RVC Lates Evaluation 2013

RVC Lates 2013 Evaluation Report

The ‘wordle ‘ image above is an illustration of paper survey responses to RVC Lates, where words are shown in size proportional to their frequency of occurrence. Response n=61.

1 Report compiled by Grace Kimble

Contents 1. Aims of Evaluation 3 2. Event Context 4 2.1 Aims 2.2 Objectives 2.3 RVC staff 2.4 Advertising 2.5 Web page 3. Event 8 3.1 Live events 3.2 Stand descriptions 4. Impact 10 4.1 Public 4.1.1 Who was there?

4.1.2 Where had they come from?

4.1.3 Why were they there?

4.1.4 What did they do?

4.1.5 What did visitors think of RVC Lates?

4.1.6 How did RVC Lates change visitor attitudes?

4.2 Researchers 4.3 Student ambassadors 5. Operational improvements 24 6. Recommendations

26

7. Conclusions

27

8. Strategy: future directions

28

Acknowledgements Postscript

2

1. Aims of evaluation This evaluation report aims to summarise the impact of the public engagement event ‘RVC Lates‐ The Heart of RVC’ which took place on October 17th 2013.

Evaluation aimed to: • Provide a comparison with the inaugural RVC Lates event held in 2012 • Provide evidence to meet requirements of the Physiology Society, who funded the event • Collate evidence about the impact of the event for visitors, students and RVC staff • Provide insight to inform future RVC Access strategy

Evaluation Process

Event evaluation

• Visitors completed paper feedback form on exiting RVC • Visitors were interviewed by Student Ambassadors

RVC staff feedback

• Student Ambassadors were asked to complete an online survey • Researchers and presenters were asked to complete an online survey

Debrief meeting

• This evaluation draft circulated for comment • Final report produced following debrief meeting to incorporate viewpoints from as many staff involved as possible

3

2. Event Context 2.1 Aims ‘RVC Lates: The Heart of RVC’ took place on Thursday October 17th 2013, from 1845‐ 2200, on the Camden Campus at the Royal Veterinary College, London. It is the second ever RVC Lates event; the first was initiated in October 2012 by former Widening Participation Officer James Cannon. James worked with Lisa Pritchard, PhD student at RVC, to submit a successful bid to the Physiological Society to fund two subsequent public engagement events.

The aims of the event for public audiences were: • Educate people about physiology through anatomy and dissection – something many of them will never have nor ever will have the chance to do otherwise.

• Allow people to perform laboratory techniques so that they understand exactly what research entails.

• Demonstrate clearly the importance of research to human health.

• Wipe out the stereotypes of scientists • Raise awareness of the various career streams available in this area in teachers. A great many of the visitors in October 2012 were teachers – the more they know about physiology and its relevant careers, the more they can tell their pupils. (source: Funding bid application submitted Feb’ 2013) Grateful thanks goes to the Physiology Society for their support of this event.

Some funding was also received from the London Bioscience Innovation Centre; with thanks to LBIC staff for this support.

2.2 Objectives • • • • •

To run between 5 and 10 walk‐up activity stands for each event.

To run an animal dissection demonstration each event. The dissections will focus on each physiological system in turn and how they differ between species.

To run 2 – 3 mini‐lectures of around 20 minutes in length each event To encourage creativity alongside scientific attention to detail with drawing workshops in our Anatomy Museum.

Recruit a minimum of 200 people for each event using advertising in papers to create an extensive mailing list.

4

2.3Â RVCÂ Staff RVC staff were recruited to run research stands by Lisa Pritchard in summer 2013. Thumbnail profiles are shown here. The event was supported by student ambassadors from a range of years and courses.

5

2.4 Advertising The event was advertised in the Camden New Journal, Time Out, and via online marketing sites Meetup , Biology week promotion, and TES Connect. Twitter and Facebook social media advertising linked to an online booking form. Education contacts were emailed in advance by Chris Hobson.

