Establishing a baseline for public engagement Guiding your strategy
Prepared for UCL November 2008
FreshMinds 229-231 High Holborn London WC1V 7DA Tel: 020 7692 4300 Fax: 0870 46 01596 www.freshminds.co.uk Table of contents
1. Background and methodology ...... 3 1.1 What is this research? ...... 3 1.2 How did we approach the research?...... 3 2. Executive summary ...... 5 2.1 Public engagement and UCL...... 5 3. Public engagement and UCL ...... 9 3.1 Introduction ...... 9 3.2 Enthusiasm is the foundation of UCL’s public engagement...... 9 3.3 Enthusiasm could be better capitalised upon: limited communications and issues of time present major obstacles ...... 10 3.4 There is greater public engagement when issues of finance are minimalised...... 11 3.5 Departments are willing to work outside of their favourite areas...... 11 3.6 Some departments are just better suited to public engagement than others… ...... 11 3.7 Support staff mirror the academic staff in terms of attitude and barriers ...... 12 4. Public engagement activity...... 13 4.1 Summary ...... 13 4.2 Overall ...... 14 4.3 Departmental differences ...... 22 5. Institutional engagement...... 26 5.1 Summary ...... 26 5.2 Overall ...... 27 5.3 Departmental differences ...... 33 6. Attitudes to engagement...... 34 6.1 Summary ...... 34 6.2 Overall ...... 34 6.3 Departmental differences ...... 37 7. Support for engagement ...... 38 7.1 Summary ...... 38 7.2 Overall ...... 39 7.3 Departmental differences ...... 42 8. Barriers to engagement...... 43 8.1 Summary ...... 43 8.2 Overall ...... 44 8.3 Departmental differences ...... 46 9. Support views...... 47 9.1 Summary ...... 47 9.2 Overall ...... 48 10. Appendix – Profiling of respondents ...... 55 10.1 Profiling questions...... 55
2 1. Background and methodology
1.1 What is this research?
In March 2008, UCL commissioned FreshMinds to investigate its public engagement (PE) strategy. This came as a result of UCL having been awarded Beacon status, highlighting its existing and recognised activity. Another agency, Oakleigh Consulting, has carried out a cross-beacon survey, but this report focuses on UCL alone.
This work came about as the full extent of public engagement work, and even staff perceptions and understandings of the topic, was not known at UCL. Consequently, this research piece has aimed to establish a baseline of current activity at UCL, and explore staff views on the matter.
1.2 How did we approach the research?
We adopted a multi-phase approach. Firstly, we conducted interviews with heads of departments and faculties, in addition to representatives from affiliated bodies such as The Bloomsbury Theatre and the Student Union. Following this, we designed an online survey which we targeted at UCL academic and support staff. This report details our findings from that survey, in addition to including interview write-ups from the first phase.
Figure 1: Research approach
Project kick-off
Questionnaire design
Refine Stakeholder 14 interviews questionnaire interviews
Scripting and set- up
Online survey – Fieldwork 708 responses
Data analysis
Written report
For the internal interviews, we conducted 14 in-depth interviews, and received 708 responses to our online survey (530 academic, 178 support). Our survey sample was derived from the UCL body of staff. To gain our responses, a link to our online survey was emailed to the UCL mailing list, with respondents choosing to partake.
3 1.2.1 Known biases The main limitation to sampling in this way is the danger of creating a self-selecting group. Whilst we recommend that the results are read with a critical eye, the size of our sample and interest in the research process alone suggests that PE activity at UCL is at a high level. With a sample of 708 out of 8,000 staff, the research includes a statistically representative sample from which we can draw conclusions.
Specifically, there were several elements (of which we were aware during the questionnaire design, approach to response generation and data analysis) which must be recognised when considering the issue of the self-selecting audience: Those who respond could be considered to have strong feelings (whether positive or negative) towards the issue of public engagement. There could be varying degrees of public engagement activity within different departments across the university. As a result, those departments in which public engagement has a ‘higher profile’ could see a disproportionate amount of responses. Despite the two points above, participation in the survey was incentivised with participants entered into a draw for several book vouchers. As a result, the bias of interest or awareness was countered by participation being encouraged by this potential win.
As a result, the issue of self-selection should not be considered as an overriding bias in this survey. For further details on response ratio by department, please see Section 10.1.
4 2. Executive summary
2.1 Public engagement and UCL
The main purpose of this report is to identify specifically how UCL is conducting itself with regard to public engagement (PE). The major characteristics of PE at UCL are outlined below, but it should be understood these are very much related features: often one is the result of another, or in order to improve one, improvements need to be made simultaneously elsewhere. An holistic approach to the following, then, is recommended to construct the most accurate picture of PE at UCL.
There is substantial and uniform enthusiasm among academics to participate in PE.
The attitudes and circumstances of support staff – especially their enthusiasm for PE work and belief that UCL would benefit from stronger articulation around PE – broadly mirror those of the academic staff.
The precise terms and arrangements surrounding PE remain obscure, with many academics unsure of how PE can or should impact them.
Time is unanimously cited by academics as their greatest barrier to further participation in PE.
The following were found to be the major reasons for discrepancies in PE activity between academic departments:
1. Those for whom finances were less of an issue were more active in PE. 2. Certain departments deal with topics and areas of work that naturally appeal to the public more than others. 3. The most active departments demonstrate a willingness to participate in types of PE that are not necessarily the types they deem the most important. 4. The size of a department does not seem to affect how active or enthusiastic individuals within that department are about PE.
In order to provide some greater depth at this stage on the above, the key features of PE at UCL have been summarised according to the six main areas of investigation of this report:
1. Public engagement activity – the activity that is taking place at UCL 2. Institutional engagement – the ways in which PE is embedded in UCL culture and working arrangements 3. Attitudes to engagement – how UCL staff feel about PE, and the ways in which they think about approaches to PE 4. Support for engagement – how UCL staff feel about the support they receive for PE, and how they personally support it. 5. Barriers to engagement – the factors that prevent UCL staff from PE and potential remedies 6. Support staff views – the ways in which UCL support staff think about PE, and their suggestions about improving it.
These are now discussed below.
2.1.1 Public engagement activity With the exception of working with the media, there is a marked difference between PE activities being undertaken at UCL and those seen as most important for the university.
The most commonly undertaken public engagement activities are:
5 o Working with the media. o Presenting to and writing for the public. o And, to a lesser degree, working with schools and teachers.
40% of respondents had worked on content for the UCL website.
The activities thought to be most important are, in order of priority;
o Working with the media o Working with museums and other cultural venues o Working with schools and teachers
The UCL website is not considered as an important part of PE by most staff, although heads of departments see quite substantial value in it.
This discrepancy may well have come about due to a lack of supervision and organization where PE activities are concerned. Staff seem to be participating in an ad-hoc fashion instead of focusing on the areas they feel are most important.
There could be a point of contact for staff with new ideas for PE work to meet and discuss funding, time etc. This contact could also approach staff with relevant PE work to encourage more appropriate PE taking place.
Our research suggests that there is a misunderstanding by staff of what PE is and how best to contribute towards it. UCL could have a preconceived definition of PE to give a framework from which to work from.
In terms of the actual level of public engagement activity at UCL, we estimate that on average each staff member undertakes one public engagement activity per year.1
2.1.2 Institutional engagement Around 90% of respondents say that PE is neither part of their job description nor an appraisal target.
The vast majority cite enjoyment and a sense of duty as their main motivations for undertaking it. This suggests the need for:
More clearly structured guidelines and defined expectations for staff on PE. More tangible recognition and reward for those that do contribute (e.g. promotion criteria)
UCL’s central location and broad subject base are seen to enhance its capability to engage with the public. These are factors that could be exploited, perhaps to integrate the local communities with the work done at UCL.
1 Methodological note: to arrive at this figure, FreshMinds used the responses to Q2 – To what extent have you been involved with ‘insert activity’ during your employment at UCL? This question scaled the number of times an activity had been undertaken with the following choices: not at all, once, 2-3 times, 4-5 times, and More than 5 times. FreshMinds took the mid-point for each of these options (i.e. 0, 1, 2.5, 4.5, and 5). Subsequently, we multiplied these mid-points by the number of respondents who stated they undertook that activity, and divided this figure by the total number of respondents to get an average volume. The average of all the options is rounded to one – the figure presented above.
6 2.1.3 Attitudes to engagement The majority of respondents feel that they have the necessary confidence and skills to undertake PE.
70% want to be involved with PE However, when we asked ‘do you feel that you have the opportunity to undertake PE?’ 40% responded “not very much” or “not at all”. Less than 20% are aware of networks and coordinating arrangements for PE.
Better communication to increase awareness and more support to maximize opportunities are needed. An interface across which UCL staff could discuss PE ideas with a dedicated PE department or member of staff would lead to an increase in opportunities and ultimately an increase in PE.
There needs to be proactive involvement from UCL to take the initiative in instigating PE projects.
2.1.4 Support for engagement Whilst most state there is a supportive attitude within UCL, a significant number (40%) would like more help in funding, training and finding opportunities for PE.
19% do not know where UCL should do more PE; again highlighting that awareness and communication should be increased. Staff would like to see more work done within the community and with local schools.
If staff were enthusiastically approached with ideas, training and funding for PE work their main support requirements would be met.
2.1.5 Barriers to engagement Having to spend time on other responsibilities is the top ranked barrier preventing more PE work.
73% need more time to spend on research and training. 31% believe they would have to work on PE in their own time. 28% need more time to work on administration.
This can be remedied in three possible ways:
Reduce current workload. Prioritize PE (e.g. appraisal target) Offer more support to reduce time need to undertake PE.
Other important barriers to overcome are a lack of training and knowledge and a lack of opportunity.
More emphasis should be placed on training staff specifically for PE work, in partnership with increasing awareness of what events are taking place Better prepared and more aware staff will lead to higher participation in PE.
2.1.6 Support staff views Support staff show levels of enthusiasm for PE that are high and comparable to those of academics.
59% of support staff consider PE to be part of their job, compared to 12% of academics.
7 Of all respondents that are not currently involved with PE only 18% express no desire to be more involved in the future.
