Abstract
When the oldest research enterprise in Norway, the Royal Norwegian Society of Sciences and Letters, was founded in 1760 in the city of Trondheim, the cofounder Johan Gunnerus (1718-1773) said that one objective was to impart sciences to the “intelligent layman”—the man and woman in the street. A museum, a journal, a library, a botanical garden, and funding for research and dissemination are central means employed in this work. Lecturers have also been taking their audience to an untraditional arena, an urban or a rural setting, where they lecture on a topic of current interest using the location as a backdrop. Their audience does not necessarily have prior knowledge of the topic, and the lecturers lacks the safety net that an auditorium represents. The setting requires pedagogical improvement and also encourages discussions and the posing of questions. Has the objective to educate the public been attained?
Imparting in a Wilderness
Wilderness is perhaps putting it a bit strongly, but Norway was one of the poorest nations in Europe in 1760 and had a population of just over 700,000 people spread over 385,186 km2. Towns were few and small: Trondheim had only 7,000 inhabitants in 1760, whereas 176,000 people live here now. The inhabitants of Norway were sparsely scattered along the long coast and on smallholdings in forested valleys and upland areas. Farming and fishing were important occupations. Political factors were not clarified. After Norway lost its independence in the late Middle Ages and became part of the joint Danish-Norwegian kingdom, it became still more of an outpost in the north, with Copenhagen in Denmark as the political, professional, and administrative center. From 1479 to 1811, Copenhagen had the sole university in the kingdom, for example, and it had the largest and most important libraries, archives, and historical collections. In Norway, most people were virtually illiterate, books were scarce, Norwegian newspapers were nonexistent, and there were few Norwegian-born professional people. Denmark had a printing house from 1482, more than 160 years before the first printer set up business in Norway. Norway was thus far removed from cultural centers in Europe. The founding of the learned Royal Norwegian Society of Sciences and Letters (the Society) in Trondheim, whose stated aim—as early as 1760—was to bring knowledge of the natural sciences and humanities to the people at large in an effort to raise them from ignorance and poverty, was therefore an important milestone in Norwegian scientific history. Norway subsequently became a dependency under Sweden in 1814 and gained independence in 1905.
The Society was ahead of its time; in our day and age, imparting research is high on the agenda (e.g., Priest, 2010; Rowland, 1993). However, the Society also faced formidable practical challenges in its endeavor to pass on knowledge of nature and culture (Andersen, Brenna, Njåstad, & Wale, 2009). It was demanding enough to travel on poor roads and in small boats along the coast in this often weather-torn country without also having ambitions to impart science and the humanities to the general public. Besides, most people had more than enough to do scraping a living. How could their interest for science and the humanities be nurtured in this setting?
Museum, Library, and the “Intelligent Layman”
The answer goes like this. In the first decades, the Society strove in vain to achieve any significant dialogue with the general public on scientific topics (Overskaug & Steffensen, 2014). Moreover, the cofounder, Johan Gunnerus, was a bishop, and the common people mostly encountered him in the church, not a suitable venue for scientific explanations, at that time at any rate. Gunnerus, however, wrote letters to the ministers in his diocese, which embraced the whole of northern Norway, and encouraged them to gather knowledge on natural history and culture and to publish their results in the new journal, Transactions, whose first volume appeared in 1761. Transactions lives on as one of the oldest scientific journals in Europe that is still being published. Initially, it published articles on the natural sciences and history in both Danish and German and had subscribers far south in Europe, but it probably did not cater much to the “intelligent layman” (Overskaug, Supphellen, & Fossheim, 2010). The journal is still primarily directed at the international research community, but the Society has recently also begun to publish books of a more popular scientific nature in Norwegian, and these are playing a significant role in imparting science and the humanities to the general public. One example is a book on archeological excavations in Norway and aspects of Norwegian history, a topic most people find very interesting. A recent book on natural history describes the recovery of the brown bear (Ursus arctos) population in Norway following its near extinction here before World War II (Sørensen, 2012). The brown bear is a controversial species in Norway, mainly because some bears make large inroads into sheep flocks, and in some situations, bears may also pose a direct threat to people. The management of the species is a highly relevant, divisive topic in that conservationists want to protect the bear, while their opponents want to exterminate it or greatly reduce its numbers. This book is also an example of how the Society tackles demanding social issues and strives to impart balanced knowledge in a setting where the opposing fronts may be uncompromising and where both belief and superstition about nature and its inhabitants may be strongly ingrained.
The Society had success in reaching the common people when it opened a library (1768), a new museum building (1866), and a botanical garden (1968), all of them in Trondheim. The library, museum, and botanical garden have developed into robust institutions concerned with the natural sciences, the humanities, and the imparting of research results to students, schoolchildren, and the general public (Overskaug, Holt, Hagen, Næss, & Steffensen, 2010). In addition, in 1997 the Society took another initiative to impart research to the “intelligent layman,” in connection with the millennium celebrations marking the founding of Trondheim in 997 and its subsequent 1,000 years of history (Christophersen, 1989). A new dissemination program aimed to arrange weekly lectures or excursions that would be free of charge to the public. Typical topics for the program in its inaugural year were linked with historical aspects around
More than 60,000 people have participated during these 15 years. Most events attract around 30 participants, and this figure is noted precisely; however, 100 to 200 people attend a fair number of events and then the number is only an estimate due to the difficulty of counting while simultaneously performing the task of lecturer and guide. Most lecturers and guides are from the academic staff at the university. They hold the lectures and excursions without reimbursement other than prestige, public awareness, and the mention in the media that often accompanies the events. They have imparted all manner of information by almost all means imaginable to all kinds of audiences, often composed of both young and old, in all types of surroundings. Due in part to the composition of the audiences, ranging from children and young people to pensioners, it has been essential to improvise with regard to the educational and communicational methods used. What experience have we gained? Is the aim formulated 253 years ago of imparting science to the “intelligent layman” being achieved?
