The Development of Science Education Strategies and

Outreach is a term that needs careful handling: it has a feel-good, self-important, reach-out-the-hand-to-a-person-in-need feel that can border on the condescending. The key to outreach is to approach it as a potential for dialogue. Outreach is not just to "give back," but to learn by starting conversations and sharing. There is neither a single expert nor a single person in control because the power comes from both sides. For those used to noteworthy positions of authority or for those used to accepting their roles as uninformed and unempowered, the idea of dialogue is a challenge of expanding a mind-set. Successful dialogue recognizes that everyone has something to bring to the table-- teachers and experts becomes students, students become teachers and experts. Framed as such, dialogue is a process with near-infinite possibilities.

Dialogue is particularly important in light of our current environmental crisis. There is a growing need for citizens to become informed and involved, and to take action regarding the state of their communities and the planet. This is especially relevant to anthropogenic trace-gas induced global climate change. Even President Clinton stated, in his State of the Union address that "our most fateful new challenge is the threat of global warming." Yet just as citizens need to act, so do scientists (who are also citizens, of course). Scientists need to provide clear, comprehensive and comprehensible information to both the scientific community and to the public; they must balance their research goals with sharing their findings. Scientists must ask themselves: what are the most efficient and beneficial ways that I can get my research out? Acknowledging the "publish or perish" highly political paradigm of the scientific community, scientists must re-evaluate the importance of their work in the grand scheme of things (namely, the environmental crisis). What is important research? What is an appropriate use of my time? How can I work toward promoting positive change? Undoubtedly, outreach dialogue is one important step in that direction.

"Global Warming Impacts on Alaskan Spruce Forests: An Educational Dialogue" was conceived in late-March 1998. Dr. Andrea Lloyd, my current thesis advisor, received NSF funding for a study of the Alaskan boreal forest response to global climate change. Soon after, I approached her to inquire about the possibilities of initiating an outreach effort based on her research that would target western Alaskan communities near her research sites. She was supportive, to say the least-- in fact, it was something she had been hoping to do but hadn't figured out how or when. In the spring of 1998, I received funding for my project from the Ronald H. Brown Class of 1962 Internship Program and worked with the National Park Service (Western Arctic Parklands) to establish contacts and travel itineraries and to arrange presentation equipment.

In early-June 1998, I traveled to Nome, Alaska, to begin a two week reconnaissance. My goals were to 1) learn about my audience, Iñupiaq Eskimo communities on the Seward Peninsula, 2) get a sense from the communities if they wanted to participate in a dialogue with researchers, and 3) determine how they would envision such a dialogue taking place (specifically, if they liked the idea of a traveling slide show and if they could think of any recommendations or suggestions). I found these two weeks tremendously helpful in designing the project; as recommended below, visits to communities solely for introductions sake is a must.

In mid-June 1998, I joined Dr. Lloyd's research crew. Research plans on the Seward Peninsula were postponed, so we traveled to interior Alaska (the Alaska Range and the White Mountains, both near Fairbanks) to begin our field work. My responsibilities as a research assistant included taking measurements of and cores from trees, mapping the trees in our study plots and documenting their growth form shapes, taking soil samples, collecting dead wood, counting and measuring seedlings, and planting and photographing experimental seedlings. During these days in the field, I also made time to document the research process with the western Alaskan communities in mind. I took hundreds of slides of our study sites, our methods, and the researchers and digitally recorded sound effects and interviews with Dr. Lloyd and her co-principal investigator, Dr. Christopher L. Fastie. During this time, I edited some of the sound, began organizing slides and ideas, and prepared for a multimedia presentation tour.

In mid-August 1998, I returned to Nome, on the Seward Peninsula, to begin assembling the presentation. The National Park Service (NPS) provided assistance, space in which to work, and the means to contact communities/schools who would be interested in hosting the presentation. I gave my first pubic presentation on 15 August, 1998, at the NPS Bering Land Bridge National Preserve Visitor Center. A group of approximately 20 attended the 45 minute talk in which I blended slides, audio recordings, and overheads in lecture format. Judging by the reactions of the teachers, professors, citizens, and NPS staff who approached me afterwards, the presentation was a success and the project idea was given initial support. During mid-August, I also attempted to get the research out in as many venues as possible: I had an interview with KNOM, the local radio station, and with the Nome Nugget, the local newspaper. I also talked with other ATLAS researchers (the Terry Chapin crew) about the outreach project; they seemed excited and supportive.

