Looking Back to Think Ahead: Reflections on Science Festival Evaluation and Research

Abstract

This methodological review considers science festival evaluation and research studies that have been published in the peer-reviewed literature since 2011, when modern-day science festivals were defined formally. Since that time, the number of science festivals around the world has increased dramatically. The methods and results used to study science festivals are summarized in order to reflect on existing work within this growing sector. The existing literature base is then positioned in relation to recent recommendations for visitor studies research on informal science learning overall, to provide suggestions for expanding current practices to include new methods that have the potential to support continued learning and fill key gaps in the literature.

How are public engagement health festivals evaluated? A systematic review with narrative synthesis

“…The studies’ frequent use of evaluation forms is in line with observations of overreliance on audience self-report [ 21 ]. However, the higher quality studies used a wider range of evaluation methods.…”

“…Evaluation of the PE impact on children is often mediated by adults (e.g. teachers and parents), and uses different delivery formats, purposes, venues and times compared to adult-orientated PE events [ 21 ]. Studies of mixed populations of families/ children and adults were included if the adult data could be extracted for the synthesis.…”

“…With the proliferation of PE activity comes the need to understand how specific types of PE such as festivals work, who they work for and why [ 18 ]. Good quality evaluation of science and health-related festivals, with reflection and learning from current evaluation practice, is therefore essential [ 19 – 21 ]. A previous review of science festival evaluation by Peterman and colleagues [ 21 ] examined the methods and results reported in published science festival evaluations and research.…”

“…Good quality evaluation of science and health-related festivals, with reflection and learning from current evaluation practice, is therefore essential [ 19 – 21 ]. A previous review of science festival evaluation by Peterman and colleagues [ 21 ] examined the methods and results reported in published science festival evaluations and research. Their review examined the literature from an expert standpoint within the context of visitor studies and informal science learning, however they did not use systematic review methods, included evaluations published after 2011 only, and excluded studies of individual activities within festivals.…”

“…While guidance is available for researchers evaluating a PE event [ 22 , 23 ], PE evaluation efforts have been criticised for poor design, execution, and interpretation [ 20 ], for example, use of a restricted range of evaluation methods [ 21 ], and using evaluation as a token activity to justify funding [ 24 ]. The Queen Mary University of London (QMUL) public engagement evaluation toolkit [ 25 , 26 ] has been developed as an open-access, pragmatic, generic toolkit applicable to diverse forms of academic PE and proposed as a “common ‘evaluation standard’” [ 27 ].…”