:
A filmmaking team associated with the same university where the lab is, and with a background in educational documentaries, some airing on PBS.
The approach for the program was to focus on stories of high school students who come to the lab for a two-week summer science camp and learn the basics of seismology. The students are assigned graduate student mentors and work both in the lab with data and in the field with the collection devices that gather the seismic data.
Successes & Challenges:
All concerned felt energized by the project, and the media partners’ involvement. In particular, interviewing high school students and their graduate student mentors created more excitement around the topic and the program. The year following the taping, for the first time ever, there were more high school students interested in participating in the summer program than available spots. The CRPA grant brought favorable attention from the department chair and also the university’s public relations division.
Challenges emerged quickly. The video team did not have any geo-science background—this was their first NSF-related work, and media was also a new experience for the PI. Consequently, getting to a shared vocabulary, team structure, and workflow for the project was challenging. Planning out the timeline was particularly vexing, since the high school program took place over one fixed two-week period annually, and the video team was not prepared to go into production during the first year. However, waiting would have meant pushing the program until the next round of students the following summer.
The more serious challenge was visualizing the research. The PI considered the new network of data collection to be the real breakthrough contribution. Her lab created a methodology that could bring together many difference kinds of seismic data from centers and collectors all over the world, link these in real time, and create models and visualizations that would be used for predictive purposes locally and as a body of data for seismology. The size, speed, and flexibility of these approaches made it possible to see into these phenomena in a way that was unprecedented.
Unfortunately, this research was not compelling on video: a visit to the lab was mostly a case of watching people sitting at computers or around conference room tables. As the video producer told the PI, “when seeing a scientist write an equation on a white board is the most exciting moment in your documentary, you are kind of sunk.” The filmmaker’s response to this was to fill the rough cut of the film with stock footage of earthquakes and tsunamis, and some field footage of students working with the collectors, including some shaky handheld iPhone footage taken while the high school students were on a boat in San Diego harbor and managed to drop and lose a $17,000 hydrophone. The PI and the filmmaker had a major fight about whether to include this footage: The filmmaker insisted that this humanized science and was a lively moment that audiences would relate to. The PI was equally adamant that making a documentary with NSF money showing students in a project dropping NSF-funded research equipment would never fly. A forceful letter from the PI and CO-PI with cc: to the NSF program officer did, after a stressful phone conference, lead to an editorially acceptable solution.
Now, two years later, a second rough cut of the film (43 minutes) and a teaser (7 minutes) has been made. The video editor has left the project, so the team is looking for a new video editor, and is also working to develop an associated web site, and seek a distribution partner.
Mini-case study #2: Snakes Eat Anything!
Description:
In this project, the PI, a university-based herpetologist, worked with the science center in his city to create an exhibit highlighting his research on snake biodiversity and how it relates to snakes’ distinctive feeding habits of injecting their prey with venom and ingesting them whole. This approach involves rapid change in the size of their digestive organs and heart. Although snakes are numerous across all non-polar landmasses, relatively little is known about their diet, and how this relates to ecosystem predator-prey relationships.
Media/Outreach partner:
A large science center in an urban area, the curator of reptiles, and her outreach coordinator (who works across all the biology departments) formed the partner.
Although snakes and their prey are the ‘hooks’ for this project, and tap existing interest, particularly among school-age audiences, the larger goal is to explain how biological systems work, with diet and biodiversity as markers for an ecosystem. Additionally, the hope is that students will gain knowledge and curiosity about how asking a question about what an animal feeds on may lead to other questions and insights about geographic variation among species, environmental change, and, in the specific case of snakes, how to identify potential anti-venoms.
The exhibit, which was mounted last year, includes live animals, two short videos (one an animation of snake predation and one a brief conversation with the PI and the curator), a printed guide for school groups, and illustrated wall copy. A website is in production that will present these materials, an interactive activity matching predator, prey, and ecosystem, as well as an explanation of how scientists collect and study snake venom chemistry for zoological and biomedical knowledge. Because of the clout conferred by the NSF/CRPA funding, the team was able to tap one of the best-known zoologists in the world to write an introduction to the exhibit and give a testimonial on the importance of this work.
Successes & Challenges:
This project worked very well, although both the PI and the science center staff felt strapped by the total amount of money available. Because the research and outreach staffs were fully covered under other budget lines, the grant went only for junior staff and for the exhibit and related materials. The visitor response has been very enthusiastic, both from school groups and individual visitors.
Two major challenges have emerged. The evaluator for the project has been contracted by the science center in the past. He is relying on surveys that are distributed in the exhibit hall and online, and has done some interviews with the project participants. Although the PI has found the process and resulting narrative useful, the report does not shed much light on the question of how effectively the exhibit and related activities have communicated research. Several questions on the survey focused on whether visitors learned about the nature of inquiry and the scientific method, and the PI had a concern that it lacked any specific research questions on reptile diets and how these relate to eco-systems, and the importance of identifying and tracking markers for biodiversity. Additionally, 42 surveys have been collected and 12 of these are from school groups. Because the survey work was done after the exhibit was mounted there also was no opportunity to use it in a formative way, for instance in designing and shaping the interactive activities.
