Dr Matt Smith writes on how his work with puppets helps to bridge the gap between young people and academic research.
Puppetry has been utilised as an effective mechanism to facilitate conversation and communicate complex topics across a variety of disciplines. To cross various ethical scientific boundaries and provoke discussions, our project aimed to utilise puppets as an effective and entertaining ‘bridge’ to increase the confidence of young people enabling them to question & explore scientific endeavours and to increase the confidence of engineers to communicate their work with young people.
Our intention was to develop an art-science approach that both developed the science communication abilities of a group of engineers and could also enable the increased aspirations of young people from under-served communities.
This proof-of-concept was anchored in the research of The Centre for Enzyme Innovation (CEI), which focuses on developing bio-technological solutions as a low carbon solution for recycling problem plastic waste in a circular economy. The science was effectively interpreted and discussed through co-design puppetry workshops between engineers from University of Portsmouth and young people from the community through engagement with community partners Artswork, The Makers Guild, the company Making Theatre Making Change in Bognor Regis and Secondary School students at the Admiral Lord Nelson School in Portsmouth.
Through this approach, we demonstrated that young people gained a deeper understanding whilst engineers felt more confident and motivated in using arts-based techniques. We demonstrated that puppetry can be used to bridge the gap between scientists/engineers and under-served communities, though this can be limited by the power dynamics that currently exist in society. Care should be taken on the routes to encourage democratisation of research over extractivism of thoughts and experiences in these communities.
Background
The intention in our project was to impart this shifting of power from positions where experts are not just giving knowledge, but they are involved in a process where they become facilitators of knowledge through creatively sharing with groups who are met within a creative, flexible and equitable space, usually a workshop. In the practice of Welfare State International 1968-2008 (Fox 2009), collective experiences were created using visual performances to engage communities in events. Objects were created to provoke reactions in communities in a very open democratised space of creativity. Some of their work used puppets to create community narratives and visually capture the imaginations of everyday people. Their principals for an inclusive way to engage people through ‘wonder’ in creative practice was a key influence on this project.
Approach
Mixed with this cutting edge research, we brought skills in artistic practice inspired by an ecological imperative. Eco-art is a way to approach the object world and the environment positively acknowledging how we are part of a system of objects. Forms of eco-art emphasise the need to relate to objects and hyper objects in a more considered, attuned and appreciative way (Morton, 2021). Tim Morton, an important voice in eco-philosophy and culture argues that ‘Art is important to understanding our relationship to non-humans, to grasping an object-oriented ontological sense of our existence. Art fails in this regard when it tries to mimic the transmission of sheer quantities of data; it's not artful enough’ (2021, 57). In our approach, we believed that the objects could enable art making, but also encourage in participants an ecological approach and ambition to the material world around us.
Evaluation/reflection
A key focus of the project was how arts activities that encourage engagement affected science engineers. This small cohort of eleven were asked to respond in simple surveys.
Our standard impact questions for young people demonstrated that the majority of participants (79%) learnt something new about science engineering. This also applied to gaining a deeper understanding of what engineers do (86%) and how engineering improves our lives (79%). Qualitative feedback highlighted that they learnt “why engineering is important” and commented that it was “educational in a fun way”. From the adult public joining the final workshop, only 10% of attendees had a lot of knowledge about engineering, with 27.59% having little knowledge. Engagement was limited across most questions asked, however we received many responses on art, science and engineering.
What next?
Moving forward, we are planning to publish an article in Research for All. We will be working to cascade the skills onwards from the cohort of engineers, and develop follow up workshops and a talk for the Royal Academy of Engineering.