University student-led public engagement event: increasing audience diversity and impact in a non-science space

References

1. Dallas D. Café Scientifique--Déjà vu. Cell 2006; 126:227–229 [View Article] [PubMed]
   [Google Scholar]
2. Duckett CJ, Hargreaves KE, Rawson KM, Allen KE, Forbes S et al. Nights at the museum: integrated arts and microbiology public engagement events enhance understanding of science whilst increasing community diversity and inclusion. Access Microbiol 2021; 3:000231 [View Article] [PubMed]
   [Google Scholar]
3. Leão MJ, Castro S. Science and rock. EMBO Reports 2012; 13:954–958 [View Article]
   [Google Scholar]
4. Paul P, Motskin M. Engaging the public with your research. Trends Immunol 2016; 37:268–271 [View Article] [PubMed]
   [Google Scholar]
5. Llorente C, Revuelta G, Carrió M, Porta M. Scientists’ opinions and attitudes towards citizens’ understanding of science and their role in public engagement activities. PLoS One 2019; 14:e0224262 [View Article] [PubMed]
   [Google Scholar]
6. Stilgoe J, Lock SJ, Wilsdon J. Why should we promote public engagement with science?. Public Underst Sci 2014; 23:4–15 [View Article] [PubMed]
   [Google Scholar]
7. Ala A, Edge C, Zumla A, Shafi S. Specific COVID-19 messaging targeting ethnic minority communities. EClinicalMedicine 2021; 35:100862 [View Article] [PubMed]
   [Google Scholar]
8. Canfield KN, Menezes S, Matsuda SB, Moore A, Mosley Austin AN et al. Science communication demands a critical approach that centers inclusion, equity, and intersectionality. Front Commun 2020; 5: [View Article]
   [Google Scholar]
9. Canovan C. “Going to these events truly opens your eyes”. Perceptions of science and science careers following a family visit to a science festival. J Sci Commun 2019; 18:A01 [View Article]
   [Google Scholar]
10. Dawson E. Reimagining publics and (non) participation: Exploring exclusion from science communication through the experiences of low-income, minority ethnic groups. Public Underst Sci 2018; 27:772–786 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
11. Nielsen K, Gathings MJ, Peterman K. New, Not Different: Data-Driven Perspectives on Science Festival Audiences. Science Communication 2019; 41:254–264 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
12. Chen S, Binning KR, Manke KJ, Brady ST, McGreevy EM et al. Am i a science person? a strong science identity bolsters minority students’ sense of belonging and performance in college. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 2021; 47:593–606 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
13. Rainey K, Dancy M, Mickelson R, Stearns E, Moller S. Race and gender differences in how sense of belonging influences decisions to major in STEM. Int J STEM Educ 2018; 5:10 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
14. Lacey MM, Shaw H, Abbott N, Dalton CJ, Smith DP. How students’ inspirations and aspirations impact motivation and engagement in the first year of study. Educ Sci 2022; 12:885 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
15. Lewis KL, Stout JG, Pollock SJ, Finkelstein ND, Ito TA. Fitting in or opting out: a review of key social-psychological factors influencing a sense of belonging for women in physics. Phys Rev Phys Educ Res 2016; 12:020110 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
16. Mooney C, Becker BA. Sense of Belonging: The Intersectionality of Self-Identified Minority Status and Gender in Undergraduate Computer Science Students United Kingdom & Ireland Computing Education Research Conference; pp 24–30 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
17. O’Brien LT, Bart HL, Garcia DM. Why are there so few ethnic minorities in ecology and evolutionary biology? Challenges to inclusion and the role of sense of belonging. Soc Psychol Educ 2020; 23:449–477 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
18. LaCosse J, Canning EA, Bowman NA, Murphy MC, Logel C. A social-belonging intervention improves STEM outcomes for students who speak English as a second language. Sci Adv 2020; 6:40 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
19. Murphy MC, Gopalan M, Carter ER, Emerson KTU, Bottoms BL et al. A customized belonging intervention improves retention of socially disadvantaged students at A broad-access university. Sci Adv 2020; 6: [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
20. Dennehy TC, Dasgupta N. Female peer mentors early in college increase women’s positive academic experiences and retention in engineering. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2017; 114:5964–5969 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
21. Schinske JN, Perkins H, Snyder A, Wyer M. Scientist spotlight homework assignments shift students’ stereotypes of scientists and enhance science identity in a diverse introductory science class. CBE Life Sci Educ 2016; 15:ar47 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
22. Shin JEL, Levy SR, London B. Effects of role model exposure on STEM and non-STEM student engagement. J Appl Soc Psychol 2016; 46:410–427 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
23. Rosenthal L, Levy SR, London B, Lobel M, Bazile C. In pursuit of the MD: the impact of role models, identity compatibility, and belonging among undergraduate women. Sex Roles 2013; 68:464–473 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
24. Stout JG, Dasgupta N, Hunsinger M, McManus MA. STEMing the tide: using ingroup experts to inoculate women’s self-concept in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). J Pers Soc Psychol 2011; 100:255–270 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
25. Archer L, Dawson E, DeWitt J, Seakins A, Wong B. “Science capital”: a conceptual, methodological, and empirical argument for extending bourdieusian notions of capital beyond the arts. J Res Sci Teach 2015; 52:922–948 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
26. DeWitt J, Archer L. Participation in informal science learning experiences: the rich get richer?. Int J Sci Educ, Part B 2017; 7:356–373 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
27. PAS Public attitudes to science 2019; 2019 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/public-attitudes-to-science-2019 accessed 22 November 2022
28. Rawlinson KE, Duckett CJ, Shaw H, Woodroofe MN, Lacey MM. Family-focused campus-based university event increases perceived knowledge, science capital and aspirations across a wide demographic. Int J Sci Educ, Part B 2021; 11:273–291 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
29. Bryan R, Gagen MH, Bryan WA, Wilson GI, Gagen E. Reaching out to the hard-to-reach: mixed methods reflections of a pilot Welsh STEM engagement project. SN Soc Sci 2022; 2:10 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
30. Roberts K, Hughes R. Recognition matters: the role of informal science education programs in developing girls’ science identity. J STEM Educ Res 2022; 5:214–232 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
31. Archer L, Dawson E, Seakins A, Wong B. Disorientating, fun or meaningful? Disadvantaged families’ experiences of a science museum visit. Cult Stud of Sci Educ 2016; 11:917–939 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
32. Byrne D. A worked example of Braun and Clarke’s approach to reflexive thematic analysis. Qual Quant 2022; 56:1391–1412 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
33. Office for National Statistics 2011 UK Census. https://www.ons.gov.uk/census/2011census/2011ukcensuses accessed 22 November 2022
34. Blumenfeld PC, Kempler TM, Krajcik JS. Motivation and cognitive engagement in learning environments. In The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences Cambridge University Press; 2005 pp 475–488 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
35. Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport Taking Part Survey; 2016 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/taking-part-survey#how-to-access-survey-data accessed 22 November 2022
36. Mendoza N. The Mendoza review: an independent review of museums in England London: department for digital, culture, media and sport; 2017
37. Archer L, DeWitt J, Osborne J, Dillon J, Willis B et al. Science aspirations, capital, and family habitus. Am Educ Res J 2012; 49:881–908 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
38. Instagram, @SHU.micro. https://www.instagram.com/shu.micro/ accessed 22 November 2022