FIRST LEGO League Open European Championships: the view from the judging room

Greetings from all teams in the Chinese and Taiwanese tradition

Friday and Satury Delft was the host of the FLL OEC 2011. An incredible event for many reasons. I was lucky enough to participate as a judge on one of the project presentation judging teams. The view from the judging room is a special one. Teams coming in singing. Offering you their trembling and somewhat sweaty hand. Your hand being equally fuelled with tension. Because you never know what will come, only for sure that it will surprise you. The teams launch into presentation on topics you've hardly heard off or thought about. Epilepsy, stem cells, mini robots that are injected into the bloodstream to destroy blood cloths, minimally invasive methods to beat cancer....But also topics closer by to the kids: the flat feet of the Happy Feet team from India, the incredibly well thought through device of the Brasilien SESI team that allows people to exercise under medical supervision in the free exercise grounds in Brasil, the team from Peru who had developed a pregnancy monitoring device using a simple mobile phone thus enabling women high up in the Andes as well as women living in the city to get the benefits of telemedicine. I cannot even recall what we got in front of our judging tables, from China to Australia, from the USA to Singapore and everything in between. Backed up by fans, families and friends that had trailed along from all over the world. 

What makes it especially incredible is that through science and technology cultural, language and political borders are surpassed. Or better: are debunked. They simply do not count any longer. Friendships are formed across language barriers. Inventions are admired across political sensivities. It's magical. The stuff happy times and good memories are made of.

greetings from all teams!

Being a judge on such an event is really tough. Because basically you are asked to judge varieties of greatness, varieties of ingenuity, of learning experiences and varieties of great fun. Entities that do not quite fit boxes on the form: good, average, room for improvement or excellent. A number of times I felt like a proper historical artefact. For example when a 13 year old blankly tells you that the app they programmed is in the android app store but that the performance will be greatly enhanced with the new android platform that will come out this summer. Or when a database of 1500 types of food is presented to you, all indexed to enhance the life of diabetic patients. Or when three girls are measuring brain waves to explain how you can see an epileptic attack coming on. 

I had many moment where I felt utterly awed by the body of knowledge that was researched but above all by the passion by which is was researched and presented. Sometimes so strongly that I could litterally feel the air vibrating by the enthusiasm of the team. Anybody who truly believes that wisdom comes with the ages I invite to come to one of these happenings, and have yourself proven otherwise: cynicism comes with the ages. And at times pure stupidity, when you see what is produced here. The question I am left with: when does cynicism kick in? Why can't we keep the spirits of unity and brotherhood across borders up when we grow older? What precisly is so hard about trusting and appreciating the other? How is it that what sets us apart at some point in life becomes the focus of attention rather then what unites us? While we all grow tender when we see kids uniting across borders? An amazing dichotomy that has me seriously puzzled whilst looking back on a marvellous weekend.

Thanks to all the organisers, teams and volunteers involved: we had a blast! 

For live images see the MK5060 YouTube channel. And below some photo impressions.

Also see the blog of official FIRST LEGO League correspondent Khaled Marashdeh. 

Saudi Arabian style!

Happy feet won a prize

never too old to train your cuddly dragon

Member of the Thai team

Asklepios from Turkey

Brasil

Woody collects signatures

Under pressure

"Under pressure everything becomes fluid" is a famous Dutch saying, which I hereby undoubtedly translated completely wrongly in English :-) It is something we say when the pressure is so high that the timeline determines everything and that you just work-work-work to get the job done. In practice pretty much without thinking.

With every project I manage and conference I design I am becoming increasingly convinced that quite a few people actually consciously let the pressure build to such an extent that they feel they can let the process take over their decision capability. Which is convenient. Because if you can point a finger to the deadline and the incredible pressure you were under to actually reach this deadline, the finger of responsibility does not point to you. In other words: people put their own responsibility on the shoulders of the rather anonymous process. Because if you take responsibility, if you make conscious decisions, you can decide wrongly. And you are responsible.

I have to admit that this development worries me. Is it the recession that makes people insecure about keeping their jobs and thus fuels an increasing responsibility avoidance in a rather sophisticated way? Is it over all insecurity about what is good? Something else? Whatever the cause, I am positively baffled by what people see as utterly unplannable. As far as I'm concerned it's all about finding the right balance. The right balance between planning and seizing opportunity, between planning and allowing for inspiration. It's the same when chairing a group session. I am becoming increasinly allergic to the adagium of some professional chairs who eagerly state: "well, it hall has to come from the group you know". Right, if so, then why on earth do we need a chair?

Sure, we are only humans and being a philosopher and an ethicist I am actuly aware of our vulnerability. As an experienced project manager I am fully aware of the role of coincidences and events that were unplanned. But when it comes to preparation I side with those who say that success is where preparation meets opportunity. Without the preparation the opportunity will not come neither be ceased. Now tell me, have I accidently exchanged my bright pink sun glasses for looking at the world by a pair of ink black ones? Or is there some rhyme and reason to my muttering?

