Good practice guidelines for dialogue events: doing it better

Through Small Talk events and evaluation we are continuously finding out about how best to engage the public and scientists on issues surrounding nanotechnologies.

We evaluate every Small Talk event that takes place by asking event organisers, speakers and participants about their experiences and opinions of the event. From this evaluation we are learning what people like and dislike about dialogue events on nanotechnologies and what works well or not so well.

You'll find details of the lessons we are learning below. See the menu for links to other resources that we have found helpful - we hope that they will be useful to you in organising future events.

Ecsite-uk have also collated lessons from nanotechnology events. See: Small Talk Lessons Meeting Report (PDF)

Lessons learned

Each Small Talk event is evaluated to find out what worked well and how we could do things better. From these evaluations, we have drawn the following lessons:

1. Speakers should be well briefed

It is important that there is a dialogue between speakers and organisers beforehand to ensure that everyone is clear about the aims of the Small Talk events, that the scientific level of the presentations are appropriate to the audience and that duplication of material by different speakers is minimised. It might be helpful to give an indication of the audience’s understanding of nanotechnologies and guidance on good practice in presenting nanotechnologies - using everyday examples, existing applications, simple descriptions and explanations and avoiding use of scientific jargon for instance. The time allocated to each speaker should also be made clear and speakers warned that the chair will enforce this!

After our first event, we developed a briefing note for Small Talk speakers, which we have used to prepare for future events. Those speakers who have taken the briefing into account have proved to be better at pitching and timing their presentations and have received much more positive feedback from participants!

2. The framing of the debates is important

Speakers’ presentations and the topics chosen for discussion should have common threads and focus to avoid confusion and reflect the interests of audiences. A clearer context for each discussion may make it easier for audiences to engage whatever their level of scientific understanding.

3. The role of the chair is important

Perhaps more so in Small Talk events than those not included in a similar programme. By introducing Small Talk to audiences and explaining its aims and objectives, the chair of an event can help to frame the debate and encourage participants to share their views. In future, the chair could also possibly outline the science of nanotechnologies – avoiding the risk of expert speakers misjudging the level of knowledge of the audience. The chair’s role is also important in keeping speakers to time and facilitating open discussion.

4. Ice breaker discussions amongst audience were valuable

In our first event, audience members were given the opportunity to discuss the presentations with their neighbour before questions or comments were taken. This format was useful in allowing each participant to get the chance to discuss their interests and concerns with at least one other person and to think about these issues before open discussion takes place.

5. Think about whether you want to involve the speakers in breakout groups

On the 1 February 2005, 35 school students took part in a discussion event at the Royal Institution. The speakers who introduced the topic of nanotechnology were PhD students and joined the participants in the breakout groups. Participants' feedback commented favourably on this aspect of the programme as it allowed participants to quiz speakers further and use their knowledge to inform the debate. More importantly, it enabled the speakers (the majority of whom were scientists) to hear the views of the participants and gain valuable perspectives on their work.

Involving the speakers in the discussions will however inevitably change the nature of the discussion. There are also issues of power and balance of authority, particularly if you have a small audience and lots of speakers. It's important then that you give these questions careful thought while planning your event.

In many of our events, both scientists and non-scientists have reported that the most valuable aspect of the event was the chance to speak informally (e.g. in small groups) with each other.

6. Consider the layout of the room

When we arrived at our event at the Dana Centre on 11 April 2005, the room was laid out in the traditional way with the speakers placed on a stage at the front of the room. We felt that this arrangement didn't encourage discussion or encourage participants to feel that their views were as valuable as the 'expert' views. So we moved the speakers to sit amongst the audience and speak from a much more 'equal' position.

7. Plan enough time for discussions

Leaving a few minutes at the end of an event isn't enough time for discussions. Plan the focus of the event around the discussions, with presentations supplementing these activities.

Discussions also ask participants to work and can be tiring, so think about using presentations to break up the sessions and allow some breathing and thinking space for participants.

8. Clearly focused presentations and discussions work well

During our event with school children on 1 February 2005, the questions to the participants were well framed and there was no sense of confusion over the reason for the discussions as there was in previous events. We found that focusing on particular aspects nanotechnology such as risks, benefits and moral implications encourages deeper and more meaningful debate.

9. Allowing time for evaluation encourages participant feedback

By allowing 5 minutes at the end of the 1 February event for evaluation, a response rate of around 90% was achieved with the postcards, and three speakers and both organisers completed the surveys. The improved response rate from speakers may have also been helped by speakers agreeing to take part in the evaluation before the survey was distributed.

10. Perceived policy impact

The majority of participants at our event on 11 April did not understand how the event could have a policy impact. Future events could summarise how the results from Small Talk will be used to engage policymakers. It would also be useful to encourage policymakers to attend and contribute to future events if possible.