6

2.5 RVC web page The following description appeared on the website, leading to an online booking form which gathered information about visitors address, and how they found out about the event.

7

3. Event 3.1 Live events The images below show the front and reverse of a floor plan leaflet which was used to guide visitors during the event. You can see a description of live events and summarie4s of the activities taking place.

8

3.2 Research stands The stand labels below describe some of the range of research stands on offer. Artist in residence Geoffrey Harrison facilitated ‘Sketch a Skeleton’ sessions.

The Francis Crick Institute brought Science Buskers and a stand, and the Physiology Society brought materials and experiments for a stand.

9

4. Impact 4.1 Public Public impact will be considered under the following questions, in order to characterise the audience and provide information on which to decide future public engagement event planning.

• Who was there?

• Where had they come from?

• Why were they there?

• What did they do?

• What did they think of it?

• How did it change their attitudes?

Methods Visitor responses to the event were gathered using three methods, with a range of closed and open question types: a)

A paper survey on exiting the event. This survey was designed to gather demographic information and to allow comparison with the 2012 event by repeating questions asked last year. Answers provided formative information about how to improve the event, and summative information about the activities which took place. 61 forms were collected.

b)

Interviews with student ambassadors. These interviews focussed on event aims (see context section). 19 interviews were collected.

c)

A quiz about research stand information. 17 quizzes were correctly completed.

Qualitative and quantitative data will be presented to compare the event with the 2012 event, and to demonstrate evidence that the event aims have been successfully met.

10

4.1.1 Who was there?

The following data are results from questions which were asked using the paper exit survey, n=61.

What are the age ranges of people you have visited with?

32

The majority of visitors were 18‐ 25, with frequency decreasing with age.

Even if data show a bias towards younger people completing the form, then there is still evidence that the public who visited RVC Lates were largely under 35.

Number of visitors

25

10

8 3

18‐25

26‐35

36‐45

46‐55

56‐65

1 66‐75

What is your occupation?

Student Teacher/education Finance/ law Art/crafts Administration Vet nurse Scientist Lecturer Writer Sports coach Actor

The largest sector of RVC Lates audiences were in the education sector; either as students or as teachers. This may be linked to advertising to RVC schools contacts, and adverts online using TES connect.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Are these the audiences that RVC public engagement events should aim to engage?

Number of visitors

How many people in your group?

The majority of groups surveyed contained two visitors.

Compared to similar events, the number of individual visitors and groups of four people was high.

11

4.1.2 Where had they come from?

Event Reach The data below are anonymous records from booking data, and show the reach of advertising. It is clear that Word of Mouth (Friends and Colleagues), Facebook and Emails were the top three ways visitors found out about the event.

Time Number 1815 1 1845 2 1855 2 1900 6 1915 2 1920 1 1930 3 1945 1 2000 3 2045 1

Arrival The data above are corroborated by interview data asking visitors how long they took to arrive at the event. The journey times ranged from 10 minutes (Zoo staff) to two hours. The most common journey time was one hour. Surprisingly, visitors arrived later at the event than expected: as shown in the table left (data from interview sample) .

12

4.1.3 Why were they there?

Interview question 3. asked: What attracted you to the event?

From the 19 people surveyed, three groups emerge: 1. RVC connections Alumni or former employees, or people whose family work or study there wanted to see the site, see if there were any changes, remember being there, and to find out about what their family do all day!

2. Science supporters Some people who work in related industries such as biomedical research wanted an insight into latest research at RVC. They might be prospective students, or teachers looking for subject enrichment or career information for their pupils. They might be studying a related subject; for example a group of 3 sports science students and their lecturer from St. Mary’s College.

3. Curious public Public who did not have connections with RVC were attracted by the unique opportunity to see dissections, and the fact that it is a free event and a new experience.

Visitors taking part in dissection room workshop activities

13

4.1.4 What did they do?

Where did visitors go?

