CREDiBLE Supporting Materials

CREDiBLE: Supporting Materials – Table of Contents

  1. Overview of CREDiBLE Design
  2. Outcomes Matrix – detailed outline of project design, timelines and considerations
  3. Detailed Budget
  4. Participants Matrix
  5. Evaluation Resources
  6. References

1. Overview of CREDiBLE Design

The overall experimental design will be broken down into the following phases:

CREDiBLE F1

Our four test combinations will comprise different combinations of researchers and community leads:

  1. Researchers only: project designed/delivered according to researchers’ perception of audience values
  2. Community representatives only: project designed/delivered according to communities’ perception of research
  3. Collaboration throughout: project co-designed/delivered with evidence-gathering phase to co-develop values/perception
  4. Output collaboration only: project co-designed/delivered with no evidence-gathering phase, i.e. no opportunity to co-develop values/perception

The overall project timeline will breakdown as:

CREDiBLE Figure1

Risk: We recognise that there are risks with any experimental approach. During the development of this proposal, different approaches were considered through consultation with community partners and researchers. One concern related to the potential time investment. Therefore we opted to stipulate a cumulative commitment of 4 days over 18 months, which was agreeable to all. We also hope that by working to a defined time contribution this project will help us answer what is a meaningful, but not too burdensome level of commitment from different parties and partly accounts for our decision to include additional internship support during the delivery phase. We also considered different experimental models, for example a sequential project where public engagement delivery moves from researcher involvement only to community-researcher collaboration to projects fully ‘owned’ by communities. However, this would require significant additional investment from participants, audiences, as well as of time and funds, which we did not consider justifiable. We also considered choosing a single research or community interest area to focus on. Whilst a valid alternative worth of future exploration, we feel that the proposed approach is the one that best considers end-user/audience needs as well as our imperative to make meaningful comparisons, and to ensure that the resulting model works for a range of research and community areas.

Suggested sites/projects to include for evidence-gathering phase of trial:

Final decisions about which sites and projects will feature during each groups’ evidence-gathering phase will be driven by the nature of their intended project and supported by CREDiBLE Coordinator and PER Team who will research suitable options and devise workable itineraries congruent with all participants’ needs.

Centre of the Cell (London) – Science education centre located within working research laboratories. Projects include multiple games and apps and community-led work e.g. East London Genes & Health as well as traditional exhibits and schools visits.

FizzPOP Makerspace (Birmingham) – Birmingham’s hackspace with a library of tools and equipment to support a range of tech, bio, robotics, CNC, coding and other hack projects.

Home (Manchester) – Centre for international contemporary art, theatre and film that works closely to engage with communities with a focus on participatory projects.

HACMAN (Manchester) – Hackspace for Manchester’s creative community to make, collaborate, work and socialise. Projects include computing, crafting, machining, technology, digital fabrication, electronics and woodworking.

Life Science Centre (Newcastle) – Family friendly science museum complex co-located with research labs, NHS, and biotech companies at the International Centre for Life.

STEAMHouse (Birmingham) – Makerspace developed by Birmingham City University. Aims to help entrepreneurs, sole traders, companies and citizens to build their businesses, develop new products and services and collaborate.

Leaf Creative Arts (Birmingham) – Collective based near UoB campus that explores themes of importance to local people (e.g. autism, wellbeing, dementia) through arts, music, movement and theatre.

Café Scientifique (Nationwide) – Popular and long-running programmes of researcher talks in informal settings such as pub and cafes.

Pervasive Media Studio (Bristol) – Collaborative space shared between over 100 artists, creative companies, technologists and academics. Projects include research on mental health and other future health and wellbeing issues and focus on immersive and VR methods.

I’m a Scientist…Get Me Out of Here (Online) – X-Factor-style competition between scientists, where students are the judges. Students challenge the scientists, ask anything they want, and vote for their favourite to win a prize

Ask For Evidence (Online) – Campaign and online tool to help people challenge news stories, marketing claims and policies and connect them with evidence and experts.

Superbugs: The Game (Online) – Nesta developed action game to raise awareness about antibiotic resistance.

Hellblade (Online) – Video game that gives players an immersive insight into experiences of psychosis.

2. Outcomes Matrix – detailed outline of project design, timelines and considerations

The outcomes matrix provides a full overview for how the project will be run. It includes details of all activities to be undertaken for each project phase, timelines and outputs linked to a detailed set of outcomes.

CREDiBLE Outputs V2

3. Detailed budget

Detailed budget breakdown including all in kind costs and details of how costings have been calculated or reasoning for inclusion. Numerical superscripts (1-9) indicate how individual cost lines relate back to the funding request summary in the main application.

CREDiBLE Budget v5

Wellcome costs v2

4. Participants Matrix

Participants have been chosen for their relevance to the research areas and community needs we have identified as being of particular importance for Birmingham. For each Community Partner and Research Area we have identified one key individual who will act as the lead for that area and recruit participants for the ‘trial’ and coordinate activities and input for that area. However, we felt it important to also include some further detail about why each lead participant has been included. For the Research Areas this includes what active Wellcome Trust projects and PIs we will be drawing on (and their value, which totals over £15m) when developing research content for inclusion in the final outputs and for the Community Partners this includes more about the organisation, its ways of working and methods of community support/engagement and relevant indicators of reach.

CREDiBLE participants v4

5. Evaluation Resources

We have carried out a wide range of relevant previous projects that have tested assumptions and evaluated using quantitative and qualitative methods. Please click links to access project reports:

Think Corner: 6 week city-centre pop-up shop which showcased research from across the University of Birmingham. Reported in ‘Pop-Up Science’.

Lapworth Lates: museum ‘lates’ project at the Lapworth Museum of Geology, which brings together artists/creatives with University of Birmingham researchers from across all disciplines for evenings blending education and entertainment that surprise and delight audiences. Run with a focus of attracting young people (18-30) with no prior relationship to the University.

Research at the Heart of Brum: researcher showcase project that takes simple research demonstrations and games off campus to venues where the public wouldn’t expect to encounter research as a ‘pop-up market’ style event. Run with a focus of engaging those with no previous experience/little knowledge of University of Birmingham.

Catalyst Seed Fund (CSF): Research Councils UK-supported project which University of Birmingham participated in to integrate and embed public engagement into research across the institution. Demonstrating success in capacity building and culture change. CSF formed the basis of NCCPE’s Pathways to Culture Change report.

PER Fund: researcher focussed funding scheme, 1 year review demonstrating longer-term outcomes, collaborations and use of quality scoring criteria.

6. References

1 Birmingham Economic Review, 2018 

2 Department of Communities and Local Government, Indices of Multiple Deprivation, 2015

3 www.beatfreeks.com/beatfreeks-story

4 www.brumyouthtrends.com/2018

5 Health Profile for England 2017, Chapter 6

6 Creative People and Places, Power Up report