There are a number of barriers to overcome, a lack of time being the most significant. As with academics, a large portion of the support staff feel they currently have too much other work to find the time to undertake PE. This can be overcome by: Offering more support to reduce the amount of time needed to participate. Reducing current workloads to free up time for PE. Offering rewards and recognition to those that do participate.
The support staff themselves feel that UCL could improve awareness, accessibility and information of PE events to increase participation both by the public and by the staff.
Few respondents are involved with community outreach work which, as the third best way UCL could improve, would appear to be an area that is ideal for development.
8 3. Public engagement and UCL
3.1 Introduction
The aim for the remainder of the report is to outline some of the most significant features of public engagement at UCL and to understand their current impact. This section provides first an overall summary and discussion. This will be followed by 6 more sections, each of which will investigate PE at UCL in greater depth according to different themes: Public engagement activity Institutional engagement Attitudes to engagement Support for engagement Barriers to engagement Support views
At this stage, it poses quite a challenge to identify the main features of PE at UCL as separate entities in their own right: there are a range of factors that interact simultaneously and only an understanding of them together can delineate satisfactorily the mechanisms responsible for the face of UCL’s PE. That said, the key takeaways of our findings can be understood as follows:
PE work is being undertaken predominately because the academics enjoy it, with their enthusiasm as the biggest driver. Awareness of the opportunities and incentives for PE is low among academics. That it constitutes a professional responsibility is also sporadically acknowledged. Most are prevented from further PE involvement by time constraints. Support staff echo the sentiments of academics in terms of enthusiasm, low levels of awareness and time restrictions. The more involved academic departments are seemingly those which: o Face fewer financial considerations than others. o Are willing to participate in areas of work that don’t necessarily coincide with their preferences. o Cover topics that inherently elicit a greater degree of interest from the public.
It should be noted that staff were asked to report their affiliation to an academic unit through a free-text field. This means that it many cases the ways that they divided themeslves did not map exactly to UCL’s formal structure. This report, therefore, mainly refers to ‘departments’ for each subject, rather than specific schools, faculties, departments and institutes.
3.2 Enthusiasm is the foundation of UCL’s public engagement
All departments state that their enjoyment of PE activity is their main motivating factor for participation. It is revealing that the Engineering department is simultaneously both the most enthusiastic and the most active with respect to PE. Enthusiasm generates greater PE than confidence or a sense of having the required skills.
One of the most conspicuous features at UCL is the inherent enthusiasm on the part of staff to become involved with PE. It is a trait shared by every department surveyed without exception. Furthermore, there is great confusion surrounding the incentives and professional obligations for PE, and very few specified a desire for awards or career advancement as a reason to participate. This reinforces the fact that it is primarily the pleasure staff take from PE that motivates the activities currently undertaken at UCL. By way of example, the Engineering department expressed a higher level of enjoyment of PE than any other department – and it is
9 perhaps no coincidence, then, that Engineering similarly emerges as the most energetic and prolific of departments with regard to PE activity.
With Engineering at the forefront of PE activity, the department actually provides a useful prism through which to understand how various other factors affect a department’s ability or willingness to participate in PE. For instance, it should be observed that the department actually rates its levels of skill and confidence with respect to PE work among the lowest of all the departments.
These criteria, then, would appear of little significance in determining the extent to which members of an academic unit participate in PE at UCL: the most active, Engineering, expresses a sense of inadequacy in this area, whereas another department, such as European Languages, appears more confident but not engaged on anything like the scale that can be seen at the Engineering department. So enjoyment and desire would appear to surpass confidence and skills in generating PE activity.
3.3 Enthusiasm could be better capitalised upon: limited communications and issues of time present major obstacles
UCL could do more to enable the enthusiasm that exists for PE to be converted more readily to activity. There is widespread uncertainty about the arrangements and procedures surrounding PE. There is unanimous agreement that a lack of time is the greatest barrier to increased PE involvement from academics.
As mentioned above, enthusiasm and passion for PE work are by far the most significant driving forces behind academics’ choice to become involved in PE. And this would appear an essential feature among UCL staff for PE even to exist, so limited are the ways in which this spirit to participate is nurtured.
The departments are unanimous that PE scarcely constitutes a professional requirement, and that opportunities to participate in PE are inadequately made known. Awareness is even lower with respect to the networks and coordinating arrangements. This is especially noteworthy in light of quite how forthcoming many department heads were during the interviews about the range of their department’s relationships and partnerships. They gave the strong impression that there are, in fact, numerous structures in place to receive the impulses to PE work among academics.
However, that the academics do not share this sentiment is very revealing about the pathways along which information is relayed internally. Furthermore, line managers did not emerge as especially proactive in promoting or facilitating PE involvement. Such disparity of perceptions can only highlight that communication between heads of departments and the other members of the department are in need of re-examination to ensure that the profound enthusiasm for PE work is capitalised upon fully.
In terms of what the academics feel prevents greater PE involvement from them, all departments state that time pressures currently pose the greatest obstacle – and in particular, PE work is limited by the need to spend more time on other professional obligations such as research and teaching. This reiterates the point that PE is not yet fully integrated into the job descriptions and remains the pursuit of the exceptionally motivated. The act of participating in PE is still perceived as an ‘extra’ and UCL has the energy and commitment of its staff to thank for their willingness to go beyond duty and become involved nonetheless.
10 3.4 There is greater public engagement when issues of finance are minimalised
Assistance with finances would be welcome by the vast majority of departments. In instances where finances pose less of a consideration, PE involvement increases.
Another feature of Engineering, which the department actually shares with the also-active Medicine department, is the expressed desire for help with training above all else. With the exceptions of Engineering and Medicine, all other departments felt that help with financing was the most needed type of support. Furthermore, it is difficult to detect a sense that these two departments are predominately involved in areas of work that incur less costs than other departments; so it seems unlikely that Engineering and Medicine require less in terms of finances. Rather, this raises the possibility that the two departments perhaps have more direct access to funding or financial resources, with the result that members of each are looking for training to solidify their work during those opportunities facilitated by financing – opportunities that other departments are perhaps lacking on account of finance-related issues.
3.5 Departments are willing to work outside of their favourite areas
The most active departments are on the whole engaged in areas of work that fall outside those they consider the most important. Strengthened communications and coordination could help facilitate academics’ preference being catered to more often.
Yet another interesting aspect to the Engineering department’s PE make-up, and this is something that can be seen in the profile of the Social Sciences department, too – another of UCL’s leaders in terms of PE activity – is the rather unfortunate trend of participating in areas of work that are not necessarily deemed the most important. Both departments value highly involvement with museums, but both find themselves more engaged with such areas of work as the media and open days. In many ways, this is the combination of two factors already mentioned: a great energy for PE work, but a lack of awareness of how to direct this energy along the preferred avenues.
However, this also reveals the importance of departments being willing to participate in types of PE that are of secondary or tertiary importance to them. It might be worth mentioning that the Biological Sciences department, one of the least active departments at UCL, is conducting the majority of its PE work in the areas it claims to value as priorities. Whether there is necessarily any correlation there, it nonetheless emerges as certainly helpful to PE activity if departments become involved in types of PE work irrespective of their personal preference.
3.6 Some departments are just better suited to public engagement than others…
The work of certain departments lends itself more easily to engaging and interesting the public. The size of the department, however, would appear to have little impact on the scope of PE activity.
A major factor, it seems, that determines the extent to which a department can participate in PE work is whether the department is involved in fields of research that are likely to be of inherent interest to the public.
This would also go some way to explaining the aforementioned heavy involvement from the Medical and Social Sciences departments. Given the widespread relevance of certain medical breakthroughs, such work is unlikely to struggle to find a public audience. With climate change currently central to social thought, the same can be said of any related work from the Social Sciences department. Even the Engineering department mentioned the success of
11 certain aesthetically-intriguing exhibitions, including imaging modalities and optical sensing, where again the very nature of the work contains within it a uniquely appealing quality. While not impossible, the European Languages, by example, might find it difficult to orchestrate something that fascinates the public as immediately and uniformly. So it is important to acknowledge the innate capacity of certain areas of work to capture the public’s interest more successfully than others, and the resultant impact this then has on the scale and type of PE at UCL.
This quality would certainly seem to override the actual size of the department. If we consider the departments of Engineering, Social and Historical Sciences, Maths and Physical Sciences, and Arts and Humanities, each department has somewhere in the region of 175 – 212 academics. That said, the substantial levels of participation in PE from both the Engineering and Social Sciences departments has been discussed above, whereas neither Maths and Physical Sciences nor Arts and Humanities has emerged as comparably active in PE despite similar numbers of academics.
3.7 Support staff mirror the academic staff in terms of attitude and barriers
Support staff are also enthusiastic about PE. Support staff are in agreement that communications could be improved and that time currently poses a major barrier to participation.
To provide support to the above sections, and also to suggest that the current set-up at UCL with regard to PE is due to profound, underlying structures that permeate every strata of the university, mention should be made of the consistencies that exist between academic and non-academic staff.
The support staff follow the academics in being very willing to participate in PE work – only 18% have no wish to be involved in the future. In addition, the support staff identify the same impediments to UCL’s PE activity: they feel general awareness and communication of PE can be increased, and for themselves would appreciate greater acknowledgement of the time pressures PE creates.
12 4. Public engagement activity
4.1 Summary
There appears to be a slight discrepancy between what people view to be important and what is actually being done.
The relative importance given to different activity areas reflects a balance between the University’s core values and the need to reach large numbers of people.
Our research shows that behind working with the media, working with schools and working with museums are the top two most important areas of PE for UCL staff
Current involvement in these two areas, especially work in partnership with museums, is found somewhat lacking.
o 27% of respondents think museums are in the top-three PE activities at UCL. o However, less than a quarter of respondents have been involved in these areas over the last 12 months. o Whilst almost half of respondents have presented to the public at least once, less than 30% have done talks in local schools.
The UCL website, the second most practiced publishing PE activity is only regarded as the ninth most important activity for PE at UCL. However, as gleaned from the interviews, many heads of departments actually view the UCL website as instrumental to successful PE work.