From communication to participation

http://asymptotia.com/category/energy/

Went to a thinktank meeting. Subject: how can we better communicate the value of science. Or would that be the relevance of science? My feelings the day after are mixed. Mainly because I feel again the discours was caugt in a sender-message-receiver framework and it was very much guided by a marketing line of thinking. How can we send better? What should we send? To whom should we send? What are our goals? Science is so broad and diverse, can we actually communicate it? The bright side to me: it was all in good spirits with everybody aiming for a good, positieve exchange of thoughts and ideas. And much came to the table.

But why do we always somewhere along the lines get caught in the tranmission model when it comes to science communication, I wonder? Are we right there where society is? I wonder but I am inclined to say that we are not. I have a nagging idea that we could well be underestimating our audience. I think that we all pretty much understand that we are no longer outside a shop window (to use one of yesterdays analogies) looking at the science and technology on display, trying to figure out what suits us best. Rather we are in the midst of that shop. We are in it and of it. These are philosophical terms, whether everybody will use those same words to phrase our position: probably not. But that does not mean that it is not understood, I'd say. It does however mean that we really need to reframe our way of work and our way of thinking, talking and acting vis-a-vis science communication.

And that is exactly what I like about Naturalis - and by the way also about the Science Centre Delft, which is aiming for true interaction between the science community and the visitors as well (had some great pictures, but unfortunately iPhone is broken...). Because these institutions are going in full gear towards a participatory model of science education. In which the visitor is both part of the experience and creates his or her own experiences. In fact: in which the visitor helps to shape the institutions. Actively. By deeds, thoughts and actions. This is the fundamental shift I was talking about in my last blog. It's no longer a defined vision of what science is or what a museum is that is thought through and then shaped and communicated. What is presented is rather: this is the work that we do here, help us, experience, participate. An open invitation to visitors to make up their own minds. To shape their own experiences and follow their own interests by asking questions, participating in indexing the collection (in the case of Naturalis) and through their own interests and participation shape their view of science.

It is I feel a much needed turn. Because to keep on fine tuning the message, the relation between the message and the audience, to change the sender...it's all variations on the same theme that I feel do no longer fit the current day and age in which participation is key. Sure, it's about channels, messages and audiences. But channels, messages and audiences are more and more becoming one. The medium is the message, the audience is the sender and the sender is receiver and the medium and vice versa. The question is how to participate in that changing and evolving field. And that is I'd say through fundamentally changing our own mindset and way of work towards a participatory way of working. In which we do not control or even have the directors role. But in which we just present ourselves, as we are, doing the work that we do. And by extending an open invitatin to others to work with us, to experience with us, to get a sense of what has at some stage ignited our passion.

My, it was food for thought hey, yesterday! Anybody ready to help develop this line of thought?  Preferably at some stage into a line of action:-)?Because I'm thinking, searching, trying as well here, feeling I'm onto something, but maybe not yet able to write it down correctly.

Naturalis live science

Live Science in Naturalis

Thursday I went to Naturalis as they opened what might in commercial terms be called their concept store. A science work street, inhabited by employees of Naturalis who do their work in front of the public. Their work of conserving, cataloguing, charting, organizing. At first sight it reminded me of the Darwin Centre of the Natural History Museum in London: exhibiting the process of science, working with interactive displays that allow visitors to be part of the exhibition, the fact that the subject is life sciences....But up close I realised that Naturalis is actually going further. Much further. In the Darwin Centre the process of (life) science is made visible through interactive exhibits including short movies in which employees of the Natural History Museum tell about their work, the relevance of their work and their passion for their work. In Naturalis you can actually see the people at work. Live and in real life. You can talk to them, ask your own questions, assist them in the cataloguing...In short: it's truly interactive. It's not an exhibition made with interactives, in pointed fact it's not even an exhbition anymore. It is an interactive process of which you - the visitor - are a full part of it all - crowd sourcing Naturalis style. I was impressed. Truly impressed. Both by the concept and the operationalisation thereof, but also because having worked with Naturalis I think I have somewhat of understanding of what an enormous change this is for this institution. A complete turn around, from an institution which presented everything 100% finished, researched, thought through to now creating an open ended experience with many unknown and in a way uncontrollable variables. A fundamentally new way of thinking, of working, of looking at the concept of a science center/natural history museum and a new way of looking at science education. Especially the latter has captured my philosophical interest. My hat is off for Naturalis and I will follow with much interest! Some pictures and short movies taken with my iPhone (although it cannot beat the real experience). For the movies please go to my newly opened YouTube channel as I found it totally hopeless to try and upload movies on blogger. Takes forever and a day.

Finding my own way...or not?