The graph below was calculated by subtracting ‘NA’ data from the total responses per activity type (survey question 2) , to show which aspects of the event visitors did not attend. The overall pattern is similar, with slightly greater percentages of visitors taking part in the quiz and visiting the Haxby bar.

What did visitors participate in? (%) 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

2012 2013

Did you try any practical skills?

Data from paper survey, n=61.

Proteins Make model 7% hearts 7% Dissection lecture 21%

Atherosclerosis 7% Microscope 7%

Cow Heart dissection 20% Haptic Cow 17%

Exercise and cardiology 14%

14

4.1.4 What did they do (continued) ?

Did you see anything which links to human health?

Data from interview, n=19)

Heart rate

Cardiovascular pathology stand Posters

Atherosclerosis stand

Proteins Human skeleton Blood pressure monitor

Exercise bike

15

4.1.5 What did visitors think of RVC Lates?

Activity ratings The graphs below show the proportions of ratings per activity. Comments given are shown in speech bubbles (2013 survey data only, question 2b, n=61).

Overall, how would you rate RVC Lates?

100% of the 61 survey respondents rated RVC Lates good or excellent.

This is similar to 2012, where 100% of visitors rated the event good or excellent.

2012 activity ratings (%) 100 80 60 40 20 0

2013 Activity ratings (%) 100 Below Average 90 80 Average 70 Good 60 Excellent 50 40 30 20 10 0

‘came some way to satisfying my terminal curiosity’

More time ‘Wish it was longer’ ‘We didn’t have time to try everything’ ‘didn’t see everything but what I saw was great‐ will be back next time’

Poor Below Average Average Good Excellent

Approachability ‘Very friendly students’ and ‘very friendly staff and interesting lecture’

16

4.1.5 What did visitors think of RVC Lates? (continued) Which part of RVC lates did you enjoy the most?

Number of visitors

Survey data Q3, n=61.

3

30

4

6

6 2

3

1

Which part of RVC Lates did you enjoy the least?

Survey data Q4, n=61. There were very few comments about the least popular part of the evening. A number of people said nothing, none, or words to the effect that they enjoyed everything e.g. ‘All of it was wonderful!’

However, the only area mentioned as an issue was the smell of the dissection!

Would you recommend RVC Lates?

100% YES

100% of 61 survey respondents answered Yes to this question (Q5). In addition, there were some supporting comments: • ‘Because it’s awesome‐ really educational and suitable for public and students’ • ‘Good for students, especially others working with me in veterinary practice’ • ‘very useful study for drawing, as an art graduate I would recommend’

How does this event compare with your expectations?

Survey question 8, N=61.

70% exceeded, 30 % met.

‘Better than science museum lates as more personal’

17

4.1.6 How did RVC Lates change visitor attitudes?

Has this event changed your perception of physiology?

82% YES 33 respondents answered this question in the exit survey.

Comments included: YES • My enthusiasm has continued to grow!

• made it very interesting • learnt a lot • Learnt much more about changes in physiology, especially during foetal stages • widened it, increased my curiosity, research for myself (in a general way) • always learning new things • came last year, still find it fascinating • Made me realise how quickly research is advancing for medicine • made me more interested • cuttlefish have three hearts!

• Not much previous knowledge!

NO • already fab • I was interested in it before I came!

• I already work in a medical museum and have an interest in the area • Mother is a vet, very interesting though

17 visitors completed physiology quizzes correctly; see example right: 18

4.1.6 How did RVC Lates change visitor attitudes? (continued) What surprised you about the event?

Survey question 10, n=61 • Amount of displays and hands on activities • Angiogenesis research‐ would definitely see it used in the veterinary field in future • attention to detail • Didn't want to leave • Dissection • Enthusiasm • Excellent facilities • excellent museum‐ should've been expecting it but wasn’t!

• Exercise is good for the immune system!

Sheep are fed magnets!

• First time I've ever seen a dissection • Free!

• Front legs are not attached to the skeleton!

• happiness of students and teachers • haptic cow • How close you get to the body, great lecturer!