31% of respondents would define public engagement as “informing the public or sharing specialist knowledge”.
Yet less than 20% of respondents have participated in “advisory process” (defined in the questionnaire as “where university personnel provide advice to members of the public” - a very similar concept ).
In order to reduce the disparity between opinion and engagement there are a number areas that can be targeted.
A permanent member of staff with whom academics can discuss PE activities. Delivery of projects suitable for particular staff from a dedicated PE department. UCL could have a preconceived definition of PE to give a framework from which to work.
13 4.2 Overall
Figure 2: Please indicate the approximate extent you have been involved in each of these activities over the last 12 months.
Presenting to the public
Writing for the non-specialist public
Media work aimed at a non-specialist audience
Working with teachers/ schools
Attendance at fairs/ exhibitions
Taking part in a public event/ debate
Promoting public engagement activity
Seeking public input into your research
Participation in other open days at your university
Working with museums and other cultural venues
Taking part in chat forums etc. which relate to your subject
Advisory processes
Co-production processes
Judging competitions
Deliberative processes
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100 % More than 5 times 4-5 times 2-3 times Once Not at all
Base: 708
As seen in Figure 2, the greatest percentage of time spent in public engagement comes in the form of presentation – lectures and seminars – involving 52% of respondents in the last 12 months. These events were also attended most frequently over that time (13% did so more than 5 times). Non-academic writing and unspecified media appearances comprised the second largest area of engagement, both with 42% of respondents involved. Working with teachers and schools occupied a smaller percentage of people overall (only 36% at least once), but 10% of these did so more than 5 times. More frequent engagement in this area than media activity reflects how, for academic staff, the latter does not represent a regular commitment in quite the way teaching does. Nonetheless media engagement takes precedence for most and while this enhances the University’s profile, there is scope for more individuals to become involved in community work. Brand promotion and highlighting UCL’s contribution to research is another possible area of improvement, with only 32% attending a fair or exhibition and 31% taking part in a public debate.
14 Figure 3a: Which of these publishing activities, some specific to UCL, have you been involved with, either in contributing content, in organisation or support during your employment by UCL?
Publishing books
UCL website
Talking to Media Correspondents to help broaden awareness of research breakthroughs
Appearances on radio/ television
Public-facing Blogs, websites and web fora
Columns/ reviews in newspapers
UCL podcasts
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
More than 5 times 4-5 times 2-3 times Once Not at all Base: 708
Respondents contribute more content to books than any other published media. The figure above shows that 44% have engaged in this activity at least once. Possibly as a consequence of the time and resources needed for paper publishing a smaller proportion of respondents made more than five contributions to books (8%) compared with contributions to the UCL website (11%), or respondents that have spoken to media correspondents (10%), or contributed to radio and television programmes (10%) five times or more during their employment. A significant number also contributed to blogs and websites (10%). The UCL website is a popular interface with 41% indicating they have had involvement with the site in the course of their employment. For the engagement of the lay public, particularly on a global scale, this is a potential growth area. Such a sentiment was echoed during interviews by many of the heads of departments and will be discussed further below. Arguably one of the most prolific and important arenas for reaching the public, taking into account that 30% of staff have contributed at least three times to date, is talking to press correspondents. Providing UCL is properly credited this is valuable currency. Appearances on television or radio (arguably harder to come by and requiring specialist training or knowledge) occupied fewer people overall (31%). There was less overall involvement in new media like blogs (24%), newspaper columns (23%) and podcasts (5%) but the recurrent nature of blogging meant that, for 10% of people, this was something they had done more than five times.
15 Figure 2b: Which of these events, some specific to UCL, have you been involved with, either in contributing content, in organisation or support during your employment by UCL?
Open days
Lunch Hour Lecture series
Entering students into competitions
Summer schools
Organising/ participating in alumni-related events
Open displays of student work
Work with Widening Participation Unit
Work with UCL Museums
Concerts
Extra-mural courses
Scientific anniversaries
Student societies' outreach programmes
Plays at the Bloomsbury
Speeches at the Bloomsbury
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100 % More than 5 times 4-5 times 2-3 times Once Not at all Base: 708
Open days involve the largest proportion of UCL’s staff population (38%) and, with 7% having participated more than five times over their career, they also have the greatest frequency of involvement. A large percentage, 25%, also contributed to the lunch hour lecture series or were involved in entering students into competitions. Of these two events, the lecture series saw the most frequent activity, whether due to their incidence or the requirement of regular commitment by those within a particular field of expertise. Summer schools were another significant area of contribution, involving 23% of respondents, as were alumni related events, involving 22%. Both required a fairly regular commitment of respondents, with 4% and 3% respectively contributing more than five times. Smaller numbers were involved in events incorporating particular interest or specialism, such as concerts (12%) or speeches at the Bloomsbury (8%).
16 Figure 3c: Which of these public activities, some specific to UCL, have you been involved with, either in contributing content, in organisation or support during your employment by UCL?
Talks/ lessons in schools Working with businesses Volunteering in areas in which you have expertise Advising UK governmental departments Working with other museums Links with medical institutions Advising overseas governments Working with embassies Working with Birkbeck Working with the Royal Society Sitting on industry bodies Advising local councils Working with the British Museum Working with City and Islington College Facilitating broader opening of research sites Working with South Bank Centre Working with Jill Dando Institute for Crime Science Working with Courtauld Institute of Art
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
More than 5 times 4-5 times 2-3 times Once Not at all Base: 708
Figure 3c clearly shows how community outreach programmes are prioritised by UCL staff. Overall 28% have given talks and lessons in schools, with 8% doing so more than five times. Working with businesses (26%) and volunteering in areas of special expertise (25%) were also popular. Again a significant proportion (8% and 9% respectively) had contributed more than five times to each. Furthermore, the interviews suggested that intimate work with more specific groups – such as local Bangladeshi communities and prisoners – is on the future agenda.
Advising UK governmental departments also involved a sizeable percentage (23%), but with less frequency, probably as this calls for particular areas of knowledge. A smaller overall percentage were also involved in such professional areas as museum work (15%), advising overseas governments (23%) and local councils (11%), to name a few.
17 Figure 4: How would you define public engagement?
Informing the public/sharing specialist 31% knowledge
Any work/communication 24% with the public
Informing and listening 19% to the public
Informing and listening to the public to influence 14% research
Promoting the work 4% done by UCL
Other 7%
Don't Know 2%
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Base: 580
The greatest proportion of respondents, 31%, perceived public engagement as ‘informing the public or sharing specialist knowledge’, for example “any activity that involves getting the public interested or informed about my research”. This shows that knowledge transfer is generally regarded as the rationale for such activity, although one respondent during the interviews suggested that at least two members of her department did not consider knowledge transfer as integral to PE. 24% favoured the more general definition ‘any work or communication with the public’, with one respondent stating that they saw public engagement as “Any type of liaison with anybody not employed by UCL”. Many saw this as a two way process, with 19% choosing ‘informing and listening to the public’, with a further 14% regarding public input as valuable for research purposes, such as “A two-way process that does not forget that members of the public also have valuable expertise”. However the fact that 7% viewed public engagement as something ‘other’ shows that the idea is open to personal interpretation and needs definition. This will emerge to be related to perceptions of job descriptions below.
18 Figure 5: Which activities would you consider to be public engagement?
Presenting to the public Taking part in a public event/ debate Writing for the non-specialist public Media work aimed at a non-specialist audience Working with teachers/ schools Working with museums and other cultural venues Participation in other open days at your university Promoting public engagement activity Volunteering in areas in which you have expertise Advisory processes Taking part in chat forums Attendance at fairs/exhibitions Seeking public input into your research Deliberative processes Co-production processes Judging competitions
0% 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 % % % % % % % % % % Yes No Undecided Base: 708
As Figure 5 shows, most respondents (95%) see presenting to the public and participation in public events and debates (93%) as key to public engagement. The wider dissemination of information through non-specialist publication and media work are closely ranked as the next area of importance, whilst over 80% see work with schools and cultural venues as important. Work within the University itself on behalf of public engagement, such as participation in open days and PE promotion were a priority for the majority of respondents, although a minority did not view this as PE business. Whilst the majority see more marginal community involvement like volunteering, attendance at fairs and exhibitions and judging competitions as playing a part in PE, a significant percentage do now see these as central to the idea.
19 Figure 6: In your opinion, what are the three most-important UCL public engagement activities of which you are aware?
Media (e.g. TV, Radio) 33%
Museums/Public Buildings 27%
School interation 23%
Lunchtime lectures/summer schools 21%
Promoting/widening participation 21%
Open days 13%
Public Events 13%
Expert Advice 11%
UCL website 8%
Written work for non-specialist 6%
Public participation in research 2%
Other 7%
Don't Know 17%
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Base: 470
Figure 6 shows that 33% of respondents place an emphasis on media activity compared to 6% for non-specialist written work, interestingly given it has been shown that there is less activity in this area than presenting and non-specialist publishing, one respondent mentioned “Steve Jones’ appearances on radio and TV, and his column” as one of the most important activities. This shows that whilst people see the media as important there may be scope for broader involvement instead of a few members of staff undertaking the lion’s share.
A relatively small number (26%) of people have worked with museums in the last year but 27% still regard this as an important area. “The public exhibitions on campus (including the museums & Bloomsbury) and the fact that they are now more open and UCL appears to be a welcoming institution” are important to one respondent. Both the departments of Archaeology and of Anthropology, too, emerged during the interviews as particularly well engaged with museums.
Figure 3c shows there is an abundance of activity in schools, reflected in the precedence this is given by 23% of respondents. This is more likely to be an indication of its societal importance and for widening the University’s student catchment than for generating massive brand awareness. That said, it is certainly possible to be in contact with schools and not carry the motive of potential recruitment, For instance, the Built Environment department discussed its summer schools during the interviews. These function as introductory courses to architectural practice. There are 25 places for A-level students from London schools, but these are not intended as a preparatory course, with only a very small minority of attendees following the summer school up with an application to the University. This could serve as a useful model for other departments: PE pursued without necessarily looking for ‘recompense’ in the form of catchment or applications.
