As a form of public engagement, science festivals have rapidly expanded in size and number over recent years. However, as with other domains of informal public engagement that are not linked to policy outcomes, existing research does not fully address science festivals’ impacts and popularity. This study adduces evidence from surveys and focus groups to elucidate the perspectives of visitors at a large UK science festival. Results show that visitors value the opportunities afforded by the science festival to interact with scientific researchers and to encounter different types of science engagement aimed at adults, children and families. The most significant self-reported impact of attending a science festival is the development of increased interest in and curiosity about new areas of scientific knowledge within a socially stimulating and enjoyable setting.
BuckleyNHordijenkoS (2011) Science festivals. In: BennettDJenningsR (eds) Successful Science Communication: Telling It Like It Is. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 312–331.
4.
BultitudeKMcDonaldDCusteadS (2011) The rise and rise of science festivals: An international review of organised events to celebrate science. International Journal of Science Education: Part B: Communication and Public Engagement1(2): 165–188.
DawsonEJensenE (2011) Towards a ‘contextual turn’ in visitor research: Evaluating audience segmentation and identity-related motivations. Visitor Studies14(2): 127–140.
DerrettR (2004) Festivals, events and the destination. In: YeomanIRobertsonMAli-KnightJDrummondSMcMahon-BeattieU (eds) Festivals and Event Management: An International Arts and Culture Perspective. London: Elsevier, pp. 32–50.
10.
EUSCEA (2005) White Book on Science Communication Events in Europe. Vienna: European Science Events Association.
11.
FurutaMHayashiTHosokawaYKakefuTNishiharaH (1998) Consumer attitudes to radiation and irradiated potatoes at “radiation fair” in Osaka, Japan. Radiation Physics and Chemistry52: 67–71.
12.
GoffmanE (1961) Fun in games. In: GoffmanE (ed.) Encounters: Two Studies in the Sociology of Interaction. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, pp. 17–84.
HollimanRJensenE (2009) (In)authentic science and (im)partial publics: (Re)constructing the science outreach and public engagement agenda. In: HollimanRWhiteleggEScanlonESmidtSThomasJ (eds) Investigating Science Communication in the Information Age: Implications for Public Engagement and Popular Media. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 35–52.
16.
HollimanRColllinsTJensenETaylorP (2009) ISOTOPE: Informing Science Outreach and Public Engagement. Final Report of the NESTA-funded ISOTOPE Project. Milton Keynes: The Open University.
17.
House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology (2000) Third Report on Science and Society. London.
IrwinA (2008) Risk, science and public communication: Third order thinking about scientific culture. In: BucchiMTrenchB (eds) Public Communication of Science and Technology Handbook. London: Routledge, pp. 199–212.
20.
IrwinA (2009) Moving forwards or in circles? Science communication and scientific governance in an age of innovation. In: HollimanRWhiteleggEScanlonESmidtSThomasJ (eds) Investigating Science Communication in the Information Age: Implications for Public Engagement and Popular Media. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–17.
21.
JensenE (2008) The Dao of human cloning: Hope, fear and hype in the UK press and popular films. Public Understanding of Science17(2): 123–143.
22.
JensenE (2011) Evaluate impact of communication. Nature469 (13January): 162.
23.
JensenEBuckleyN (2011) The Role of University Student Volunteers in Festival-based Public Engagement. Bristol: National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement.
24.
JensenEHollimanR (2009) Investigating science communication to inform science outreach and public engagement. In: HollimanRWhiteleggEScanlonESmidtSThomasJ (eds) Investigating Science Communication in the Information Age: Implications for Public Engagement and Popular Media. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 55–71.
25.
JensenEWagonerB (2009) A cyclical model of social change. Culture & Psychology15(2): 217–228.
26.
JensenEWagonerB (2012) Conclusion: Cycles of social change. In: WagonerBJensenEOldmeadowJ (eds) Culture and Social Change: Transforming Society through the Power of Ideas. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishers, pp. 323–338.
27.
KitzingerJ (1994) The methodology of focus groups: The importance of interaction between research participants. Sociology of Health and Illness16(1): 103–121.
28.
KitzingerJBarbourR (1999) Introduction: The challenge and promise of focus groups. In: BarbourRKitzingerJ (eds) Developing Focus Group Research: Politics, Theory and Practice. London: SAGE, pp. 1–20.
29.
MacNaghtenPKearnesMBWynneB (2005) Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: What role for the social sciences?Science Communication27(2): 268–291.
Research Councils UK (2008) Public Attitudes to Science 2008. Swindon: RCUK.
35.
Research Councils UK (2010) Concordat on Engaging the Public with Science. RCUK.
36.
RoweGFrewerL (2005) A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology and Human Values30(2): 251–290.
37.
Science Festival Alliance (2012) A First Look at Science Festivals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Museum. Available at (accessed 18 July 2012): http://sciencefestivals.org/news/140.html
38.
StilgoeJIrwinAJonesK (2006) The Received Wisdom: Opening Up Expert Advice. London: DEMOS.
39.
StraussACorbinJ (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
WagonerB (2008) Developing ‘development’ in theory and method. In: AbbeyEDiriwatcherR (eds) Innovating Genesis: Microgenesis and the Constructive Mind in Action. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishers, pp. 39–61.
42.
WagonerBJensenE (2010) Science learning at the zoo: Evaluating children’s developing understanding of animals and their habitats. Psychology & Society3(1): 65–76.
