 This is the definition by the NCCPE, the National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement in the UK. They say public engagement describes the myriad of ways in which the activity and benefits of higher education and research can be shared with the public. Engagement is by definition a two-way process involving interaction and listening with the goal of generating mutual benefit. So here we have one possible definition, the one of the NCCPE, and the thing we might want to keep from this definition is, first of all, the myriad of ways. There is, and we'll see this in the upcoming examples, a myriad of ways to do public engagements, and there is no bad way or better way. But they have various impacts. They also will involve you in various different ways, and it will be up to you to find yours. But there is obviously at least one, if not several types of public engagements for you. The other thing is that as you've outlined yourself, it's a two-way process, which means if this is a space in public engagement, it's a process where you will not be here only to explain things, but also to listen to other, to have some feedback, to realize something about your research, maybe, or about how it is perceived. But don't expect in public engagement to be just disseminating your results. It's going to be a real meeting with a new stakeholder. Involving interaction and listening and generating mutual benefits will come this a bit later. We will not in this training tackle all the benefits for your research of public engagement, because I think this is tackled by the master classes you're having with Excite, where you can also see some much more detailed analysis of the various impacts on researchers of public engagement. So this is from the website of the NCCP. On the same website they mentioned a few practices and names that you've already mentioned here on the board before, such as patient involvement, where, especially in health research, we're going to involve patients in the research, so they will also give ideas, give their views, and think about the ongoing research and influence the ongoing research. I would reach, as you've said, community engagement where you will work with a specific community, collaborative research where you will actually really do the research and produce knowledge with some citizens, life-long learning, participatory arts, where you can use the arts also as a means for engagement or citizen science. But let's have a few examples. First of all, here you can see the first question we may ask ourselves is when we do public engagement, who should do the public engagement? Should it be the researcher or facilitator? In whatever action you will do, both are always possible. It's always possible to go yourself speaking with the audience and doing the thing yourself, or if you have to interact with the audience, you may ask a professional to do it. And you can also have both at the same time. So in the upper left part of the screen, you can see from University of Bristol, this is from the three-minute thesis scheme where researchers share their research and explain what it is in only three minutes. So this is a very simple process where a researcher comments in three minutes, my research is about this. This is why it's so important and interesting and try to be engaging with it. On the right side, what you can see is once again me a long time ago as a facilitator, as a demonstrator here, and here I'm not as a researcher. So I can do things from my own skills as a demonstrator like being held by the audience. I asked some people in the audience to come and hold me in the air so I could throw this bottle up. I know ways to engage the audience, which is great that researchers don't know, but there is something I don't have when I'm here on the right. I am not a researcher myself, which means I cannot say, this is what my research is about. This is what I'm crying at night about because my results are not the right one I was expecting. This is what excites me in the morning when I go to work. This is the very last results I just got from my lab, or this is something that's been blocking me for month and month. I cannot share what is the real research process and what is the real daily research life in a lab. I can tell about it, I can story tell about it, but it will be something very different than experience as having a real researcher meeting and discussing so that we can understand what their life is and how research also changed the perception of the world. In the bottom part, on the left, you can see lots of students and here I was leading a workshop with researchers, meaning we had both in the room, the researchers and myself, which means that I was leading the workshop with students, but researchers were also present to discuss with the students and present their research and that was a nice way to have both advantages, like a format that is very well defined, but also some direct contact between researchers and people and audiences. Now it's time to tackle something that is impossible to avoid when we speak about public engagement, which is deficit versus dialogue. Have you ever heard about this deficit versus dialogue paradigm where you can write yes or no in the chat of the Zoom call? No, not much, all right, it's a very classical paradigm for public engagement professionals. So dozens of years ago, the deficit model of science communication was built, which was the idea that if people maybe did not, were not so as interested as science as we thought they should be, or were not accepting everything as we thought they should be, that was probably because they were not knowledgeable enough, and that's because they just didn't know science enough. So we had plenty of activities to teach, explain science, have people understand science, discover science, and we did a lot of this. And that was in the 1990s, we had a lot of activities this way, but quite soon we realized that this was actually from studies, we saw that it was not fully efficient, and that very often people were having sometimes some opposition to scientific fields or to some science questions, not because they didn't know enough, they knew a lot, or if we gave their knowledge, they were happy to have knowledge, but they were not more engaged for this. What they needed is a space to dialogue, a space where they could speak up, where they could think and share, not just listen and be told. And many dialogue even started to rise up like the science cafes where you go in a cafe and you meet a scientist, and the scientists would tell you about their research, and you will of course be able to ask questions and discuss with the scientists. And on your right here, you have a picture from another European project which was called SPARKS, and that led reverse science cafes, meaning that here you have a scientist, but the scientists will speak very