20 Open days and public events, reaching fewer numbers of people and requiring short-term interaction are only important for 13% of people respectively. Surprisingly, the UCL website is only rated by 8% of people in their top three activities, although some respondents held it in high esteem: “The website, it's really good now!” mentioned one UCL member of staff. This is a particularly interesting finding as it would appear to be at odds with the aforementioned importance many heads of department attach to the UCL website. In addition to providing a major means through which to establish an initial relationship with the public, the website is also viewed as a key way to continue this relationship in the future. Mention was made of using the online resources to allow members of the public who had in some way been in contact with the PE activities of UCL to provide feedback. Not only would this provide UCL with a useful way in which to gauge the effectiveness of its PE work, but also would enable interchange between the university and its public to be continued beyond simply the event itself. Perhaps improved dissemination of thought from the heads of department could help others to understand the potential behind the university website. This notion of improving communication structures, however, will recur in this study.
Finally, the fact that 17% state they ‘don’t know’ which areas are most important signals the need to work towards an understanding of the implications of different activities.
21 4.3 Departmental differences
Figure 7a: Which of these publishing activities, some specific to UCL, have you been involved with, either in contributing content, in organisation or support during your employment by UCL? a r o f
b e w
d s n n r o a i e
s p i s a v e t p e i l s s e t b w
/ e e o n w i
, d n i s a
r g s s o a n l w k i o e o d B
i s
t o e s v g e s b e t e M i n r a i c
s g c / c n o b t n s d a i a
f e r n o h - g a w p s c n m i i
i l l e u L L k l b b p l C C o u u p a U U T P P C A Medicine and Dentistry Subjects Allied to Medicine Biological Sciences Physical Sciences Social Studies Historical and Philosophical Studies Engineering European Languages, Literature and related subjects Other Support Staff
Not at all Once 2-3 times 4-5 times More than 5 times Base: 708
All UCL departments have talked to the media apart from support staff. There were particularly high levels of activity in Medicine and Dentistry, Social Studies and Historical and Philosophical Studies, where members engaged in this activity more than five times in the course of their employment. In this respect, appearances on radio and television was not the most frequent type of engagement, the members of most departments only having contributed 2-3 times overall. The UCL website saw the widest inclusion, with involvement from all staff, although those in Medicine and Dentistry, Medicine-related subjects and Biological Sciences had only been involved on average once. Fewer departmental members contributed to published books than online material and media output, although medical and science departments did so with greater frequency.
22 Figure 7b: Which of these events, some specific to UCL, have you been involved with, either in contributing content, in organisation or support during your employment by UCL? s t n e v e
d e t a l e r s - i n n o i t m i t k u l r e a o p
w n s m i t e o i n g r c
e n e i o t s d t
a u s n e t i p r e i s
u s s c f i t t r t o c r n u
e a e o s L c p d y
l r / u a l t s a u g s r p y o n s s i u a i t g H s r i d d m n
i e - n h r n n c a c a e r e e n t t n g p p r o n x u C E E L O O O Medicine and Dentistry Subjects allied to Medicine Biological Sciences Physical Sciences Social studies Historical and Philosophical studies Engineering European Languages, Literature and related subjects Other Support Staff s e t i m n m U a
r n g o i o t r a y p r p i u h c c b i s t s a y r
r m e a s m r u u t e P o i b
e u r o s l s g o a
u ' n B m s i
r s o s M n e l e e o i e l v h o t L i t d
o B e i n t i C
h n c a e U W c
a o h s s t s h h
c t t e r t i i i t f h e i a n w w t
c
e m s n e k k d r r y e e m i u o o a l c p t u P S S S S W W Medicine and Dentistry Subjects allied to Medicine Biological Sciences Physical Sciences Social studies Historical and Philosophical studies Engineering European Languages, Literature and related subjects Other Support Staff
Not at all Once 2-3 times 4-5 times More than 5 times Base: 708
The departmental breakdown in Figure 7b supports the results in Figure 3b, that open days represent the greatest area of involvement for UCL staff. Members of the Engineering department were most regularly involved, followed by humanities and social sciences. Most departmental members had involvement in summer schools or entering students into competitions at least once (more frequently in the case of engineering and physical sciences, respectively). Lunch hour lectures included the widest range of subjects – all but social sciences – indicating appetite for less publicly considered subjects. Areas of special interest like plays, exhibitions and museum work was less subscribed.
23 Figure 7c: Which of these public activities, some specific to UCL, have you been involved with, either in contributing content, in organisation or support during your employment by UCL? : e s i t r e s p e t x i e s
e s h t v c n r a e a h
e m u s t r o e m r a s y
t u
f p n e h o e s
s c e i d n g u l h m o n i i a t M n w t s
r s n u l n e t h e n i e i o i t s e v s i d p l o s t i s o i o m o h r c n
a g i b n r c
n
B r l e s s e r y u
e a r e a d a o t v c n
i i h e a c s
o t n
d s
o i l u s g r
r e
a d n e h g b c t K n o m v i n i
i o g s l o U r w h
s n n t i e i g g g t e o g l e
n n n w a t n i i i /
t i g i n s s s l s s k i i i i n r i u k k v v v l c t l o t n d d d i o a a i A A A F L S T V W Medicine and Dentistry Subjects allied to Medicine Biological Sciences Physical Sciences Social studies Historical and Philosophical studies Engineering European Languages, Literature and related subjects Other Support Staff e c n e i c S
e m i e r t g r C e
A l r
l f o o f o
C e
e r e t t t y n t u n u o t t e s t i i i e t t c g m s C s
o n u i n n
l k I I s S e
s s n l e I s o d e
a l i s a u k d d u s s y B c n
m n s a e o
e t a h a r a n r t b R i D e b u u k y s t l r h e i o l i o u m t i h B b C C e J o S t
h h h h h h h h h t t t t t t t t t i i i i i i i i i w w w w w w w w w
g g g g g g g g g n n n n n n n n n i i i i i i i i i k k k k k k k k k r r r r r r r r r o o o o o o o o o W W W W W W W W W Medicine and Dentistry Subjects allied to Medicine Biological Sciences Physical Sciences Social studies Historical and Philosophical studies Engineering European Languages, Literature and related subjects Other Support Staff
Not at all Once 2-3 times 4-5 times More than 5 times
Base: 708
Consistent with the overall findings for public activities (Figure 3c), more departments were involved in school-related activity than any other, with an average of more than five visits per member of staff in the course of employment. Members of all but the Biological Sciences department undertook voluntary work at least once and a smaller number worked with businesses. The Medical and Dentistry, Historical and Philosophical Studies, and Engineering departments proffered the most regular advise to UK governmental departments. Work with cultural centres was more limited in both subject range and frequency.
24 Figure 8: In your opinion, what are the three most-important UCL public engagement activities of which you are aware? s l o o n h o i c t s a
r p i e s c i g m t r n i ) m a d o u p l i i
s d / u g s a n B i e
R r n n
c i , u l o e t i V t b d c s i T a t u e
r l w . n
P / e / g e t e g . s v n n i e m i
i ( m E t l t
u o o c h a i i e l o c m d s b h n o e u c r u u M L S M P P Medicine and Dentistry Subjects allied to Medicine Biological Sciences Physical Sciences Social studies Historical and Philosophical studies Engineering European Languages, Literature and related subjects Other Support Staff
1st 2nd 3rd
Base: 470
A distinct pattern arises in Figure 8, in which science departments prioritise media contribution while the humanities and social sciences emphasize the importance of working with museums and public buildings. Evidently the contribution of expert knowledge is something most important to the media in the field of science, for which the University receives due credit. This also provides a useful public outlet for publicising UCL research interests. Meanwhile the specialist historical and humanitarian knowledge provides an important contextual support for cultural centres, and would explain the strong museum engagement of the Archaeology and Anthropology departments mentioned above. School interaction came in second place for importance for scientists due to the need to engage the interest of youngsters. European Languages and Literature deemed lunchtime lectures and summer schools to be of greater importance, possibly as these are subjects people often study on a part time basis.
25 5. Institutional engagement
5.1 Summary
At present the majority of UCL academic staff do not feel PE is either included in their job title or an appraisal target. This could be a potential stumbling block when trying to increase involvement.
It would be beneficial for staff to consider PE as a core part of their role within UCL and feel that any PE work they do undertake is adequately recognised. Also significant is that more than 20% do not know where PE stands in relation to their responsibility within UCL. Clearer boundaries and instructions need to be given in order to elucidate staff understanding of PE.
Having clarified what is expected or desired from the staff the next problem is how to motivate them to actively participate. The key motivators for PE are largely personal, with “I enjoy it” and “I feel it is a duty” ranking top.
More emphasis can be placed on other more tangible incentives such as making PE a promotion criteria or presenting awards for exemplary public work. Equally institutional support could be increased with less than 20% of respondents rating this as motivating them “a great deal”.
Respondents were asked whether in their opinion both UCL’s broad subject range and its central location either enhanced or hindered public engagement, the results are overwhelmingly positive.
95% of respondents believe the broad subject base helps PE, with the key reasons being that there is an array of available topics to interest the public. Over 90% perceived UCL’s central location as a positive factor for PE.
There are some negatives concerning being centrally located most of which centre around a lack of local community.
Perhaps being more involved in Camden and other proximate boroughs could remedy this.
26 5.2 Overall
Figure 9: Is public engagement included in your job description?
100%
90%
80%
70% 63% 60%
50%
40%
30% 25%
20% 12% 10%
65 332 133 0% Yes No Don't Know
Base: 530
Figure 9 reveals the extent to which PE does not explicitly fall under the remit of most UCL employees. A sizeable majority, 63%, do not see this as included in their job description, while 25% are unaware if it is or not. This essentially reveals the extent to which it is viewed as an option rather than a requirement and people are not clear on where their responsibilities lie. In addition, this is likely to be at the root of the discrepancies surrounding the definition of PE above: obviously those who consider it within their professional remit will be better acquainted with the nature of PE; those who do not will be relying on perhaps more indirect sources of knowledge to inform their understanding.
