I can’t agree more strongly with the title of Madhusudan Raman’s recent article in The Wire, ‘Science Outreach Is Great but Scientists Must Consider Who They’re Reaching’, and the point he makes about how it is worthwhile for academics to consider who the public constitutes and how or why they are reaching out to them. However, most academics who are involved in such outreach activities, if not the academic institutions they are at, do think about such issues and are usually aware of the lack of inclusiveness that Raman has pointed out.
The ‘flagship’ programmes mentioned in the article are important institutional steps towards more inclusive communication of science in general, which Raman also notes. It is also nice to see that, more recently, these have sparked a lively debate online and elsewhere on how scientists should engage in what type of outreach, why, with whom and where. Most people agree that these programmes should be as publicly accessible as possible and the institutions running them often make efforts to ensure they are.
The point Raman makes about language is worth more thought considering our large and linguistically diverse electorate. But these issues seem much harder for scientists to address not just because the medium of scientific research in India is mostly English but also because researchers often find themselves living and working in areas outside where their native language is spoken.
Perhaps institutions should be working with more local science popularisation organisations to be more linguistically accessible. Scientists should also consider communicating science in Indian languages – directly in their native language or with translators. Individuals can do these things with the institutional support of translators, science communicators, etc.
Outreach not a substitute for education
I would like to respond specifically to the suggestions made by Raman about ‘local’ outreach, which is not a reasonable way for scientific institutions to engage with the public for a few reasons.
First, it is unfair to suggest that scientific institutions should be responsible to fill the gaps in the education system at any level that are a result of inadequate teacher training, time and/or support. There are systemic problems here that need to be addressed but scientific and research institutions are not equipped to deal with this. Moreover, it is not clear if or how the ‘local’ outreach as outlined in Raman’s article can contribute towards solving these problems in the long run. Such institutional engagement cannot substitute for nurturing a robust educational infrastructure.
Next, scientific institutions are not engaged in the instruction of pedagogy and scientists are generally not trained to interact with or educate children in any serious, long-term capacity. Therefore, to expect a largely untrained and inexperienced group of individuals to carry out or even supplement the herculean task of teaching at the school-level may not be a helpful or effective solution.
Finally, Raman does not consider some basic constraints of the current system at the levels of our research institutions as well as at our schools. There are often not enough interested academics willing to visit government schools in the neighbourhood, never mind all schools in an area and definitely not for different sections, classes and subjects. Additionally, schools are often already strapped for time; arranging extra classes normally involves excluding other portions of the class – either because they have other extracurricular activities or because they are unable or unwilling to make an extra trip to school.
More involvement in curriculum planning
Despite these issues, at most academic institutions, there are a handful of committed graduate students, postdoctoral fellows and members of the faculty who regularly interact formally and informally with school-goers, either their wards’ peers or at schools in their neighbourhoods. These scientists often engage with the children through a range of activities, from helping them with their assignments to preparing for exams and conducting activities generally related to mathematics and science. If the point Raman is making is that more people should or can do this – it would be great if they do. However, this need not be institutionalised, if at all it can be.
In colleges, the broad objections to ‘local’ outreach are similar, with the added problem of a relatively technical syllabus that requires even more time and training to teach and communicate well. Apart from this, school or college students – as well as scientists – may want to spend their free time in other ways.
A more fruitful and feasible way for institutions to contribute to school- and college-level education is by helping plan the curricula and syllabi. Academics at scientific institutions regularly serve on such committees at the national and regional levels. A greater institutional involvement in curriculum planning has the potential to have an impact that is more inclusive than any of the other outreach activities institutions undertake.
As scientists and members of society, it is important that we engage with communities by attempting to communicate the excitement we experience in mathematical and scientific research in as many languages we can to as many people as are willing to give us their time – across age, caste, class, gender, etc. This is not to say that institutional support is not appreciated or required. Our institutions can support us by providing environments where this sort of public engagement is possible as well as encouraged, and the recent proliferation of ‘flagship’ programmes around India, as highlighted in Raman’s article, is a result of this.
It is all too clear that each of these types of institutional outreach programmes are not by themselves universally inclusive and, as Raman notes, “might coexist and complement each other”. His idea that there is benefit in long-term engagement of scientific institutions in education is an important one.
However, considering our institutional constraints on time and academic staff, and our limited training in education, it seems that this long-term relationship must be forged with teacher groups, from schools to colleges, across educational boards and mediums of instruction. In fact, these local teacher groups are likely to be more reliable and effective allies for our institutions to move towards more inclusive scientific outreach.
Varuni P. works with the Institute of Mathematical Sciences as an outreach associate.