• How friendly and knowledgeable everyone is • how hands on it is • how much I would learn tonight • How well it was presented • I came last year; and same as intriguing, what's not to find worthwhile. Thank you for the evening • I didn’t realise that sheep's stomachs were so big…

• I felt that the talks were pitched at the same level as my 18 year old students could do…

• Making hearts • sheep dissection!

• The detail that everything was explained • the haptic cow • The huge variety of stands on offer • The knowledge and enthusiasm of students • The range of things to do and see • The size of a sheep stomach • The smell in dissection • The smell of sheep innards. Also size, if I'm honest.

• the smell of the dissection • wide range of displays the RVC has

19

4.1.6 How did RVC Lates change visitor attitudes? (continued) Were the researchers like you expected them to be?

Interview question 6, n‐19 • • • • • • • • •

friendly and open and not boffins friendly and approachable friendly and open Andrew Crook excellent. Otherwise all very friendly geeky but nice approachable. Especially pathology stand knowledgeable and helpful yes, informative, easy to chat to no, they don’t look like researchers!

Have you found out about careers in this area?

Interview question 7, n‐19 • • • • • • • • • • • •

veterinary medicine and science already PhD students didn’t know about pathologist academic not for me yes, saw people doing things, makes me want to research roles came for interest more, and to see about possible research pathways yes, about how people get into it yes, research. Enjoy the students being here being a vet don’t know yet‐ want to work with wild animals researcher wanted to talk to vet med students about applying

20

4.2 Research Staff Data based on 10 responses to an online survey. (see http://goo.gl/52GHmy )

Did you find out anything new through taking part in RVC Lates?

• • • • • • • •

I didn't have a huge chance to visit the other stalls but when discussing the prep for making them I learnt a great deal about animals hearts which I'd never studied.

I heard some interesting heart murmurs in people (that they already knew about... ;‐)) Some of the stands provided useful information.

How quickly a chick embryo develops a beating heart Yes. Many things.

No. I talked to some colleagues about their research and found out new things.

The haptic cow‐ Wow!

What did you enjoy about being part of the event?

• • • • • • • • • •

The positive atmosphere and meeting the public I enjoyed engaging with the public and encouraging them to be as enthusiastic about science as I am.

The enthusiastic reactions from the public!

Engaging with the public Talking to the public and seeing how interested they were.

Good variety of questions, the other stands, the help of the ambassadors Uniting parts of the College and meeting new guests onsite.

It was nice to see the RVC so lively in the evening.

Talking with public, allowing them to direct conversation based on their interests.

Working along with the students and talking to the public. The students are fantastic ‐ both students that did the histology stand are a huge credit to the college.

21

4.3 Student ambassadors Data based on 13 responses to an online survey: (see http://goo.gl/fglssj)

Did you learn anything new through taking part in the event?

There were two ‘no’ responses. Reasons were being at RVC for 6 years, and being at the front desk so no chance to visit stands.

Yes: from research stands • • • •

• •

all about the cuttlefish heart and how our slides are created! from a few of the stands I got a chance to go around. They were very interactive which made them great fun! a little about how they produce 3‐d images of protein structures and about the research they have done into the link between atherosclerosis and immunology. the event was amazing! I improved my understanding massively on the Haptic cow ‐ Tierney was really lovely to work with and explained everything I needed to know so I could teach the guests when they came to our stand to have a go on the Haptic cow. It made me revise some of the topics we did last year and was useful to know roughly how things feel. It was very interactive which I think was good and looking round the other stands I picked up some information on other areas of the cardiovascular system. about angiogenesis research and atherosclerosis research and proteins involved.

I got to listen to a man who had the heart condition Tetralogy of Fallot and spoke with a vet on my stand about intercalating.

Yes: from lectures •

Lectures provided great way to learn, listening to the research, E.i. diet affecting endothelium and therefore circulatory function, and also valvular degeneration and its symptoms (Boswood).

Did you try out any practical skills?