These findings were very much reinforced by comments made during interviews. Although some departments, such as the STS department, were explicit in their recognition that public engagement ‘is an integral part of the job’, others noted that not all are equally aware of their professional obligations in this respect. This gave rise to the suggestion that there is actually a ‘type’ of individual who tends to become involved with public engagement:‘Some do it because they love their subject; some do it because they love themselves’, offered one, while another said the majority of participants are either ‘very intelligent people who have high commitment to their area of interest, but will never crack it as 5* researchers in their field’ or ‘those involved in a highly controversial field, and as a consequence feel they must engage the public to explain it’.
Despite the somewhat ironic tone of the above comments, the main feature to understand is that PE is sometimes viewed as the remit of only those with a particular orientation or enthusiasm. The perception that it is expected of all staff is not uniformly held at present.
27 Figure 10: Is public engagement an appraisal target?
100%
90%
80%
70% 61% 60%
50%
40%
30% 22% 20% 17%
10%
92 324 114 0% Yes No Don't Know
Base: 530
PE is neither a condition of employment or subject to any formal review or appraisal process. In Figure 10 it can be seen that 61% of respondents were aware of this and a further 22% were unsure. Essentially this means there is no incentive or pressure for staff to engage with the public; rather it is a matter of personal choice. More importantly there is no formal acknowledgement for those that do.
This issue was frequently raised in the course of the interviews, too – and again there is a disparity of perception across the departments. On the one hand, departments such as Social Science and Built Environment expressed satisfaction with the introduction of ‘promotion criteria’ as a means to motivate and recognise PE involvement. On the other, those in Engineering and Special Projects, for instance, complained that there was ‘no formal procedure’ in place to encourage participation, and that ‘impetus is very piecemeal at UCL’. Again, it seems that PE has not yet firmly taken root within understandings of job descriptions at UCL: as shown above, awareness is extremely limited, and now it emerges that appropriate reward structures to acknowledge and promote participation are not deemed wholly satisfactory.
28 Figure 11: To what extent does each of the following currently motivate you to get involved in public engagement?
100%
80%
60% Don't know Not at all Not very much 40% To some extent A great deal
20%
530 530 530 530 530 530 530 530 530 0% t t r y s i y n y r t m t e i n o e i d r t f t o u a t r y d m e t m n h f t o n o t d n a o I e n n n a y j a h b e m o e t s a a r a m t e w O d t i n a k m i o e s e d e j t m i a a n n e m n s s s r g m i t w z s i o t e i s e r u i i a I r r y g o a e e e t r h o e t h r r y a r s r t t a a n p I i v p i g i v m e u e p e p o p i c r I p u e y l l i o n e h p d e g b u q m e e h
c o d M T p n d s e t h e c n r I o a f m t a e I I
Base: 530
The results in Figure 11 show overwhelmingly the extent to which public engagement is generally stimulated neither by materialism nor obligation. The greatest motivator is enjoyment, which 45% regarded as meaning ‘a great deal’ and inspired a further 41% ‘to some extent’ for example one person stated “I think it is important, and therefore rewarding, though not necessarily my duty.”. In light of the results seen in figures 9 and 10 this is important, with people seemingly prepared to get involved regardless of duty. A total of 23% revealed their own aptitude for this work was one of the strongest incentives. Factors such as career advancement, job requirement, financial advantage for the department and prizes are significantly less important – which perhaps reiterates the finding that these dimensions are currently under-emphasised by UCL. That said, a sense of duty matters at least ‘to some extent’ to 68% of people and encouragement to a further 49%. Thus the issue of departmental support and assigning responsibility warrant consideration.
29 Figure 12a: Do you feel that UCL’s broad base of subjects enhances or hinders public engagement?
100% 95%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10% 5% 506 24 0% Enhances Hinders
Base: 530
A strong majority of 95% indicated that the diversity of subjects on offer at UCL is a draw for the public. This is a critical selling point that should be used to extend public participation, particularly given the University’s central London location. This means encouraging all departments to get on board.
30 Figure 12b: Why do you feel that UCL's broad base of subjects enhances or hinders public engagement?
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
42% 15% 12% 12% 4% 9% 6% 0 A broader range Interdisciplinary More Range of People have a Other Don't Know of topics for the perspective opportunities for experts confused image public to be engagement of UCL interested in
Base: 530
Most respondents think offering a broad base of subjects serves to enhance public engagement, various reasons were cited for this. One such respondent stated “It maximises opportunity to engage, inform and educate the 'public' across the broadest possible subject range”. The strongest rationale, given by 42% of members, is simply that a greater range means more potential for arousing public interest, while for 12% this simply offers more opportunities for engagement (thereby attracting greater numbers). A further 12% specified that this means UCL has a greater access to experts in multiple fields thus creating more points of public contact. One respondent pointed out that “Almost every Radio 4 program has a ‘Specialist in “X” from University College London’ on it”. For 15%, the potential to bring interdisciplinary perspectives to bear on public issues is important for engagement, for example “UCL can bring a variety of viewpoints to bear on the same issue.”
31 Figure 13: How do you feel UCL’s central location in London contributes towards public engagement?
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
28% 22% 21% 10% 9% 8% 5% 3% 5% 4% 0 f - r c y a e e y w t i t o n r t t e i ) i t o l e d o u h i y n k n t n ) e c c t n b b i s i i i u c ( i e l l l c K r O
i n m a s c t b a b f m l m t p i u ( ' l s n u c u u o n c n e t e o m t p o p e m o l e o h c i c o n
s e t p o s m c c e t o D t u r s s a / s t o a l o e e o s m e m c l u n e d / o s e e
s l p s C n s e s g s i D o a t o l o s s a e l c n H P a C e g o o e C l e n n v D i r e e s c u n I b
Base: 530
As shown in Figure 13, most employees feel UCL’s location encourages PE. While 28% did not give a reason, 22% saw privileged media access as the main advantage, to quote one respondent “if you are 10 minutes walk from Broadcasting House you will be on BBC Radio far more often”. This corresponds with Figure 5 above, in which media contact was prioritised over other activities in its importance for public engagement. Respondents perceive a central location as useful for accessibility (21%), proximity to public events/ museums (10%) and the local community (5%). The size of London’s central population is also mentioned by 9% for instance one respondent considered UCL’s location to be an “'Ideal situation with an enormous population to encourage public engagement!” A small but not insignificant percentage of 8% do not see location as offering a discernible advantage and 3% actually view this as a hindrance, down to a lack of local unity, “A university in a smaller town may do more for the local community.” was one such argument.
32 5.3 Departmental differences
Figure 14: To what extent does each of the following currently motivate you to get involved in public engagement? s e z i r p
d n a
s t t r d n r o e a p m p w t r u a
s a
e p e v e e i m d
h s y c e b a m
v
o i j o o
g t t
y t n y r i n t
m i e
t e y i n e n e i r t u m
t t n t a a r r
o c n o a d e y p y m p o t
p e m o u e m o
d r e g d
r
h f o i n t i a o u m
a m
q w a t s d i i s s e I
i a s r t
g y i
e r p k e l n l o a r i j h e n
e r e i
e n h s y h b e h i t h e f t t t t M T I I I I I I O Biological Sciences Engineering European Languages, Literature and related subjects Historical and Philosophical studies Medicine and Dentistry Other Physical Sciences Social studies Subjects allied to Medicine
Don't Know Not at all Not very much To some extent A great deal Base: 530
As in Figure 11, the results for Figure 14 show enjoyment to be the greatest motivation for PE, a sentiment shared at least ‘to some extent’ by respondents across all UCL departments. Engineering conspicuously derives ‘a great deal’ of enjoyment from these activities, possibly offering a useful benchmark. This is especially noteworthy as Engineering was one of the departments that explicitly pointed out the lack of ‘formal procedures’ when it came to structuring incentives, and as such reemphasises the notion of PE as largely a labour of love. A sense of ‘being good at it’ is the next most important factor confirming that it is largely personal rather than institutional reasons staff give as motivation for PE.
33 6. Attitudes to engagement
6.1 Summary
A key issue to note here is that the majority of respondents feel that, at least to some extent, they have the necessary confidence and skills to undertake PE.
More than half of the respondents feel PE is an important part of their job. Compare this to those that feel they have the opportunity to undertake PE where 40% responded “not very much” or “not at all”. There is an even greater lack of awareness of networks and arrangements with only 22% responding at least, “to some extent”.
This tells us that staff feel they are capable but may not have the resources to undertake PE work and that there is a lack of awareness about what is available.
If we combine these findings with the fact that 70% of respondents personally want to do PE work, it seems the only missing links are opportunities to get involved and clearer pathways for communication of those opportunities. Issues of communication generally can be understood to permeate other layers of UCL’s PE arrangements, too.
6.2 Overall
Figure 15: To what extent do the following statements reflect your circumstances?
100%
80%
Don't know 60% Not at all Not very much To some extent 40% A great deal
20%
530 530 530 530 530 0% I feel I have the I feel I have the I consider PE to I feel I have the I am aware of necessary necessary skills be an important opportunity to networks and confidence to to undertake PE part of my job undertake PE coordinating undertake PE arrangements for PE across HEIs and other organisations
Base: 530
The results in Figure 15 reveal an interesting finding: that more respondents have the requisite confidence and skills to undertake public engagement commitments than feel they have the opportunity. Where 80% feel they had the confidence ‘to some extent’ and 31% having ‘a great deal’, this received better ratings than skills (where 22% and 68% selected the same respective options). This might reveal a slight, though easily remedied, shortfall where training is concerned. While 60% view PE as an important part of their job, a significant proportion, this does not equate to the numbers who feel themselves capable. This reflects the results in Figure 9 and, while it is not clear from these responses whether additional
34 responsibility is welcome, warrants closer examination. What is clear is that more effort must be made in circulating information on opportunities for PE.
That communication pathways could be improved likewise surfaced in the interviews. It should be noted, however, that at the time of interviewing there was no public engagement co-ordinator appointed. Expressions of discontent with certain aspects of communication are perhaps no longer quite as pertinent as they were when this post was still unfilled. Calls for a central, coordinating interface within the university to provide a point of contact and to ensure consistency might, too, have been addressed by this recent appointment.
