Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T09:55:24.987Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Green Edge Outreach Project: A large-scale public and educational initiative

Part of: Celebrating IPY Education, Outreach and Engagement – 10 years on

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2019

Julie Sansoulet ,
Jean-Jacques Pangrazi ,
Noé Sardet ,
Sharif Mirshak ,
Ghassan Fayad ,
Pascaline Bourgain  and
Marcel Babin
Julie Sansoulet*
Affiliation:
Takuvik Joint International Laboratory, Département de Biologie and Québec-Océan, Université Laval (Canada) – CNRS (France), Université Laval, Pavillon Alexandre-Vachon 1045, avenue de la Médecine, Local 2078, Québec, QC G1V 0A6, Canada
Jean-Jacques Pangrazi
Affiliation:
Éclats de Lumière, 181 Chemin du Lazaret, 06230 Villefranche-sur-Mer, France
Noé Sardet
Affiliation:
Parafilms, 129 Avenue Van Horne, Montréal, QC H2T 2J2, Canada
Sharif Mirshak
Affiliation:
Parafilms, 129 Avenue Van Horne, Montréal, QC H2T 2J2, Canada
Ghassan Fayad
Affiliation:
KNGFU, 5333 Avenue Casgrain, Montreal, QC H2T 1X3, Canada
Pascaline Bourgain
Affiliation:
3BIS SCOP, 88 Rue Anatole France, 38100 Grenoble, France
Marcel Babin
Affiliation:
Takuvik Joint International Laboratory, Département de Biologie and Québec-Océan, Université Laval (Canada) – CNRS (France), Université Laval, Pavillon Alexandre-Vachon 1045, avenue de la Médecine, Local 2078, Québec, QC G1V 0A6, Canada
*
Author for correspondence: Julie Sansoulet, Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A collective outreach approach is fundamental for a scientific project. The Green Edge Project studied the impact of climate change on the dynamics of phytoplankton and their role in the Arctic Ocean, including the impact on human populations. We involved scientists and target audiences to ensure that the communications strategy was in agreement with scientists and audience requirements. We developed websites (academic site and blogs and an educational platform). Then, we produced a 52-minute documentary, ‘Arctic Bloom’, and infographics were created to explain experiments on the ice. We also organised a photo exhibition and live videos that enabled primary school-age students to ask questions directly of scientists working on the research icebreaker. Finally, both students and professionals drew their own conception of Arctic science, and our social media sites reached diverse groups of people. The evaluation results showed a large number of education structures (approximately 8000 schools and 104 museums or educational organisations) engaged with our communications outputs and encouraging statistics about website visits (117 021 and 3739 visits on the blog and the YouTube channel, respectively). Selecting different, but intersecting techniques, to promote a better understanding of the science contributed to the success of the communication and outreach outputs of the 3-year project.

Keywords

ArcticEducationOutreachMultimediaInteractive
Type
Research Note
Information
Polar Record , Volume 55 , Issue 4 , July 2019 , pp. 227 - 234
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ainsworth, A., Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2011). Drawing to learn science. Science, 333(6046), 1096–1097. doi: 10.1126/science.1204153CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arrigo, K. R., & van Dijken, G. L. (2011). Secular trends in Arctic Ocean net primary production. Journal of Geophysical Research, 116, C09011. doi: 10.1029/2011JC007151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Attenborough, D. (2016). Frozen Planet. BBC Documentaries. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00mfl7nGoogle Scholar
Barber, L. (2009). Scientific outreach: Linking environmental science education in high schools with scientific research—a case study of the Schools on Board (Master’s thesis). University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB.Google Scholar
Baron, N. (2010). Stand up for science. Nature, 468, 1032–1033. doi: 10.1038/4681032aCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bik, H. M., & Goldstein, M. C. (2013). An introduction to social media for scientists. PLoS Biology, 11(4), e1001535. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001535CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bybee, R., McCrae, B., & Laurie, R. (2009). PISA 2006: an assessment of scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 865–883. doi: 10.1002/tea.20333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Luna, C., & Vicari, C. (2014). Arctic Saga (PoLAR Projects, 2014).Google Scholar
Cooke, S., Gallagher, A. J., Sopinka, N. M., Nguyen, V. M., Skubel, R. A., Hammerschlag, N., … Danylchuk, A. J. (2017). Considerations for effective science communication. FACETS, 2, 233–248. doi: 10.1139/facets-2016-0055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischhoff, B. (2013). The sciences of science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(3), 14033–14039. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1213273110CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gewin, V. (2015). Outreach: speak up for science. Nature, 517, 231–233. doi: 10.1038/nj7533-231aCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liang, X., Su, L. Y.-F., Yeo, S. K., Scheufele, D. A., Brossard, D., Xenos, M., … Corley, E. A. (2014). Building buzz: (scientists) communicating science in new media environments. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 91(4), 772–791. doi: 10.1177/1077699014550092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longnecker, N. (2016). An integrated model of science communication—more than providing evidence. Journal of Science Communication, 15(5), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poliakoff, E., & Webb, T. L. (2007). What factors predict scientists’ Intentions to participate in public engagement of science activities? Science Communication, 29(2), 242–263. doi: 10.1177/1075547007308009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Provencher, J., Baeseman, J., Carlson, D., Badhe, R., Bellman, J., Hik, D., … Zicus, S. (2011). Polar Research Education, Outreach and Communication during the fourth IPY: How the 2007–2008 International Polar Year has Contributed to the Future of Education, Outreach and Communication. Paris: International Council for Science (ICSU).Google Scholar
Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2005). A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology & Human Values, 30(2), 251–290. doi: 10.1177/0162243904271724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treise, D., & Weigold, M. (2002). Advancing science communication: a survey of science communication. Science Communication, 23, 310–322. doi: 10.1177/107554700202300306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weigold, M. F. (2001). Communicating science: a review of literature. Science Communication, 23(2), 164–193. doi: 10.1177/1075547001023002005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wenzel, G. W. (2011). Polar bear management, sport hunting and Inuit subsistence at Clyde River, Nunavut. Journal of Marine Policy, 35(4), 457–465. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2010.10.020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, J. S., & Lee, J. L. (2015). Climate change games as tools for education and engagement. Nature Climate Change, 5(1), 413–418. doi: 10.1038/nclimate2566CrossRefGoogle Scholar