I'm a philosopher (of science and technology to be precise) and an ethicist. So you'd think I would be able to steer myself out of dilemma's and would be able to reason my own way out of difficult questions. Sorry to disappoint. I find myself in a difficult spot. I am adament that I will focus MK5060 more on questions related to science and technology education and communication and on shaping, forming and giving a head and a heart to cooperations between knowledge institutions. Connections that I believe are essential for a fertile future, in fact: connections that are the only way forward. As each institution on its own will not be able to cope with the demands of times, peoples and cultures to come. Anyways, before I go into a long winded blog about this, let's return to the point of this blog entry.
Because where are my limits? Do I have any limits to the services I provide when it comes to enabling these cooperations? Because it sounds all pretty highbrow and I notice that many people - including myself if I don't watch me! - have the connotation of in sector cooperation: libraries with libraries, schools with schools etc. Or at best cross sector, where e.g. libraries cooperate with schools and museums. Out of sector cooperation is rarely on the charts, although it should be. And if so, it can take many forms including sponsorship.
You're guessing the point: a dear client has asked me to assist in fundraising. Now should I or should I not take this on? I am inclined to as I am very reluctant to put boundaries on my services as long as they fit the - rather broad - framework. So why am I in doubt? Because there is still this hopeless gap between content and form, between strategy and operationalisation. Fundraising combines the layers, it cuts straight through organisational boundaries and it is a true form of cooperation, of forming partnerships, across sectors and branches it connects people and organisations. But is still seen as operational. So actually I am wondering: how does that frame me and my services if I take this on? And simultaneously in writing this I realise that I am not inclined to consent to existing boundaries, to judge myself by standards other people may use. To allow myself to be put into boxes created by others that I do not agree with in the first place. My, it's all clear now! Thanks for reading and listening, let me know if you have any thoughts. But I think I sorted myself out. All you need to sometimes do is talk out loud. I guess.

Don't let schooling get in the way of (science) education

Through twitter this article on the value of free choice learning for science got my attention. This study is ground breaking as it covers both the concept of free choice learning (thus going past the old paradigm of formal, non-formal and informal learning, Dierking and Falk are pioneers in this field I think) and the productivity of this way of educating/learning. As such it is one of the first and few studies that I know of that actually shows how strongly and deeply a science museums can influence the publics knowledge on attitudes about science and technology. And moreover how this type of education can overcome barriers of education, economy, race etc. I would be interested if this is a unique trait of science museums (or science centers) or whether this is a trait of education outside schools anyway. Because if so this would mean a new road ahead for schooling and education. A road in which maybe even at some point schools will be part of museums as an interactive exhibit on teaching and learning. An exhibit that shows how we once thought the educational process should be organised:-) This article also fuels profound questions on whether you can actually teach if there is no innate interest in the receiving party. In others words: what is the value of teaching without a receptive learner? But also on what knowledge is, and how one gets by knowledge. What actually is the learning process, and can we totally, consciously design this? Should we actually aim to maximize the learning potential or should we rather be talking about optimization, thus truly changing the educational paradigm? Most methods are now geared towards maximizing the learning process in an instrumental way, e.g. through mixing entertainment and education, but still eventually measuring the educational output through the looking glass of maximization. The questions thus effectively being: did the student learn more by using this method than that method? In a paradigm that departs from optimizing the learning process that central question would rather be: what did this person learn that he/she previously was unaware of? And isn't that exactly what education, learning and teaching are about in the first place?

(cartoon: Rat Race escape artists)

Educating science communication?

My week was governed by pushing EthiekZaak (of course!) and for MK5060 by science and technology education or communication (is there a fundamental difference?). It is a week that left me wondering how and when we are going to science e&c 2.0. From a meeting on Monday in NEMO where science professionals from mainly universities and a few science centers representatives discussed how to better position science in society to newspaper articles on wrong science and emotions governing the discussion on nuclear energy (http://tinyurl.com/5svgnsv sorry Dutch only!). A Kohnstamm lecture delivered by Louise Fresco who wonders how we get past the era in which emotions have become a source of konwledge and signals that society suffers from an overkill of non information. 

Facts versus emotions. Science versus society. Scientists and communicators who wonder how to redevelop the message they are sending. Because the public does not understand. Because the public chooses to rely on peer information from internet fora rather than trust the experts. And happily lets their emotions rule. So the experts say.

I wonder: why are we still stuck in this polarising line of thought? And in this sender-message-receiver line of working? 

In philosophical tradition the relation between rationality and emotions is one of the most difficult subjects and after a good 2500 years we have a rich tradition but no definite answers (hey, we are philosophers:-)). One of the finest works written on this subject in my opinion is Upheavels of thought by Martha Nussbaum. Elaborating on and working on the basis of philosophical tradition and the arts she comes to the conclusion that the tangle of human emotions is an aid and fundamental to our existence rather than a handicap, an impediment. She positions emotions as intelligent responses to the perception of value. This is a nearly cosmis shift in philosophical thinking which has long evaded matters of the heart and placed great value on detachment from these matters and opted for values like "coolness", "pure rationality" and the likes.

Science communication would do well to take this perspective into account I feel as it would help to shift the dynamics of the debate. Rather then alsmost verbally beating up "the public" (whoever that may be) by more facts, more facts, still more facts, labelling articulated emotions as "hysteria" and basically telling the public off for not knowing better, the emotions could be taken seriously and be addressed as such. In other words: make the debate inclusive and consciously accept that emotions are part of science and in effect help shape science. It would mean a move away from th sender-message-receiver line of working and a move towards a participatory way of thinking about science and science c&e. Anybody fancies elaborating this line of thought and experimenting with it?