That said, it is clear UCL nevertheless faces some strong challenges in the area of communication – especially as respondents identified different types of information pathway as currently problematic:
‘The Development Office sees UCL as set of departments under the same name…There is no central campus…This is a barrier to successful engagement.’
‘A faculty is much bigger than a department; thus it’s difficult to know what individuals are doing.’
‘Those at senior level are aware, but this has not filtered down to all levels.’
Thus there are a variety of avenues along which information is deemed to be insufficiently disseminated: across departments university-wide, across departments within a faculty, and from senior positions cascading downwards. In addition, the aforementioned lack of awareness of the definition of PE, of its relationship to job descriptions and of the reward schemes in place to recognise participation all appear attributable to issues of communications. So this perhaps goes to the heart of UCL’s PE difficulties at present. UCL might benefit from a re-examination of the ways in which it currently communicates the full spectrum of PE-related information in order to enhance these levels of awareness.
35 Figure 16: Do you personally want to do PE work?
100%
90%
80% 70% 70%
60%
50%
40%
30% 22% 20%
10% 7%
373 38 119 0% Yes No Undecided
Base: 530
The results of Figure 16 show an overwhelmingly positive trend, that 70% are already interested in PE. Furthermore the 22% who are currently undecided might be open to conversion. While this represents a notional interest, and some might need more encouragement than others, it might indicate that creating occasion for, rather than making a requirement of, PE will have the most benefit. In other words there might be better reception for a scheme founded on goodwill rather than a sense of obligation.
36 6.3 Departmental differences
Figure 17: To what extent do the following statements reflect your circumstances? s t E n P
e e m k e a E t g r P n b
e a o e d j r
k r E n y a a u P t
r m g
o e e f t n k
i d o t a e n t t a c r r u n
n a e i o e p d d t
r
d t n i s o f n u l l
o n i a t o c o k t
r
c s d o
y t y y n p i r r a n
m a a i u s
s s t k r n s s r o a e e o c c p e w e e p t b n n o
e
o n e e e t
f h h h t t t E o
P e e e e
v v v r r a a a a e h h h d w
i I I I a s
l l l n e e e m o e e e c f f f a
I I I I I Biological Sciences Engineering European Languages, Literature and related subjects Historical and Philosophical studies Medicine and Dentistry Other Physical Sciences Social studies Subjects allied to Medicine
Don't Know Not at all Not very much To some extent A great deal
Base: 530
As discussed in relation to Figure 15, confidence and skills are elements that respondents from most departments feel they have ‘to some extent’. This is less true of Biological Sciences, Subjects allied to Medicine and Engineering who have ‘not very much’ (and this despite the enjoyment the last department derived from PE activity). A smaller number overall feel they have sufficient opportunity to undertake PE or thought it part of their job but it is the absence of networks and coordination that poses the greatest obstacle for more than half the surveyed departments.
37 7. Support for engagement
7.1 Summary
Although there is willingness from the UCL staff to participate in PE, the main difficulty they perceive seems to be a lack of opportunities. Conversely across all areas respondents feel that there is a supportive attitude towards PE.
This can be explained by highlighting the difference between support and active encouragement. Whilst staff may feel supported, at least 46% specified they would like help in finding funding, training, and help in finding projects.
If staff were enthusiastically approached with, or informed about, ideas, training and funding for PE work their main support requirements would be met.
As previously noted, there is a marked difference between respondents’ ideas of what is important and what the most heavily practiced PE activities are, especially regarding working with schools and the community.
This is represented here by 16% and 14% of respondents that would like to see more done in each of these areas respectively. Also significant is that 19% do not know where UCL should do more PE; again highlighting that awareness and communication should be increased.
This is further evidence of the need for some form of management designated to working on, and overseeing others’ work on, public engagement.
38 7.2 Overall
Figure 18: Do you feel supported to undertake public engagement activities by institutional systems and procedures? To what extent do the following statements reflect your circumstances?
100%
80%
Don't know 60% Not at all Not very much To some extent 40% A great deal
20%
530 530 530 0% My line manager is generally Peers/colleagues in my The work culture of my supportive towards those who department are generally institution is generally take part in public supportive towards those who supportive towards those who engagement activities. take part in public take part in public engagement activities. engagement activities.
Base: 530
Overall institutional support for PE is strong (over 60% feel this ‘to some extent’ across all aspects of university life). Nonetheless it is interesting to see, in Figure 18, that a larger number think line managers support public engagement ‘a great deal’ (30%) than peers/ colleagues (26%). This could be explained by the fact that line managers will inevitably have a vested interest in this kind of work to ensure it does not interfere with academic commitments. It is worth noting that 17% of people do not know whether they had the support of management. This would indicate either that this work is viewed as something supplementary to departmental work or that there is a lack of communication surrounding this issue. Both of these issues have been covered in full above. Also, less support is felt in terms of the work culture, suggesting a degree of insularity to university life with a focus on internal engagement.
39 Figure 19: What things would you like to help you undertake more public engagement?
50% 46% 45% 42% 40% 40% 37%
35%
30% 27%
25%
20% 18%
15%
10%
5% 245 220 213 197 95 144 0% Help in finding Training Help in finding Help in finding Help in finding Other financing projects partners to venues work with
Base: 530
Most help is sought, by 46% of respondents, to find financing for PE activity. It is not clear whether people felt this was not forthcoming or simply that the avenues were obscure. Either way funding requires the attention of a dedicated individual or office. One interviewee agreed, describing UCL as having a ‘poor funding framework’, while another made reference to losing an opportunity to establish a valuable partnership with the Institute of Cultural Heritage on account of funding-related issues. Training was identified as an area for attention in relation to individual circumstances (Figures 15 and 17) and is reiterated here by 42% of respondents. Other evidence of the need for greater inter- and intra- departmental coordination and communication (already illuminated in this report) comes from the 40% who specified a need for help with finding projects and 37% with finding partners. Given UCL’s extensive campus and resources, venues are only a problem for 18% of people; nevertheless time is required in sourcing and booking and needs administration.
40 Figure 20: What would you like to see UCL do more of? Are there groups of people you think we should try and work with?
Local Schools/ Young People 16% Advertising/ better media relations 14% Community Work 14% Improve info/ co-ordination/ networking opportunities 9% Allocate time/ funding to PE 8% Wider engagement (London and International) 7% Links with government and NGOs 7% Raise gen profile of science/ engineering 6% Recognition/ rewards for engagement 4% Promote benefits/ incr awareness PE 4% Staff Training 3% Collaboration with cultural organisations/ artists 3% Public lectures/ events/ debates 3% Other 14% Don't Know 19%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Base: 530
The greatest number of respondents state the need for UCL to address its responsibility to the outlying community. Of these, 16% specify local schools and young people (“The input of university researchers can really help to inspire children and also to "make Science interesting") and 14% community work as areas for attention (“More work in the less glamorous parts of London (not just City and Islington College) where we really have a chance to influence the next generation”). The belief in the media’s productivity for public engagement (Fig 6) is again echoed by 14%, who see this worthy of more work. If we compare this to that which is currently being carried out, with a focus on presenting to the public, it can be gleaned that local target populations are not attending these events. This also reflects the idea, as discussed, that respondents place an emphasis on physical interaction for reaching these groups. A further 9% think coordination and networking opportunities are important and 8% see the need to allocate time and funding with one such respondent stating “I think the first important step is to get a grip on the PE work which is currently ongoing at UCL”. Such resources are required not only to generate awareness of public engagement opportunities, but to ensure such activity does not impede research and teaching commitments.
41 7.3 Departmental differences
Figure 21: What things would you like to help you undertake more public engagement? s t c e j b u s
d e t a l e r
d n s a e
i e d r u u t t s
a l r a e e t c i n i i L h c
i y , p r d s t o e e s s i s t g o M l
e s i n a c o e h e u t n c
g P D
e n d n i s d d e e c a i i e l i n n g l c L S
d a a n a l i S l n u r a l t e s a a e t c s a n i c
e i c i e l c r g i r c p e n i a j i s i o o e o l t d b y c g r h s o e t i u i h o n u M S B P S H E E O Help in finding financing Training Help in finding projects Help in finding partners to work with
1st 2nd 3rd
Base: 530
Financing is identified by most departments as the area where most help is needed. The only respondents which differ on this point are from Medicine-related subjects and Engineering, who see training as a priority. These findings may reflect the distribution of financial resources within the University, but also the fields the public traditionally regard to be obscure and technical. For Medicine, Dentistry and related subjects, funding is of secondary importance presumably to avoid public engagement siphoning resources from teaching. Meanwhile issues of coordination and networking remain high on the agenda, with biological and physical sciences placing ‘help in finding projects’ in second place. Historical and Philosophical Studies, Engineering, European Languages and Literature also give ‘help in finding partners to work with’ a similar rating.
42 8. Barriers to engagement
8.1 Summary
Staff spending more time on research, teaching and administration as well as PE in their own time appear to be the most significant barriers.
Respondents feel that with all the other commitments they are already fulfilling, public engagement activities are not a priority.
This could be remedied in three possible ways.
Firstly by freeing up time in staff schedules so that more time is available for carrying out work with the public. Secondly, by encouraging staff to treat PE work as more of a priority and therefore increasing the amount of time they are willing to spend undertaking it Or thirdly by providing more support for those staff that wish to undertake PE so that participating is less time consuming.
Other important barriers to overcome are a lack of training and knowledge and a lack of opportunity.
If more emphasis is put on training staff specifically for PE work and this is done in partnership with increasing awareness of what events are taking place, both these barriers could be broken down.
43 8.2 Overall
Figure 22: Is anything stopping you from becoming (more) involved in public engagement activities?