“Seeing With New Eyes”
The lectures and excursions may present a topic, say the ecology of an animal species, or visit a nature reserve. This may be done in a fairly undramatic manner, but the backdrop may be controversial, for example, the area visited—a scenic area or an area with outstanding natural history, for example—is going to be developed for industrial purposes. Hence, it is important to impart an objective view of what this means for the natural history, the economy, and the viability of the local community. So it is not only specific research information from one of the scientific disciplines that should be focused on but also a broader view that may also include the roles of basic human values and attitudes like ethics. In this connection, pure science and research results from, for example, technology or economy, are often only part of the picture. To take up and comment on all the relevant aspects that arise when plans exist to develop an area of wonderful, undisturbed countryside for industry, for example, can be a huge challenge for the lecturer. However, in our dissemination program, lecturers try as best as possible to be prepared for this aspect perhaps being part of the mission. Moreover, how can all the information and views be made interesting for what is frequently a mixed audience including children and young people? The first step in the educational process is generally a more or less ordinary form of lecture, that is, the lecturer gathers his or her audience closely around, in a woodland locality, for example, and presents the topic against the scenic backdrop, using the location for illustrative examples. Then it is most important that the lecturer also has the ability to improvise and use a wide variety of didactic methods to succeed in getting his or her message across to a mixed audience, as well as to invite questions and thoughts on the subject in hand. In this second step, the didactic aspect is often in one way or another anchored in the philosophy of Gardner (1991), which emphasizes the importance of appealing to the various senses. Hence, some grasp the essence best if the topic is presented in plain figures, others if it is packaged into a story, and yet others through music and more abstract means such as theatrical and similar artistic expressions. This last way is, of course, not easy to arrange at short notice, and rain and cold weather may bring even greater problems if outdoors, but theatrical and musical performances have been increasingly used for dissemination purposes. The subject is then typically historical, and the performance brings out the spirit of the time and how people lived during the period on which focus is being placed. Educational methods are situational and must be decided on the spur of the moment, depending on the composition of the audience. This form of dissemination is demanding on the lecturer concerned. However, it is a wonderful arena for the scientist to come close to the public and for the public to come close to the researcher and have a chance to reflect and ask new questions along the lines of the philosophy of Marcel Proust (1871-1922), which claimed that a voyage of discovery does not always consist of seeking new landscapes but consists also of seeing an existing landscape with new eyes (Overskaug, 2012). Is the objective of effectively imparting research to the general public achieved in this way?
We have some information from the audience to help us evaluate this, but as yet we have no data to precisely answer the ultimate question of the impact of the program on society, although research elsewhere does show that science communication supplies knowledge and increases social involvement (e.g., Falk & Dierking, 1997; Hayward, 2010; Sheppard, 2000). Furthermore, over its 15-year history the program has acquired similarities with a permanent teaching offer to people who for various reasons, like fulltime work in the daytime, cannot take advantage of formal educational institutions such as universities and regional colleges. We also suggest that because the program runs continuously and is regular, with weekly lessons, not just an effort undertaken now and then, it may show that it is really being used regularly by the public and thereby is a substantial contribution to society. This is also one of several aspects highlighted as an important social benefit of science communication in medicine, for example (Eagleman, 2013). Our audience statistics also indicate that topics taken up are in demand since at least 30 people have attended most events throughout the period. This is a good result in a relatively small university city like Trondheim, where numerous educational and cultural events vie with one another. Moreover, several hundred may attend on some occasions. One example was when the authors invited people on a walk along the River Nid, which flows through the city of Trondheim, to present its cultural history and animal and bird life. Five minutes before the start, 10 people had shown up, and everyone was promised coffee at the end. Ten minutes later, there were close to 200, and we deeply regretted the offer of coffee! People say that the program helps put current times into perspective, and thus creates valuable self-insight and motivates them to study and read further—one of the chief goals since 1760. However, we also suggest that there is a significant potential for improvement. This includes more research into the results of the work—hence the need for more in-depth interviews and follow-up over a lengthy period, focusing on the young people who take advantage of the offer. We need to verify whether and how they utilize what they have learnt here in school and everyday life. The program could also cooperate more with schools to provide lectures and excursions accommodated to their curricula. This strategy should be given priority.
Perspectives
Forms of oral public science communication have existed for decades, perhaps centuries, depending on how we define science and communication, and the question can be complex (e.g., Davies, 2008; Pellechia, 1997). However, possible new elements connected with our communication project aimed at the “intelligent layman” in Norway may be its long-lasting character, weekly over 15 years, which makes it something of an institution, and its setup with one person funded full-time by the university and the Society. The program has thus become fairly well known in central Norway, and people ask for it. In addition, and perhaps most important, it is an arena where nonscientists can easily communicate with scientists about how science contributes to their lives. The next step should be to verify, through both qualitative and quantitative studies, the benefits of the “intelligent layman” initiative for individuals and society.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.