Three ‘no’ responses.

• Microscopes (x2) e.g. ‘to show different parts of the slide to people’ • Haptic Cow (x 3) e.g. ‘the Haptic cow was evidently very practical and allowed you to practice how it would feel to palpate certain structures within the abdomen and on the pelvic floor’.

• Finding visitor heart rate and blood pressure (x2) e.g. ‘Find a pulse on human wrist using a doppler and listen to human heartbeat using stethoscope’.

• Great heart anatomy revision Staff view: • Making hearts out of plasticine!

My student ambassador was absolutely great. She hardly got a break at all and remained as engaged at 10pm as she had started at 5.30pm. Really nice idea to partner us up, and for me it wouldn’t have been possible without her.

22

4.3 Student ambassadors (continued) What did you enjoy about being part of the event?

• • • • • •

• • • •

hearing how much so many people enjoyed themselves. It was great to talk to people as they came in and hearing their expectations and then most were satisfied upon leaving. earing such positive feedback whilst people were leaving‐ they all seemed to have had a great night!

Learning more about what RVC Lates actually is and seeing some of the research carried out here Love talking to people about Veterinary Medicine and the college. Enjoyed working with Elaine and meeting members of staff.

It was nice to talk with a variety of different people and see some of the research that goes on fairly hidden away in the RVC. I enjoyed meeting a range of different people who work at the university who I hadn't ever met or spoken to before, for example Tierney, so it was great for networking. Also, I enjoyed how practical and hands on all the stands were ‐ it is much more interesting than just reading things on stands. I thought the guests were all friendly and approachable too, which really helped, and as the Haptic cow was very popular, I was constantly busy, so the night went very fast!

Explaining things to people coming round to view stands, learning what goes on in the research departments at RVC. Was nice to able to go to the different stations and see what they were providing and teaching.

Getting to speak to the attendees about visiting our university and what they got from coming along to the event.

Seeing how much the public enjoyed it. It was a science event but very relaxed and informal which was refreshing

23

5. Operational improvements In order to structure recommendations, they will be considered under the same headings as shown in Sections 2 ‘Context’ and 3 ‘Event’

Staff profiles and stands There were no criticisms of the activity titles or staff profiles; thank you to the staff involved for providing this information.

Activities were frequently praised for being hands on, and there were no reported problems or issues. There were few comments from either RVC staff or student ambassadors about visitor responses to research stands. One person stated that the most common questions was: ‘What animal did those cells/tissue come from?’

Activities were highly rated and interactive and should continue with this engaging approach.

A briefing meeting before the event should be used to allow researchers to learn about other stands and make links between them, so that visitors can be signposted to related research during the evening.

So far, staff and students have felt well‐prepared for the event: • ‘I think there was sufficient time at the start for the researcher to explain to you what to do and what the stand was about, and sending out the information prior to the event like you did about the researchers was helpful’ (SA) • I felt totally prepared and was able to answer any queries’ (SA).

Other organisations offer public engagement training for researchers, hence research staff were asked: ‘is there any additional training you feel would be beneficial?’ Many already feel prepared.

Public engagement training opportunities should be considered but are not a high priority Logistics were praised in terms of extension cables, poster boards being in the right place; with thank s to staff involved. However, there was concern that safety was compromised packing up.

One of the agenda items at the briefing meeting should be ‘Risk Assessments’.

Student ambassadors were offered the opportunity to swap at 9pm, to work with a wider range of stands. However, not all people did this.

Student Ambassadors should stay on the same stand all evening.

Food was provided for researchers and student ambassadors. However, the following quote explains an issue: I believe the event offered a good level of snack and food to keep us all going during the event. but I was just disappointed that the ambassadors ended taking advantage of this and by 7pm most of the snacks had been eaten. I appreciate it was great to get plenty of pizza though.

Consistent with other RVC events, refreshments will be provided in future for research staff, who are attending outside of normal working hours. Breaks will be at designated times.