I need to spend more time on my research/teaching 73% Iwould have to do it in my own time 31% Lack of opportunity 28% I am already involved enough 28% I need to spend more time on administration 27% I don't know how to/I do not have the training 25% There is not enough funding 24% I would get no recognition 17% There would be no benefit for me 14% There is no senior level support 13% I am too junior 13% Other 12% I don't have the confidence 7% English is not my first language 6% I just don't want to 6% Iam only in the UK for a limited period 4% I feel I am encroaching on Press Office work 3% Iwould be bad at it 3% Peer pressure 2%
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Base: 530
A considerable proportion of respondents (73%) mention a lack of time as one of the most significant barriers to PE, and specifically the need to spend more time on research and teaching compared to working with the public. The second highest recorded response (31%) is that the staff would have to participate in PE in their own time, with another 27% needing more time to spend on administration. If we look at these three responses together it seems apparent that the overwhelming majority of respondents feel they simply do not have enough time to take part in more public engagement activities. Interviewees frequently echoed this sentiment, too:
‘At present staff time pressures limit the amount they can give…Time is the main limitation but they also need to get PE high enough up on the agendas of staff and departmental heads.’
‘Time is always a pressure but, because it is one of those four criteria, the University is willing to fund the time for those wishing to undertake such projects.’
‘The main obstacle is time, with top researchers spending all of theirs on research. They need a kickback from this, whether personal or career progression.’
Not only do the above comments reveal awareness of this issue on behalf of the departmental heads, but again they each recognise it as being related to the extent to which PE is embedded into professional conditions and expectations. It would appear that time is only a factor because PE has not been completely incorporated into academics’ sense of their typical working agenda – in terms of both timetabling and recompense.
Another notable response is “lack of opportunity” (28%), just under a third of respondents feel they would be more involved with public engagement if they had more opportunities to participate. This ties in with “I don’t know how to/I don’t have the training” which 25% of respondents state as a barrier. If looked at in tandem over half of the academic respondents (53%) consider either lack of knowledge or lack of opportunity as an explanation as to why
44 they are not more involved with PE. Awareness of ways to participate seems to be lacking, as well as a designated training schemes to help staff feel more confident to become more actively involved. Unfortunately 28% of respondents feel they are already involved enough, this however may be as a direct result of not having enough time, it may well be the case that if other barriers are surmounted, staff would feel the amount of PE they are willing to do would increase. A significant portion (24%) also mention a lack of financial support as a barrier, interestingly this is relatively low considering, in Figure 19, 46% of respondents mentioned they would like more help in finding funding. This is evidence that even though many staff claim that they would like financial support, if they do not have the time to carry out the work their participation may not increase. The top seven responses likely cover the most significant barriers to PE within UCL, with a lack of time for participation being the most important barrier to overcome.
One of the more minor barriers might be worth mentioning finally. The 17% who felt they ‘would get no recognition’ is interesting as it was raised by a couple of the interview respondents and ties in broadly with what is emerging as a key area for UCL to target in the future: widespread clarity and articulation in relation to PE. Interviewees from both the departments of Law and of Engineering felt that one barrier is ‘unrecognised achievements’, with one suggesting that ‘UCL hides its light under a considerable bushel’. So this again points to two familiar traits: the delineation and expression of the reward structures in place for PE involvement, and the comprehensive communication of PE activities along the relevant pathways. As shown before, the majority are motivated by enjoyment and good will, but the facilitation of appropriate recognition could help to shift perception of PE as the hobby of the enthusiast to a more professional domain.
45 8.3 Departmental differences
Figure 23: Is anything stopping you from becoming (more) involved in public engagement activities? (Top three) s t c e j b u s
d e t a l e r
d n s a e
i e d r u u t t s
a l r a e e t c i n i i L h c
i y , p r d s t o e e s s i s t g o M l
e s i n a c o e h e u t n c
g P D
e n d n i s d d e e c a i i e l i n n g l c L S
d a a n a l i S l n u r a l t e s a a e t c s a n i c
e i c i e l c r g i r c p e n i a j i s i o o e o l t d b y c g r h s o e t i u i h o n u M S B P S H E E O I need to spend more time on my research/teaching Lack of opportunity I don't know how to/I do not have the training I am already involved enough I would have to do it in my own time I need to spend more time on administration
1st 2nd 3rd
Base: 530
As with the overall responses the need to spend time on research and teaching is the most important barrier looking from a departmental point of view.All departments ranked it as the most significant barrier to PE. The majority of departments show other time constraints as their second most significant barriers. Engineering staff and staff across other departments both show “I am already involved enough” as the second most significant barrier and Physical Sciences rank it as the third most significant, nevertheless none of the other departments rank this as one of the top three barriers. This suggests that if the other barriers are overcome there will be a willingness to engage with the public from most departments.
46 9. Support views
9.1 Summary
Support staff play a vital role in the public engagement activities that take place at UCL. 59% of respondents consider PE to be part of their job, compared to just 12% of academic staff.
Considering their relatively closer contact with the public, it is interesting to see how they feel the public perceives UCL.
Overall the results are positive with most people complimentary about UCL’s reputation. Awareness and accessibility are areas that could be improved upon.
We can also see that there is a willingness to become more involved in PE.
Especially encouraging is the fact that of all respondents that are not currently involved with PE, only 18% express no desire to be more involved in the future.
In order to facilitate this increased participation there are number of barriers to overcome, a lack of time being the most significant.
As with academics, a large portion of the support staff feel they currently have too much other work to find the time to undertake PE.
This can be overcome by : . Offering more support to reduce the amount of time needed to participate. . Reducing current workload to free up time for PE . Offering rewards and recognition to those that do participate.
The support staff themselves feel that UCL could improve awareness, accessibility and information of PE events to increase participation both by the public and by the staff.
Interestingly very few respondents are involved with community outreach work, and with community work ranked as the third best way UCL could improve, this would appear to be an ideal area for development.
47 9.2 Overall
Figure 24: Do you engage with the public as part of your job?
100%
90%
80%
70%
59% 60%
50% 41% 40%
30%
20%
10%
105 73 0% Yes No
Base: 178
The majority of support staff (59%) do engage with the public on some level, we can compare this to just 12% of academic staff who perceive PE to be a part of their job description. This shows that members of the support staff have a much more active involvement with the public than their academic counterparts. 43%, still a large proportion, have no engagement with the public as part of their job, this shows that whilst PE is more widespread among support staff it is not practiced by everyone.
48 Figure 25: What do the public say about UCL? 35
30
25
20
15
10
5
30 20 11 8 7 6 4 13 7 0 ] ]
r
/ r r d n e d d t s r e c w h e e o c n n i s s i a i h o c h h t n a a t t e r t t h t i m n a e e l n a l o o s t g n s / t O e k l [ [ e E e e u n e e e a d e r i t i l l ' s l t p e e g a c a i d b i m l n e e i e v v c i x r i n i v w o c s t t a m c R e i a a a x s r a D a a s n r f e b g c E o i g c l e o r t P o c b o N r a u o p n p P I
Base: 106
When asked what the public most often say about UCL the responses are primarily positive. 28% of respondents mention the public commented on UCL’s academic reputation and research excellence with another 25% reporting excellent programmes and facilities or other positive comments (“They are very proactive and positive in viewing UCL as one of the world's leading universities”). However 27% report more negative comments with “poor branding and public awareness” the most frequent criticism, one respondent reported that “People are not clear where UCL is, or what the initials stand for, or what UCL does”. 12% fall into the “other” category showing that the public’s ideas on UCL are greatly varied.
49 Figure 26a: Would you like to be more involved with the public?
50%
45% 41% 40% 38%
35%
30%
25% 21% 20%
15%
10%
5%
68 37 73 0% Yes No Undecided Base: 178
73 support staff are undecided as to whether they wish to be more involved with public engagement; this may indicate that they require more information on the subject before they can make an informed decision. Over a third of respondents (38%) would like to become more involved with the public compared to just (21%) who would not.
50 Figure 26b: Would you like to be more involved with the public? vs. Do you engage with the public as part of your job?
60%
50% 48%
41% Do you engage 40% 36% with the public as 34% part of your job? Yes 30% No 23% 20% 18%
10%
43 25 24 13 38 35 0% Yes No Undecided Would you like to be more involved with the public? Base: 178
The graph above shows the support staff’s responses to both whether they engage with the public, as well as whether they would like to be more involved with the public. It shows us that of all the staff currently engaging with the public 41% would like to do more so. It also shows that of those staff that are not engaging with the public 34% would like to. Only 18% of staff who are not currently involved with the public express no desire to be more involved. With a number of support staff willing to do, or undecided about doing more PE activity it could well be a matter of providing more information and opportunities to encourage greater participation.
51 Figure 27: What do you feel is stopping you?
30
25
20
15
10
5
45% 21% 20% 7% 2% 14% 5% 0 l r e n s g w a e o e n o i m i i c h i t i t t n i d p s T i n n K O r y s u u r t c h t ' f r F e s p i n o / o r e o r y p k t D a D i p
c r b b a O u / o L c t r J e o S p p u S
Base: 64
Of those respondents that would like to be more involved with the public the number one barrier is a lack of time (45%). Perhaps allocating time dedicated to public engagement would increase the participation of those staff that are willing to do more but struggle to schedule it around their other responsibilities. One respondent suggested “pre-organised schemes that won't involve me having to set them up”. A lack of support and opportunities (21%) ranks second and the feeling that it is not in their job description (20%) third (“Some academics don't see the engagement with the public as a priority or as part of their job”). These figures suggest that more could be done to create a specific role that the support staff can play with regards to public engagement and that more encouragement and support from within UCL is needed. For example one member of staff mentioned there is a “lack of interest in the department - the culture has encouraged a passive stance”. With a relatively small proportion (7%) of respondents mentioning funding as a barrier it would appear that other factors are more significant than financial issues.
52 Figure 28: What type of events do you help with?
25
20
15
10
5
19% 17% 16% 14% 13% 12% 12% 7% 6% 5% 4% 0
s ts h ts ts ts c ts ia h r y n c n n n t n d c e a e a e e e e e e a th D v re v v v s v re O n e t e E E e e M t e i u e l c u p n O t a m n g O m l ra t u re tin O u o o n e e i ty l o p e s f u i /a h r m u n cr n t c o rt o u n S C a M /c e m e p s R d e e m tu D rs o S u C o c g in rn a e L
Base: 143
Figure 28, perhaps unsurprisingly, shows that open days and student/alumni events engage the highest proportion of support staff, 19% and 17% respectively. One would expect this as they are more labour intensive than more remote activities that show a lower participation. However it also suggests that there are more open days and student activities taking place, perhaps more emphasis could be placed on media and community outreach to try and increase participation in these areas.