little, will introduce their research, and actually the conversation will really be led by the audiences who will think, who will give their views and ask the scientists questions, but the scientists will have less time to present their research and more time to react to the views, questions, and elements presented by the non-academic in the room in the cafe. And so in the upper part, you have an example of the Royal Institution, which is a wonderful example of a classic deficit model action where we have a wonderful conference from a great presenter showing us their great results of science, and this is wonderful. Please do not do not think that deficit actions, deficit model actions are always bad at all. They are some wonderful ones and they are part of the landscape of the engagement. And here we have the Royal Lectures from the Royal Institutions, which are a huge institution here in the UK, great quality conferences. And you have the opposite on the left side in the down part, where you can see some young people discussing together. And here there is no scientist, there is no researcher, no one is giving them the knowledge. The little bit of knowledge they have, very tiny bits, are actually on the green cards and the blue cards that you see on the table. These young people have little cards, it's a game called play decide, and some of these cards contain some a few science facts, but just a few tiny bits. Some others contain some questions, more open, complicated questions or controversial questions. And some others will tell, will be story cards, well you will see a character telling you, I am an activist in that field and I think that or I am a mother of two child and I think this. And using those cards, these young people are going to start to reflect and debate. And they will debate on a topic that can be about genetic disease, it can be about a wide range of topic very often health related because there are a lot of controversial topics or at least good topics for debate there. There are a lot of topics on your science, so you can, if you go on the play decide website, you'll see a huge wealth of play decide games that have been designed by science professionals or science engagement professionals, you can also design yours yourself if you'd like. You have all the necessary tools there. It's also quite long game this this one it takes more than one hour but you have some much shorter ones as well, which aim not to give a lot of content but to give very little content and have people with that little content start debating, start reflecting and most of all start confronting to the others opinions and seeing can they do have a consensus can they build some kinds of consensus somewhere. So it's also very much a critical thinking exercise. Another question you may ask yourself when you do public engagement is what role do I want the audience members to have the publics as we say, although publics are very diverse crowd. What role do I want for them from them. Do I want them to respect data, do I want them to be actor and when I say actor how much involvement will they have a very simple involvement is given on the picture on the, on the left, which is from science gallery Dublin. And this is from their, from their exhibition which was called trauma science gallery Dublin just closed unfortunately but you have other science galleries in the world now it was the first one that the one in Dublin. And they had this beautiful exhibitions on mixing art and science, always on a very interdisciplinary topic like love or happiness or trauma. And here on this one on trauma was also a lot about memory of course. And the picture you can see is a kind of closet, which is for laundering memories. So when you arrive in the exhibition, you would have a little sheet of paper given to you, and you would get two memories on this sheet of paper, a good one, and a bad one. And the facilitator in front of you will take this piece of paper will put it in one of the drawers, close the drawer with a lock and a key, give you the key so you're sure no one can open it when while you are not here, and you will go visit the exhibition, and at the end of the exhibition you will give back the key will open the drawer and will give you back your paper. But meanwhile, something will have changed. What will have changed is that this little paper with your memories would have been slightly amended by facilitators meaning that it now state not the original memory you have written, but it will state now the memories modified by time. And for this, the Science Gallery team will use the current research on memories showing how with time our mind is changing memories, removing piece of information, adding some pieces of information, changing some, and they will use this to show you how a memory is affected over time and how it changes. And so this is a very simple activity. But through this, there is something a little bit more involving the lecture in this process, which is the audience, give their own memory here. You do not tell them what is amended usually memories. Everyone can see their own memories being actually changed and working with your own elements of your own life is a super efficient and involving elements in public engagement. So, this is of course a question for you, for you, all of you, are there ways in which your research can relate to the personal life of someone and where they can actually find a link and be more involved. On the right side, you can see another participatory process. If you see the big panel what controls our perception of time and kind of slowed down. This is not from Dublin. This is from Bristol from with a curious sand center in Bristol, which completely changed its ground floor and instead of dividing the sections of the main exhibition by disciplines for example, physics biology or by topics. What it did was gather questions from the citizens of Bristol. So in the street in the sand center in Bristol schools, as much as possible everywhere they gathered. I think 10,000 questions from the city, and they then try to curate the questions used also youth board to curate the questions with them. So those questions defined the main sections of the science centers and they try to use very interdisciplinary questions like, is there another me in the universe. So there is one part of the museum where it's written is there another me in the universe and you'll think about this question from, of course, a genetic perspective but also from an cosmology perspective is there another universe similar to ours somewhere from different disciplines in the photo the photo question. Can I become invisible. It will be tackled through optics, but it will also tackle through social sciences and what is social invisibility and you will have an association speaking about homeless people and how you can become socially invisible things like