24

5. Operational improvements (continued) Advertising and attendance • •

•

Suggestions have been made for Society of Biology, Vet Record, and better intranet advertising , for example in Hawkshead. Posters on both sites are recommended.

There were no complaints about the web page and the online booking form provided good information for the dissection event and analysis. Jack Sisterson quickly updated the webpage when the event automatically stopped receiving bookings on the day, which can be learnt from for next time. The web page needs to accept bookings on the day.

Although 198 people booked online and seven additional people were welcomed on the evening, the was a higher % of non‐attendance than last year. Students from other universities should be invited. Higher capacity, wider advertising, and using a visitor texting service recommended.

Event •

•

• • •

•

•

•

• • •

The dissection event was well attended, although booked visitors did not attend and places were filled by other visitors. Consequently, concurrent lectures were not well attended. Lectures need not to be scheduled concurrently with dissections.

More people attended the Haxby bar in 2012 compared to 2013, due to better signage.

However, this area was the only one scoring ‘poor’ in the activity ratings. Advertising should state that the Haxby Bar is a student bar, to manage visitor expectations.

Researchers need general RVC handout information for visitors. The British Museum and Royal Society are good at providing these, for example.

Music made a lively atmosphere and should continue. However, the background music needs to be quieter, particularly for stands with stethoscopes.

The research stand area needs to be enlivened during the dissection event. Scheduling is a key area to address e.g. I think there were a few guests who felt there wasn't enough time to see everything e.g.. some still wanted a try on the Haptic cow when we were already packing up, so maybe the time could even be extended slightly, as a lot of guests wanted to see the dissection, go to a lecture and still have time to see all the stands which I don't think they could squeeze in!

Announcing live events worked well, together with Student Ambassadors to lead visitors to the event venue. Live event schedule posters are also needed and should be displayed in the Lightwell. Posters should meet the needs of both advertising the event to RVC staff and letting visitors know where and when live events are taking place.

Visitors were offered the chance to win a bottle of champagne by answering questions to a science quiz. This was announced at the end of the evening to encourage people to leave. It is recommended to have a pub quiz style event instead around 9pm.

A general introduction to RVC and Campus Tours would be helpful for people who have not visited the site before. Use the Plasma screens to show ‘Welcome to RVC’ videos and offer a Campus Tour.

Use the pod and offer guests Wi‐Fi passport to make more of a social media impact LBIC, ACT and Talkington Bates should have stands.

25 Visitors would like to take drinks in the Lightwell.

6. Recommendations summary

Staff profiles and stands • •

• • • •

Activities were highly rated and interactive and should continue with this engaging approach.

A briefing meeting before the event should be used to allow researchers to learn about other stands and make links between them, so that visitors can be signposted to related research during the evening.

Public engagement training opportunities should be considered but are not a high priority One of the agenda items at the briefing meeting should be ‘Risk Assessments’.

Student Ambassadors should stay on the same stand all evening.

Consistent with other RVC events, refreshments will be provided in future for research staff, who are attending outside of normal working hours. Breaks will be at designated times.

Advertising and attendance •

• •

Posters on both sites are recommended. Posters should meet the needs of both advertising the event to RVC staff and letting visitors know where and when live events are taking place.

The web page needs to accept bookings on the day.

Higher capacity, wider advertising, and using a visitor texting service recommended.

Event • • • • • • • • • •

Lectures need not to be scheduled concurrently with dissections.

Advertising should state that the Haxby Bar is a student bar, to manage visitor expectations.

Researchers need general RVC hand‐out information for visitors.

However, the background music needs to be quieter, particularly for stands with stethoscopes.

The research stand area needs to be enlivened during the dissection event. Scheduling is a key area to address Have a pub quiz style event around 9pm.

Use the Plasma screens to show ‘Welcome to RVC’ videos and offer a Campus Tour.

Use the pod and offer guests Wi‐Fi passport to make more of a social media impact LBIC, ACT and Talkington Bates should have stands.

