Sciencewise training increases likelihood of Research Councils running dialogue
On 1 and 2 February 2016, Sciencewise ran training sessions for Research Councils UK which attracted a total of 40 participants from Research Councils UK and seven individual research councils. Each training session ran for two hours.
As a result, eight participants said that it was more likely that their Research Council would undertake a public dialogue, and another 14 said maybe they would. Only 1 participant said the session had not increased that likelihood.
As well as Research Councils UK (3 participants in the training), the Research Councils involved were:
• Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC): 6 participants
• Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC): 2 participants
• Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC): 10 participants
• Economics and Social Research Council (ESRC): 8 participants
• Medical Research Council (MRC): 4 participants
• Natural Environment Research Council (NERC): 2 participants
• Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC): 5 participants
The feedback from the participants was very positive: all said they would recommend the training session to others. 27 participants completed feedback forms, of which 12 scored the training 5/5; 13 gave 4/5 and 2 gave 3/5.
Also on 2 February 2016, Sciencewise ran a training session for the Department of Transport (as part of the Civil Service Learning Open Policy Making module), with 12 participants (including 2 SEOs and 3 HEOs). The 11 who gave feedback scored as follows: 5/5 from 1; 4/5 from 9; 3/5 from 1.
In addition, two training sessions were run on 9 and 25 February for Department of Health. The first of these had 5 participants (1 Grade 7, 1 Grade 6, 1 secondee/consultant and 2 EOs). The 11 who gave feedback scored as follows: (5/5 from 3; 4/5 from 2). The second DH training was a specialised training module on ‘The Public’s Voice on Data’ which had 11 participants (1 Grade 8b, 1 Grade 7, 1 Grade 6, 2 EOs and the rest did not specify). The nine who gave feedback scored as follows: 5/5 from 5 and 4/5 from 4.