this. So, from drawing from people people's question, you can build quite a rich and engaging frame as well. And in the, in the downside part, you can see some people prototyping and this is part of the churfi festival, which is used the living lab methodology where people are designing their own ideas, testing their own prototypes. So this is a methodology where the audience is actually the main lead, and we are supporting them to build their own projects, and to be part of a research process or an innovation process as really co lead of what's happening. So the questions that some of you had in the survey is in real life or online all the examples I've given so far were in real life. But of course you can engage a lot online. And the first project I wanted to present you is a very old project it's from 2008. So I don't know if you remember 2008. I'm not sure you already had to Twitter existed but at that time you probably didn't have Twitter yet your Twitter account yet. Facebook did exist but didn't make much money at what wasn't the first cash for positive cash flow Facebook 2009 so it's really the very beginning of social media. So 2008, we have this team at the University of Nottingham, especially the most hairy one with Professor Polyakov, who decided to have this periodic table of videos, and they make this very low cost, the very low cost website which is honestly not pretty at all it's great. You can see a periodic table of elements. It's not very engaging in itself but they make it anyway. And they decide to make in one month, one video for each element so a short video, very homemade, not really not beautiful at all, telling about hydrogen telling about lithium for every element you click on you will have a YouTube video on it. So it was done very quickly. It was not very costly, and it had quite a huge success. And they were quite clever in the way to build on that success and today it has, I think, 50 million views on YouTube, their videos, they have something like 350,000 followers for their channel so it's a huge success. And for me the lessons that this tells us is that for online engagement. The great thing is you can start really low, you can you can do your video even if it's not good if the first one is that it's okay. You can start engaging, not at a very strong level and you can start testing formats, testing some ideas. And from all the discussion I've had with people who engage online on social media. And in the recurring phrases, we never know what will go viral. We'll never know what will go viral and sometimes something completely unexpected. So, the only way to know is to produce and strangely enough on online, especially on social media. Many people who are successful are focusing on quantity rather than quality which is quite shocking for me as a professional I try to have always the best quality ever. And people who said no, I make a lot of videos, some not all of them are good but it's okay, but I make a lot of them that's the most important thing has been quite quite a shock. But it's the interesting thing is that it means you can start really small, you don't have to design a whole thing have a beautiful image, a wonderful website, you can quickly start engaging here. On the, on the lower part you can see a satellite on the left, which is done by TinkerCAD and it's linked also with the small YouTube videos from the Abbess Foundation that you can see close to it. And this is part of a work I'm doing with the Abbess Foundation, where at some point we offered people to watch short videos, 90 seconds long videos, and do some activities on TinkerCAD which is 3D design. But very simple 3D design, it can be done by an eight year old child, where you will react to the video by building your own satellite or your own rocket drone, moon rover, or whatever to to to respond to the video. But if you now look on the right, you have a few examples on social media. And I voluntarily didn't choose Facebook or Twitter but I looked for a bit more recent ones. So on the other part, you can see microbiology, which is the Instagram account of Dr. Heinz, and Heinz shares his research. You can see here, beautiful photos of what he's doing, he shares also stories about how the research is going and what he's doing daily on his research, he has a huge number of followers, I think as 144,000 followers. And that's, that can be a very simple and nice way to share your research online. If Instagram is actually quite, quite efficient here, on TikTok, we don't have yet many researchers on TikTok. But we have a few ones I did put you here, Rachel Brenner, who is sharing a lot on TikTok. So TikTok is strange because it's a lot for entertainment. On TikTok, people don't go there to find content or to find very deep content or documentation. Usually they go there to entertain themselves with funny videos. And on this channel, so Rachel Brenner does some TikTok videos, meaning they are funny videos telling about her life as a PhD researcher, then her life as a researcher after her PhD, the questions she has. And she actually has quite a lot of followers as well, it works very well. And I don't think, really don't think all of them are PhD researchers or from the academia, even though obviously a part of them are. And this is, it was interesting to me also because usually I used in the past to focus a lot on the content when I would engage online. Here we can see on TikTok, people engaging in a very shallow way with the content and sharing much more their personal life as a researcher and really intertwining their life as a researcher with the content to share. And I think that's one of the big strengths of public engagement where you can yourself tell not just about the topic you're studying or researching, but about who you are, what's your life, what makes your day miserable today, what makes your day wonderful today. And you can have fun with this and engage people with a mixed thing where there will be some elements of content and some elements of other things that will make the content a bit more human. So it can be an interesting and mean as well. No, the question you another question you ask yourself, if you are, if you are doing public engagement is where will I do it. We have seen online space but even in real life space. Should I go in a science center, you all probably have science centers in your cities or in your regions do with do will I do it in a science festival, and you have great science festivals all over Europe. Or will I go where people are where people who don't go to science festival people and that's the virtue of something like going on tiktok as well is you reach people who would never go in a science engagement event or platform. For example, you have the leaf lab photos here, and this photo is on the upper left, and this photo is in Scotland. It's a shopping mall, and we it's a program of scientists in residency