The second concern is sustainability, re-use, and shelf-life. All of the materials for the project are tied to the exhibit and branded with the name of the science center. The website is part of the science center’s larger site. No way to share the content or the model with others doing the same or analogous research is readily apparent at the institution, although information has been listed on the CAISE informaleducation.org web site. As the research team prepares a book on this topic, aimed at herpetologists, evolutionary ecologists and conservationists, they are trying to find a way to indicate the presence of this exhibition and model so that others can reuse or adapt materials for educational and outreach purposes. They are not aware of any central repository, scientific conference, or publication that would reach all of these broad audiences. They have submitted a poster session to an association of science centers, and hope that that provides some visibility. The science center outreach coordinator is also shaping a proposal for middle school life science classes, inviting them to take photos of snakes in their area and pose a question about where they fit in their ecosystem. All involved would like to extend the project to other species and to other types of predator/prey relationships, but they do not know how to begin this work.
Mini-case study #3: Seas and Stories
Description:
In this project, the PI, a linguist, is working with an interdisciplinary team of fellow linguists, archeologists, geographers, and art historians to investigate the evolution of ancient written languages in Oceania cultures and their role in preservation and transmission of practices such as boat building, sea-faring, astronomy, and fishing. Only a few hundred artifacts with carvings of the languages exist but interdisciplinary approaches have helped build a context for these artifacts. By looking at cultural practices, geography, and the technology of seafaring, the researchers are gaining insights into the nature of these languages. A key effort of the research grant is to create a database for researchers and the public, including images, texts, and other relevant geographic, linguistic, and archeological data.
The media project, done in partnership with a science filmmaking department at the PI’s university and with the local public media station (a university licensee), is to create a documentary suitable for national broadcast on public television. The theme of the video is both the beauty of the Oceania artifacts, and the power of the researchers’ interdisciplinary approaches to unraveling their mysteries.
Media/Outreach Partner:
The project had two strong outreach connections. This documentary unit at the university was well established and successful, offering graduate degrees in science filmmaking, with notable alumni, including several working at a nationally known science series. The local public television station, although not a flagship PBS station, had strong relationships with other member stations, and PBS overall. The station proved to be an able partner in getting the documentary in front of PBS, and ultimately accepted into “Discovery Now,” a national series. The local station also helped the PI tap services that public media connections can leverage.
Successes & Challenges:
From the PI’s point of view the success of the project and the partnership was nearly complete. These elements had been created:
- A documentary, Sounds on the Wind: Scientists Unravel the Mysteries of Oceania aired on PBS
- A public web site, with associated social media events, and supported by a marketing/outreach plan, was developed and launched
- An educational media collection, hosted on PBS Learning Media and launched at the time the documentary aired.
The challenges were a by-product of the successes. As new opportunities increased the project’s size and ambition, the original team made discoveries about the kinds of resources, people, and planning needed. They weren’t always prepared for these; it became clear that there were missing roles to fill, and once filled, a lot of unfamiliar work to coordinate. When the PI realized that additional fundraising, marketing, graphics, web, and educational content personnel would be needed (and fast) he simply did not have a network to turn to. But an open discussion with the public media station about gaps and needs brought help in the form of a seasoned production coordinator who relieved the core team of many management duties, and had a good ‘Rolodex’ for referrals. These people did come on board, leading to a new problem, which the filmmaker described to the PI as “peak too many cooks…and you thought coordinating an interdisciplinary team in the South Pacific was hard–try wrangling a marketing director and a web dude!” They decided to form a unified editorial and operational front for key decisions, rather than letting things self-organize as they had been doing, and the work proceeded more smoothly.
Since the initial funding was insufficient to do the full documentary, the project had to work with funding channels outside of CRPA. This was in fact somewhat easier than the PI imagined it would be. The filmmaker had made a very enticing trailer that worked effectively as a fundraising pitch when combined with a slick one-sheet prepared by the university’s development office. The connection with PBS paired with NSF also helped open doors, and although the work was slow, complete funding for the project was secured. It was finished, aired, and launched online at PBS, with an educational collection at PBS Learning Media, as well as coordinated local outreach events at the university station and the university.
Currently some members of the original group are meeting informally to discuss future projects on related topics and, their appetite whetted for media projects, can’t wait to use what they have learned on their next effort. They also have begun to explore the possibility of creating a distance education offering drawing on this material, or a learning module that could be incorporated into existing MOOC that is offered by the PI’s institution.
CRPA: Looking Back & Ahead 