I gave a public presentation to the community of Kotzebue on 21 August, 1998. The talk was attended by over 40 people, and the response was at least as strong as that following the first presentation. A group discussion ensued for 15 minutes afterward, with many people expressing concerns that scientists doing research in the area do not do an adequate job informing the communities of their research activities. Many community members wished that more scientists would visit, suggesting they come even in the winter. Some members suggested that we find ways of incorporating Native observations and knowledge into the scientific realm. From what I experienced, continued dialogue seemed hopeful and necessary.

On 23 August, 1998, I began a four-day presentation tour through four Seward Peninsula schools: Shishmaref, Wales, White Mountain, and Golovin. I gave up to 3 presentations each day, slept at each school, and had conversations with science teachers and others. It was during this brief period that I began to understand the urgent need for community science outreach. Many of the students enjoyed the presentation and seemed interested in future visits (Table 1 in the attached "Project Summary" document). As I gave my presentation in these communities, I learned five main lessons crucial to creating and maintaining dialogue; these five points may be especially helpful to the researcher who may be interested in beginning outreach programs:

1. Education (notably science education) for western Alaskan youths needs to be more place-based. We need to re-imagine the potential for applicable, relevant, and interactive lessons and activities. (See "Audience" section in the attached "Project Summary" document.)
2. Community members-- many of which have a sophisticated understanding of natural systems and processes-- are curious as to what we are doing. Scientists should use this opportunity to make new connections and introduce the research, especially since global climate change is so applicable and relevant to daily life in western Alaska. It is my feeling that residents are likely to help contribute to the understanding of scientific questions, assisting researchers with new insights and pointing out things that may appear obvious to the resident yet invisible to the visiting researcher.
3. People, especially scientists, need to rethink the idea of relationships: a dialogue cannot be achieved without significant investment. Growth and trust do not develop immediately-- yet given the proper time and involvement, a strong and rewarding relationship is almost always possible. I would suggest that visits to communities take place before agendas are set-- why not meet people before making decisions and planning lectures? I found that many Iñupiaq people enjoyed light-hearted visits and did not wish to talk about anything beyond introductions at first. When visited later, they were very inviting and ready to talk about plans and ideas.Outreach is often done by trained professionals, and I do not question the value in their skills. They are necessary. Yet I feel that outreach done by scientists can be a unique opportunity for direction connections between unlikely acquaintances. Also, as reinforced by several conversations I have had, a somewhat symbolic gesture by a scientist initiating a public information/discussion session or slide show can go a long way. Many people with whom I spoke were less disappointed in the lack of information and more disappointed in the lack of personal contact with the researchers.
4. Scientists and educators need to think beyond their respective paradigm. Iñupiaq Eskimocommunities see western culture from a different perspective and carry a long and strong tradition that needs to be respected at all costs. The pushing of a strong agenda should have limits, and cultural sensitivity should be the guide. Particularly important is the notion thatscience is only a tool and not the underlying truth: it is a reality that some people view the scientific process with skepticism, and this reality must be addressed (and if addressed correctly, may give people renewed trust in a once-ambiguous idea). This process of re-introducing the idea of science should be done with special sensitivity to Native belief systems. These systems of knowing should be given as much credibility as western science and any mutually exclusive dualism should be fiercely avoided. With this attitude, many people are more eager to learn about science and the interconnections between science and Native knowing.
5. We are all in the time of transition. Call it a crisis or an opportunity, it is a time of change that must be met simultaneously from many perspectives. Dialogue is an important tool in creating connections that an have a lasting impact on decision making, education, and positive community change. Actions that only seem symbolic are worth the effort in the long run, and every person's effort counts.

In September 1998, I began my undergraduate thesis project as an extension of my spring and summer work on the research/community dialogue project. The thesis work took on two main endeavors: 1) research into and submission of an NSF grant supplement to Dr. Lloyd's grant, specifically devoted to outreach and community dialogue, and 2) an interactive educational world-wide web site targeted but not limited to Iñupiaq high school students.

NSF Grant

To prepare for the supplement proposal, I researched Iñupiaq education and learning styles and wrote a preliminary five page proposal outlining educational goals, audience, proposed activities, a timeline, and a budget (see "Project Summary"). Dr. Lloyd used some of this information in the official proposal.

