A study of a project on science stand-up comedy developed in Portugal between 2009 and 2013 is presented, in which thirteen scientists, coordinated by a science communicator and a professional actor, created and presented comedy acts. Eleven of these scientists were asked about their motivations to participate, the process of performance development and the perceived value of the project. Personal motivations were highly important, but professional reasons were also mentioned. Working in a group with the guidance of coordinators, testing and re-writing the texts and gradually gaining confidence on stage were considered fundamental in the development of the shows. Additionally, a questionnaire revealed that the audience, most of whom were young adults, and held a higher education degree, were satisfied with the show. Overall, both participating scientists and audience members considered that stand-up comedy has potential for science communication.
BauerMWJensenP (2011) The mobilization of scientists for public engagement. Public Understanding of Science20(1): 3–11.
2.
BentleyPKyvikS (2011) Academic staff and public communication: A survey of popular science publishing across 13 countries. Public Understanding of Science20(1): 48–63.
3.
BesleyJCHwaOh SNisbetM (2013) Predicting scientists’ participation in public life. Public Understanding of Science22(8): 971–987.
BucchiM (2008) Of deficits, deviations and dialogues: Theories of public communication of science. In: BucchiMTrenchB (eds) Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. London: Routledge, pp. 57–76.
6.
BultitudeK (2011) The why and how of science communication. In: RosulekP (ed.) Science Communication. Pilsen: European Commission, pp. 1–18.
7.
BultitudeKSardoAM (2012) Leisure and pleasure: Science events in unusual locations. International Journal of Science Education34(18): 2775–2795.
8.
CiceroneR (2010) Ensuring integrity in science. Science327: 624.
CoutinhoAGBettencourtMAraújoSJLamasS (2007) Os cientistas como agentes na comunicação de ciência: motivação, formação e iniciativas em Portugal. In: BarbeiroL (ed.) Comunicação de ciência. Colecção Públicos, Vol.5. Porto: Editora Setepés, pp. 75–86.
11.
DaviesSR (2008) Constructing communication: Talking to scientists about talking to the public. Science Communication29(4): 413–434.
12.
DowellEWeitkampE (2012) An exploration of the collaborative processes of making theatre inspired by science. Public Understanding of Science21(7): 891–901.
13.
DudoA (2012) Toward a model of scientists’ public communication activity: The case of biomedical researchers. Science Communication29: 413–434.
14.
FeldmanLYoungDG (2008) Late-night comedy as a gateway to traditional news: An analysis of time trends in news attention among late-night comedy viewers during the 2004 presidential primaries. Political Communication25(4): 401–422.
15.
FisherMS (1997) The effect of humor on learning in a planetarium. Science Education81(6): 703–713.
16.
GarnerR (2006) Humor in pedagogy: How ha-ha can lead to aha!. College Teaching54(1): 177–180.
17.
GlickDJ (2007) Some performance techniques of stand-up comedy: An exercise in the textuality of temporalization. Language & Communication27: 291–306.
18.
GreenbaumA (1999) Stand-up comedy as rhetorical argument: An investigation of comic culture. Humor12(1): 33–46.
Improbable Research (2013) About the Ig® Nobel prizes. Improbable Research. Available at: http://www.improbable.com/ig/
22.
KilbourneED (1996) Humor in science. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society140(3): 338–349.
23.
LeiSACohenJLRusslerKM (2010) Humor on learning in the college classroom: Evaluating benefits and drawbacks from instructors’ perspectives. Journal of Instructional Psychology37(4): 326–331.
24.
LewinRA (1983) Humour in the scientific literature. BioScience33: 266–268.
MalterudK (2001) Qualitative research: Standards, challenges, and guidelines. The Lancet358: 483–488.
27.
McCarronKSavin-BadenM (2008) Compering and comparing: Stand-up comedy and pedagogy. Innovations in Education and Teaching International4(4): 355–363.
28.
McIlvennyPMettovaaraSTapioR (1993) “I really wanna make you laugh”: Stand-up comedy and audience response. In: SuojanenMKKulkki-NieminenA (eds) Folia, Fennistica & Linguistica: Proceedings of the Annual Finnish Linguistics Symposium, May 1992. Oulu: Tampere University Finnish and General Linguistics Department Publications, 16, pp. 225–247.
29.
MillerS (2001) Public understanding of science at the crossroads. Public Understanding of Science10(1): 115–120.
30.
MillerWLCrabtreeBF (1992) Primary care research: A multimethod typology and qualitative roadmap. In: CrabtreeBFMillerWL (eds) Doing Qualitative Research. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications, pp. 3–28.
31.
MooreG (2010) UCL Beacon for Public Engagement: Six Month Review (2), September 2010. London: University College London Public Engagement Unit.
32.
MoserCKaltonG (2004) Questionnaires. In: SealeC (ed.) Social Research Methods: A Reader. London: Routledge, pp. 73–87.
PhellasCNBlochASealeC (2004) Structured methods: Interviews, questionnaires and observation. In: SealeC (ed.) Researching Society and Culture. London: SAGE Publications, pp. 182–205.
35.
PilcherH (2010) Communication: A better class of heckle. Nature467: 530.
36.
PoliakoffEWebbTL (2007) What factors predict scientists’ intentions to participate in public engagement of science activities?Science Communication29: 242–263.
RentelnPDundesA (2005) Foolproof: A sampling of mathematical folk humor. Notices of the AMS52(1): 24–34.
40.
RothWMRitchieSMHudsonPMergardV (2011) A study of laughter in science lessons. Journal of Research in Science Teaching48(5): 437–458.
41.
SagiIYechiamE (2008) Amusing titles in scientific journals and article citation. Journal of Information Science34(5): 680–687.
42.
SchwarzJ (2010) Linguistic Aspects of Verbal Humor in Stand-up Comedy. Göttingen: Sierke-Verlag.
43.
SokalRRRohlfFJ (1995) Biometry, 3rd edition. New York: Freeman & Co.
44.
SuleskiJIbarakiM (2010) Scientists are talking, but mostly to each other: A quantitative analysis of research represented in mass media. Public Understanding of Science19: 115–125.
45.
TrenchBMillerS (2012) Policies and practices in supporting scientists’ public communication through training. Science and Public Policy39: 722–731.
46.
WeitkampEBurnetF (2007) The Chemedian brings laughter to the chemistry classroom. International Journal of Science Education29(15): 1911–1929.
47.
WellsPBullP (2007) From politics to comedy: A comparative analysis of affiliative audience responses. Journal of Language and Social Psychology26(4): 321–342.
48.
WrightKB (2005) Researching internet-based populations: Advantages and disadvantages of online survey research, online questionnaire authoring software packages, and web survey services. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication10(3): article 11.
49.
ZarkadakisG (2010) FameLab: A talent competition for young scientists. Science Communication32: 281–287.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