Visitors would like to take drinks in the Lightwell; work with Events to manage a solution.

26

7. Conclusions RVC Lates 2013 met objectives, however there are some issues which need addressed before the next event on Spring 2014: • To run between 5 and 10 walk‐up activity stands for each event.

• To run an animal dissection demonstration each event. The dissections will focus on each physiological system in turn and how they differ between species.

• To run 2 – 3 mini‐lectures of around 20 minutes in length each event • Issue: low lecture attendance owing to scheduling issues • To encourage creativity alongside scientific attention to detail with drawing workshops in our Anatomy Museum.

• Recruit a minimum of 200 people for each event using advertising in papers to create an extensive mailing list.

• Issue: some non attendance on the evening; higher capacity recommended.

To return to the initial funding bid for the Society of Physiology, the aims of the event for public audiences were (evidence summarised in purple text ): • Educate people about physiology through anatomy and dissection – something many of them will never have nor ever will have the chance to do otherwise.]

• The public took part in unique anatomy and dissection events, and 83% of responses indicated that audience perception of physiology had changed.

• •

Allow people to perform laboratory techniques so that they understand exactly what research entails.

Research stands allowed visitors to take part in practical research activities.

• •

Demonstrate clearly the importance of research to human health.

Interview visitors were able to state links between RVC research stands and human health.

• •

Wipe out the stereotypes of scientists Scientists were seen to be friendly, positive, enthusiastic and approachable, and this was unexpected for some visitors.

• •

Raise awareness of the various career streams available in this area in teachers.

Interviewed visitors were able to comment on career information, although this could be improved.

27

8. Strategy: Future directions In a debrief meeting held on Thursday October 24th 2013, all staff who were involved in the event were invited to consider recommendations.

The initial recommendations were been modified in the light of these discussions . In addition, some areas relating to future directions were covered. Brief notes to summarise some of the ideas so far are shown under the following ten headings.

1. Aims RVC Lates aim to showcase RVC’s innovative expertise, scientific research , anatomy collections, partners and facilities. However, aims of specific events will be modified owing to funding opportunities and scientific events, according to need. Strategic input on forthcoming themes is welcomed.

2. Funding The Physiology Society funded this second event, and funding remains for a second event in Spring 2014, as in the original bid. The Physiology Society was positive about the event and would welcome further applications as a result of this event. Funding was also received from LBIC; with grateful thanks for this additional support.

Input on future sources of funding would be welcomed.

3. Content Future events should similarly include a range of stands and live events, and it must be recognised that the anatomy dissection events are a key attractor for the public. They are seen as unique and highly valued by visitors. In order to sustain Lates events long term, a wide range of staff should be invited to participate to ensure fresh enthusiasm. Artist in residence Geoffrey Harrison was popular; creative approaches , both in event planning and on the day, will be greatly beneficial.

4. Audience The current audience are largely late 20s to early 30s. They include RVC family and friends, science supporters and new visitors. The strength of these events is the warm, friendly atmosphere, and it is recommended to clearly welcome RVC family and friends (rather than hold separate events for example). There were many requests to attend from under 18s, who had been excluded due to licensing laws. However, in discussion it was felt that asking for ID would be a preferable solution and under 18s should be allowed to attend with a parent or guardian.

Wider advertising is recommended as the next stage in increasing the proportion on new 28 audiences.

8. Strategy: Future directions (contd.)

5. Capacity The Lightwell area was quiet during the dissection event, because the majority of visitors were in the Anatomy Lecture Theatre. The event capacity should be doubled at minimum, because there are enough activities, staff and space to support this.

6. Sites Whilst there has been consideration about holding an event at Hawkshead, using the Mill Reef lecture Theatre and dissection space, forthcoming building work means that this site would not be suitable in the near future. The travelling distance is felt to be a barrier whilst the events are at an early stage. The possibility of holding a public engagement event at Hawkshead should be returned to in future.