World-wide Web Site

I constructed series of web pages that integrates slides and audio clips from the 1998 field season with a hierarchical text organization that seeks to achieve both accessibility without sacrificing content. My target audience includes junior high and high school students of western Alaska, yet the site is applicable to other high school students, parents, college students, and scientists. There are 7 key pieces to the site:

1. Natural History Background, with information on Alaskan tree, plant, and animal species; and an introduction to climate change.
2. "A Virtual Tour of Our Research", which is the real substance of our educational efforts. The tour includes three main sections. A) "What are we studying?" gives background information into our research questions and contains several main concept pages (treeline, age structure, feedback, soil...). B) "Where are we studying?" provides maps and pictures of our study sites. C) "How are we studying?" introduces our project as a way to travel through the scientific method. In addition, this section describes how the research began and our research methods.
3. "Visit Western Alaska Communities" takes the user to pictures, descriptions, and links to each of the communities I visited during 1998.
4. "Record Your Observations" gives the user a chance to write down any observations in an attempt to promote a new awareness and understanding of natural phenomena. Each observation will be posted on a calendar, sorted by date and village, so that communities can interact and share knowledge with each other, and any questions can be answered by the researchers. The observations, along with any oral histories that are recorded during the 1999 community visits, will be stored in a data base accessible from the web page.
5. "Latest Results" offers our most current findings from the lab, to be updated at least monthly. If the hard data are not obtained on a monthly basis, a monthly idea, insight or new question will be posted. Because we have little idea what we find right after the field season, this section will enable communities to keep in touch and learn about our findings. "Who Are We?" gives a description of who is involved in the project with links to personal homepages.
6. "Resources for Scientists" provides a research abstract, a bibliography, and a "hints on how todo outreach" section. It is my hope that other scientists and ATLAS researchers will follow our lead with respect to outreach and public dialogue. Several ATLAS researchers have started planning outreach efforts, which is encouraging. The site also includes "Get in Touch with Us" and "Overview" sections and has the potential to greatly expand to include activities, new information/concepts, and even an audio/text library of Native observations/interviews. My priority, as the academic year comes to a close, is to have the site up and running, well-thought out in organization, attractive and easy to use, and ready for further improvements by the end of January.
   
   

NSF Grant Supplement

The grant supplement was funded and will seek to fulfill two main goals.

A) Community visits will occur during the spring 1999. An updated traveling slide show and demonstration labs (for students to actually practice ecology) will be crafted especially for Iñupiaq students, while adult community members will be asked to participate in interviews to collect oral histories for use in our research.

B) The web page will be further developed. The 1999 field season will be recorded on digital camera and minidisc player to be downloaded onto the web site. During the spring and fall 1999, updates and new findings will be posted on the web, and general site maintenance will occur.

Other researchers

Catharine D. Copass, a Masters student of Dr. Terry Chapin (also an ATLAS researcher) has recently expressed interest in facilitating an outreach project from Chapin's work around Council during summer 1999. It is my hope that other (ATLAS and other) researchers become aware of the benefits of this kind of work and that the entire ATLAS team eventually works together on outreach efforts.

More opportunities

Although only a 3 year study, the dialogue that may result from our work on the Seward Peninsula has the potential to "out-reach" the actual research. Certainly, as the project begins to grow, so will the scope of new ideas. Further possibilities include:

• involving local teachers in some or all of the 1999 or 2000 field season
• hiring a Native intern to work on the research and help communicate information to Iñupiaq communities
• integrating ecology/climate change concepts and activities into the local school curricula
• helping to provide opportunities for further science education (at the collegiate level) for interested Iñupiaq students
• establishing a ecosystem exchange program, so that other schools from around the country can learn about Arctic ecosystems from those who live there (and can share information about where they live with Iñupiaq students)
• involving more researchers (beyond ATLAS), promoting the idea that outreach should be the rule rather than the exception (see below)

There are obvious constrains in our current system to maximizing outreach. The idea of an Alaskan field season is often not conducive to long stays, calm work, and easy conditions. Funding is limited, and scientists are not always willing or able to pay their way. The work involved in staying connected with the scientific community is tremendous: new research, new published papers, and new ideas are the keys to staying in the business. I think it necessary to realize what we are up against if we have any desire to change. Inertia is a big granite slab.

But I know of several people in the scientific community who are not satisfied with the current construction, and I hope they find ways of making change happen. Better yet, there are several people who are already committed to the idea of change and have put their energies into community dialogue and outreach. Many parks host guest scientists for regular presentations, Alaskan communities commonly meet wildlife biologists working in their areas who often give public presentations, and some scientists have used native observations in their research (like Roger Ruess' oral histories of storm surges on the Y-K Delta, for instance). Each of these exciting examples should be taken as evidence of the mutual benefits of outreach and a reason for more people to begin getting involved in dialogue.