in a shopping mall so people who go shopping with their families who would maybe never go to a science related event. Just come here and wonder what's happening and the chat with a scientist doing their research the chat with some facilitators and do a few activities, and you can reach a whole different audience. On the lower part, you can see Bristol fairy on the t-shirt of the lady that's here, and she's actually making a pompom and that's part of fun palaces or a great campaign for art and science activities that is community led all over the UK and now even beyond. And here, the as an activity related to health, we had the people in the Bristol fairy actually make pompoms stick some little health advice labels on the pompoms right to health advice on the label and decorate the boat with the pompoms. So the ferry boat was all decorated and this is a small ferry boat that goes all day long back and forth in Bristol. And that means that actually transportation time of people is a time that often they don't know what to do with. So it's a great time to engage with them if they want to. And it's also a great space to reach people once again that may discover that they're fascinated by your by your research, but would never, never, never come to you in a space that is rich research labeled. So you can come to them here and you have something similar on the right, which is also part of one palaces. This is the train in Bristol that goes from in various cities and many people use it to commute in the morning and evening. And during that commute time, we had here a drawer drawing pictures of people and you can build an engagement activity as well in in the train in the subway. So you have to find the right activities for the right element but but you can really use those spaces. As a last very last slide and then we'll do a couple of minutes break. What will you engage people with if you do public engagement with your research results or with your results research process. So very classical thing you can engage with your research results and that's wonderful for example in the upper left, you can see a board game. It's a part of an activity that was led by malignar to in France, and they built with researchers board game to understand what how we can have a better energy mix of their use energy sources for ecological reasons but that would be still acceptable for economical reasons so they made a board game out of this, and we they even had some students test it feedback transform the game. And that's great. That's built on the research results from that group of researchers. But if you go to the Instagram account on the lower part of a pond life pond life. Here Sally worrying is sharing what her daily life as a researcher is so she's not sharing so much about the great results, but she's sharing what she's doing daily. She's taking some samples analyzing them. What is her daily life as a researcher. And if you go to the anti not only the daily life with her research process how is she analyzing things how is she comparing the results. And on the right, you have this little colorful box and disposed it. And this is an activity from the science museum in London. And the goal of this activity is to the mystery boxes is to understand what the research process is in general and you have these nice boxes with numbers. And each of them has something different inside. And what you have to do is to discover what's inside so you have usually a group of children and they will try to discover what's inside. They cannot open the box, because the box are sealed. So they will very often shake the box and listen to it, they will weigh the box, they will use plenty of different tools to analyze what could be inside the box. So we'll make some hypothesis oh I think it's sand or maybe I think it's a little marble inside. Yeah, but how, how heavy is it is it a marble is it the same weight as a marble, they will start questioning themselves. And they will not open the box because the box are sealed. So they will just make these hypothesis, discuss together, present to the others, their conclusions, have their conclusion contested by the others because the others would say wait, if you say this then maybe it's a different question you should be, you should be having. So what they will go through is actually a peer reviewed process in between children, and they will discover all the skills, also the social skills and the variety of skills you need to do science, which is not just doing math or using a microscope, but also going through all this social process of peer reviewed research. So at the very end of the activity, the most cruel thing, and in my view, the most beautiful thing is that when the activity is over, you cannot open the box, because the box are sealed. So no one knows the truth, no one knows what's inside the box. What we only know is what is our best hypothesis, what is the most, the only results where we have a kind of consensus between researchers, but we never had anything where we said okay, we opened the box, we know the truth, it's over. It's never totally over, because we're always at risk that someone else might say wait, I have a new experiment that may change the result. So it's a nice way to engage with what the research process is, and once again, if you design your future public engagement action, you may try to engage on your life as a researcher on the results of your research, or you engage on how do I build knowledge, how do I go on and analyze things, how do I analyze things as an individual, and how do we analyze things as a research community, and how do we build knowledge. Just before I leave you, I would like to first thank you, but also leave you with a few questions. And these are questions for you to reflect during the week, the upcoming week. In which way could your research connect with people? Your research might be very close to people's life or very far away, but they are ways, they are metaphors, they are, they will be obviously ways. That's some questions that public engagement associate would tell you to support you. So in which way would connect with people, how much will you need to tell the research, or could you trigger a dialogue rather than telling the audience. What kind of involvement the public could have, how strong, how much of an actor, how involved in your research? Would you be more comfortable in real life, or would you be happy to try online or even go on social media and start dialogue maybe on Twitter? And what kind of spaces could you use? Are there some science centers or some museums around you, some NGOs working in public engagement in science that could help you? Maybe could you go and partner with a nursery, with a shopping mall, or with a transportation in the city? So I leave this up to you. These are questions for you to reflect to go on with your future project of public engagement.