7. Frequency Input would be welcomed on the ideal frequency of public events per year.

8. Time of year The October event date was initially chosen to coincide with Biology week in October.

Consideration needs to be made for students who are doing exams and thesis write ups, when planning event timing. It is better to work with a celebration event or day where possible, to co‐ordinate with a wider network and maximise marketing potential.

9. Time of day If younger visitors are to attend the event, then it is advisable to either start the event earlier in the day, or to have a short section of time in the afternoon (if during school holidays) when the event is open, for families. It would be possible to advertise an RVC Family Festival of Learning, for example, which turned into RVC Lates subsequently. It is recommended to hold an afternoon ‘Family and friends VIP campus tour’ , with support from Schools Liaison, at the next event.

10. Partner involvement Partner involvement is welcomed and a wide range of viewpoints should be gathered at the planning stage.

At these early stages the RVC Access Public programme is flexible and open to innovation.

Clearly, further experimentation with formats will bring further insight and a wider range of stakeholder involvement, which will help to refine strategic future directions.

29

Acknowledgements Particular thanks to Lisa Pritchard for co‐ordinating the event ‐ as well as running a dissection activity!

With thanks to all researchers, students and staff who took part: Researchers and students Adrian Boswood, Alex Stoll, Amy Timpson, Andrew Hibbert, Andy Lessey, Ashton Faulkner, Caroline Wheeler‐Jones, Charlotte Doze, Charlotte Lawson, David Winterbourne, Dirk Werling, Elaine Sherville, Esther Bijsmans, Frances Geddes, Imelda McGonnell, James Stephenson, Kim Smith, Liz Finding, Lizzie Robson, Nicky Talbot, Nicola Lotter, Sam Mirczuk, Sophie Regnault, Tierney Kinnison, Victoria Offord Staff Andrew Crooke, Chris Hobson, Hannah Croall, Jon Parry, Richard Evans, Sarah Nicoll Artist in Residence Geoffrey Harrison Student Ambassadors Alexandra Sampson, Amy Barstow, Charlotte Butcher, Claire Willis, Dina Tandon, Elaine Handley, Emily Stacey, Emily Turgoose, Gemma Cock, Hannah Darke, Hannah Holdcroft, Heidi Miner, Helena Diffey, Imogen Wainwright‐Jones, Jen Oraze, Joshua Welland, Lucie Stratton, Monica Lee, Victoria Simons, Yuvani Bandara

30

Post script: General comments Research staff •

• • •

•

•

I was surprised at how much people seemed to enjoy my stand, I had thought that matching up hearts and heart rates with species would be a simple fun activity but nothing special. Lots of people commented on how much they enjoyed it and what a good idea it was. I'm sure you could do a similar thing with lots of different organs/body systems. thanks for organising it all.

All in all I thought it ran very well and was happy to be a part of it.

It was really nice of you to provide snacks and drinks in a designated room for us. For those of us who don’t know Camden very well, it was good to have a space to escape to for a few minutes! And the minibus was great!!

People were very impressed with the dissection. If possible, it would be great to have this where more people can see (maybe videolink ‐ I know a video of last year was broadcast but it's more exciting to know it's live). It's a very unique selling point to the evening.

I would personally love a dedicated 'dissection' evening ‐ could be made very historical and educational. I think the dissections are an important part of the city and the profession's heritage that many people are interested in.

Student ambassadors • •

•

• •

Maybe try two shorter dissections so more people get to do that part seeing as it is such a big hit for the evening.

Brilliant event, well organised! All the staff were really friendly and approachable.

Definitely my favourite event so far in terms of student ambassador events ‐ thanks for the pizza and drinks too, that was really great!

Was a great event that brought everyone together. Wondered about the target audience, prospective students, community, current students. Seemed like could be a real draw for prospective students and current wishing to revise!

A 57yr old nurse said she never had the opportunity to be a doctor like she wanted to be and she was glad that so many intelligent women are taken seriously now! people were surprised you could buy cattle hearts at the butchers!

31

32