53 Figure 29: What should UCL do in order to work better with the public? 30
25
20
15
10
5
23% 20% 18% 14% 11% 11% 10% 6% 0 l t e s c t y n a d l t i s i t ) n n l n i e e o b e n g i c r s e o b e n n t a i g e n n l n u y m t u i i u i a o t m i a v c r a o m a t i p a i c e l t n e / e n t t e m d l m m i e v f l r e u g b n g i f e f r a v f o r r l c f a l u o m u r o n a e t i h o / o f o l b y a o t e p m o e g p p c i l s i t y r r b m
v p M t c c p y n e s d M r s i i o o w / u e e c r n l u o o e i s n f / i e c l s p k g i t b s l m e e n . a l t p i i c a a m i e u o i c r e g r r b r e l g e f r . p o m c M e e u o b n d B o e t f h a i p ( E f u e a r M c M p c c O s a
Base: 124
Interestingly the most common response from the support staff when asked what UCL could do in order to work better with the public is to make UCL more accessible and have a more public friendly image (23%). For example one member of support staff mentioned “it is more important that the public engage with UCL and its staff and students in a human and social way”. This is surprising considering the highest number of staff are involved with open days; perhaps these events need to be more visibly available in order to encourage a greater public participation. This is backed up by the second highest response “more publicity/available information” (20%), again suggesting that the public needs to be more informed about events taking place at UCL. This response can also be interpreted as the staff themselves needing more information to allow them to work better with the public. Important to notice is that 18% of respondents mentioned “more involvement with schools/community” as a way to improve PE, however in terms of the number of staff involved “community outreach” ranks the lowest of all events. One respondent proposed a bigger effort to “Work more closely with schools, get children into the buildings, meeting academics and students”. The relatively low proportion (6%) of responses wanting more funding suggests that financial resources for PE events are not a major limiting factor, this correlates with what was found in figure 27.
54 10. Appendix – Profiling of respondents
10.1 Profiling questions
Figure 30: Are you a member of academic or support staff?
100%
90%
80% 75%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30% 25%
20%
10%
530 178 0% Academic Support
Base: 708
55 Figure 31: How long have you worked in Higher Education?
50%
45%
40%
35% 32%
30% 27% 27%
25%
20%
15% 14%
10%
5%
72 169 145 144 0% Less than 3 years 3 - 10 years 10 - 20 years 20+ years
Base: 708
Figure 32: Are you associated with a particular subject / discipline area? (Academic)
Faculty Counts Percentages Medicine and Dentistry 77 15% Subjects allied to Medicine 67 13% Biological Sciences 84 16% Physical Sciences 52 10% Mathematical and Computer Sciences 16 3% Engineering 26 5% Technologies 3 1% Architecture, Building and Planning 16 3% Social studies 49 9% Law 7 1% Business and Administrative studies 2 0% Mass Communications and Documentation 3 1% Linguistics, Classics and related subjects 11 2% European Languages, Literature and related subjects 24 5% Eastern, Asiatic, African, American and Australasian Languages, Literature and related subjects 3 1% Historical and Philosophical studies 40 8% Creative Arts and Design 4 1% Education 3 1% None of the above 43 8% Base 530
56 Figure 33: Which of these best describes your current position? (Academic)
50%
45%
40%
35%
30% 26% 25% 23%
20% 16% 15% 13% 12% 9% 10%
0% 5% 139 122 86 70 48 2 63 0% Research Professor Senior Lecturer Reader Principal Other Assistant / Lecturer Lecturer Fellow
Base: 530
Figure 34: Of which UCL faculty or institute are you a member/ most closely associated with? (Academic)
Social & Historical Sciences 42 BEN 1 MAPS 39 Bentham Project 1 Arts and humanities 31 Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging 1 Biomedicine 29 Population Sciences 1 Engineering 27 Mental Health Sciences 1 Life Sciences 25 Public Policy 1 Medicine 25 Anatomy and Developmental Biology 1 Institute of Child Health Centre for Medical Imaging Computing and 22 the Institute of Neurology 1 Psychology 18 Neurology 1 Institute of Neurology 18 Environmental Change Research Centre 1 Institute of Archaeology Constitution Unit, School of Public 16 Policy/Dept of Political Science 1 Bartlett 12 Genetics, Evolution and Environment 1 Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience 9 Centre for Transport Studies 1 Physics and Astronomy 7 Uclh/UCL Biomedical research centre 1 SSEES 7 UCL Natural Sciences 1 Medical School 6 Mechanical Engineering 1 Epidemiology and Public health 6 HJS 1 UCL Institute of Ophthalmology 6 PCPH 1 Mullard Space Science Laboratory 6 NPP/Physiology 1 History Department 5 Spanish and Latin American Studies 1
57 Eastman Dental Institute 4 Science and Technology Studies 1 Laws 4 Humanities 1 Institute for Women's Health 4 Alumni 1 Ear Institute Civil, Environmental and Geomatic 4 Engineering Department 1 Economics Department 4 Biology 1 Wellcome Trust Centre for the History of Centre for the Evolution of Cultural Diversity Medicine at UCL 4 1 SLAIS 3 Social Anthropology 1 Geography 3 Neuroscience Physiology Pharmacology 1 Arts 3 Greek and Latin 1 Anthropology 3 Geology Dept 1 MRC Laboratory for Molecular Cell Biology and Clinical Health Psychology Cell Biology Unit 3 1 Computer Science Centre for Computational Statistics and 3 Machine Learning 1 Bartlett School of Graduate Studies 3 Cell biology 1 Structural and Molecular Biology 3 Centre for Intercultural Studies 1 Cancer Institute 3 Windeyer Institute 1 UCL Museums and Collections 2 Environment Institute 1 Chemistry 2 Population Health 1 Benfield UCL Hazard Research Centre 2 NPP Life Sciences 1 Biological sciences 2 English Literature 1 Jill Dando Institute 2 Hebrew 1 Social sciences Development Planning Unit (DPU) Bartlett 2 the Built Environment 1 Population health 2 Genetics and Healthy Aging 1 Surgery 2 EISD 1 Mathematics Pharmacology 2 1 Wolfson Institute for Biomedical Research Research dept of Clinical Educational and 2 Health Psychology 1 Medical Physics and Bioengineering 2 UCL Cancer Institute 1 Rayne Institute 2 Health Psychology 1 Mental Health Sciences The Institution of Engineering and 2 Technology 1 The Slade School of Fine Art 2 Clinical. Dept. of Medicine 1 The Language Centre 2 History of Art department 1 Molecular Medicine 1 Electronic & Electrical Engineering 1 Institute of Orthopedics 1 Neurosciences 1 Immunology and Molecular Pathology 1 Hatter Inst, Medicine 1 Phonetics and Linguistics 1 Community health 1
Base 530
NB – as far as possible we have retained the way that staff describe their own affiliation, this means that members of some departments are listed separately from the rest of their school
58 Figure 34: Which department of UCL do you work for / are you most closely-linked with? (Support)
Library Services 17 Earth Sciences 1 Registry 7 Eastman Dental Institute 1 D&CCO 7 Economics Department 1 Finance 6 EISD and Registry 1 Museums and Collections 6 Electronic and Electrical Engineering 1 HR 5 Enterprise and Business 1 UCL Union Environment Institute, Department of 5 Geography 1 Educational Liaison 4 Epidemiology and Public Health 1 Space and Climate Physics 4 Gatsby Unit 1 Research Administration 3 GEE. 1 Institute of Child Health 3 Genetics, Evolution & Environment 1 Institute of Neurology 3 Geography 1 Bloomsbury Theatre 2 History 1 CALT 2 Chaplain at the Medical School 1 Department of Space and Climate Physics 2 ERDO 1 Estates & Facilities 2 Information Systems 1 Faculty of Arts and Humanities 2 Institute of Archaeology 1 Faculty of Life Sciences 2 Institute of Hepatology 1 Anatomy and developmental biology 2 Institute of Archaeology 1 Media Services 2 ION 1 Medical School Administration 2 Joint UCLH/UCL Biomedical research Unit 1 Physics and Astronomy 2 Life sciences 1 The Wellcome Trust Centre for the History of Management Systems Medicine 2 1 Academic Services 2 Medical Physics / Obstetrics / Cardiology 1 A&H and S&HS Faculty Offices Medical School - Faculty of Biomedical 1 Sciences 1 Adastral Park 1 Medicine 1 All engineering departments 1 Medical School Administration 1 Bartlett 1 Neurosciences, Institute of Child Health 1 Biological services units. 1 NPPD 1 Biomedicine 1 Political Science 1 Both Anthropology and Human Resources 1 Psychology (part of Life Sciences) 1 Cell & Developmental Biology Research Dept of Clinical, Health and 1 Education Psychology 1 Centre for Paediatric Epidemiology and Residences Biostatistics UCL ICH 1 1 CI 1 Rights & Advice Centre, Student's Union 1 Civil, Environmental and Geomatic Engineering safety services/administration Dept. 1 1 Clerical assistant for STS and Teaching School of Life and Biomedical Sciences assistant/PhD student in Chemistry 1 (Health Sciences Deanery) 1 Climate Physics 1 School Research Facilitator 1 Clinical Histology , division of pathology 1 SLAIS 1 CoMPLEX 1 SSEES 1 Environment and Social Sciences. 1 Student residences 1 DCAL 1 Surgery 1 Department of Molecular Neuroscience, UCL Business Division of Neuropathology, Institute of 1 1
59 Neurology Department of pathology at the institute of UCL Institute of Neurology, Department of ophthalmology 1 Neuroinflammation 1 Department of Space and Climate Physics, UCL Language Centre Mullard Space Science Laboratory 1 1 Development Office UCL Wolfson Institute for biomedical 1 research 1 Division of Medical Education 1
Base 178
NB – as far as possible we have retained the way that staff describe their own affiliation, this means that members of some departments are listed separately from the rest of their school
60