Skip to main content

Re-imagining the Future - Environment, Sustainability, Health (REFRESH)

Year Awarded

2023

Amount

€24,854

  • Organisation:Munster Technological University (MTU)
  • Audience:General Public
  • Format:Non-formal Education
  • Location:Dublin, Kerry
  • Topic:Science

Project Summary

There is a pressing environmental need from government policy and the general public to transition to more sustainable food production practices. However, studies have identified individuals in rural and suburban areas, fearing income losses and those in disadvantaged regions as less supportive of climate change policies. REFOCHUS will utilise our established links through the Access and Lifelong Learning offices of the participating institutions (UCD, MTU) to co-create hybrid workshops with disadvantaged communities and those underrepresented in STEM, from both urban and rural environments. The involvement approach of these co-creation workshops will follow four stages:

Discovery: Discuss and think widely around the problems we face around sustainability, the environment and health.
Definition: Zone in on specific problems.
Development: Discuss widely the ways STEM could solve these problems.
Delivery: Figure out specifically what is necessary to solve these problems.

This will empower the participants to set the agenda for 8 expert panel workshops and a final capstone event. Hybrid workshops will overcome geographical barriers to attendance, allowing for deeper understanding of challenges faced by both communities, how STEM innovation is tackling these challenges and facilitate a greater shared sense of responsibility to tackling climate change. At the co-creation workshops, protocols in data gathering and management will be presented and discussed. This will allow community members to give their perspective and be trained and involved in creating datasets. These will be analysed to improve our understanding of how to increase awareness of the public’s role and responsibility in contributing to solving environmental challenges.

Evaluation Findings

Evaluation Report

Challenges:
1. Challenge: Engaging underrepresented communities in science
Cause: Science felt intimidating or irrelevant; some didn’t even define it as part of their world
Solution: Use co-creation to make events relatable, understandable, and audience-driven

2. Challenge: Low uptake from community groups despite prior involvement
Cause: Relationships take time to rebuild; lack of early examples made it hard to visualise participation
Solution: Secure multi-year funding to build trust over time; use early events as proof of concept to attract more groups

3. Challenge: Interest came too late in the project
Cause: Community groups needed to see events before committing
Solution: Start with pilot events to showcase the format early and build momentum for deeper engagement

Findings:
1. 26 people completed the science capital survey, mostly aged 60+ and referred by friends or partners.
2. Most had upper secondary education; 19% were male.
3. About one-third had no science education in school.
4. Most agreed science and scientists are needed, useful, inspiring, and honest.
5. Majority believed anyone can do science and that science relates to their lives.
6. Many said science changes their view of the world and is worth keeping up with.
7. 41% agreed scientific research is a personal priority; most believed science improves the world.
8. After the programme, more participants believed science and scientists are needed and provide clear information.
9. More people felt anyone can do science, science changes their worldview, and it’s important to stay informed.

Learnings:
1. The outreach events successfully improved public attitudes toward science.
2. Initial reluctance to engage with STEM was underestimated; some people had mental blocks.
3. Working closely with hesitant participants helped them see science as easy and enjoyable.
4. Many participants adopted new behaviours and became more curious about their environment.
5. Scientific terms like “sustainability” were unfamiliar to some, showing communication gaps.
6. Explaining terms in relatable ways led to strong engagement and personal storytelling.
7. Science communication was most effective when delivered as a conversation, not a lecture.