public perceptions of physics - for all · magnetic resonance imaging (mri) scanners food...

Public Perceptions of Physics

Institute of Physics Report

Report prepared for the Institute of Physics by People Science & Policy LtdJuly 2008

People Science and Policy LtdHamilton House,Mabledon Place,London, WC1H 9BB.Tel: 0207 554 8620E-mail: [email protected]


iiiP u b l i c P e r c e P t i o n s o f P h y s i c s : a r e P o r t f o r t h e i n s t i t u t e o f P h y s i c s J u l y 2 0 0 8

Executive summary 1Introduction 1 Knowledge of physics 1General perceptions of physics 1Interest in physics 1 Recommendations 1Methodology 2

1: Introduction 3 1.1: Background 3 1.2: Research objectives 3 1.3: Methodology 31.4: The report 4

2: Knowledge of physics 5 2.1: Introduction 5 2.2: General knowledge of physics 5 2.3: Defining physics 5 2.4: Image of physicists 62.5: Working in physics 7 2.6: Sources of information 7 2.7: Conclusion 8

3: General perceptions of physics 9 3.1: Introduction 9 3.2: General awareness of science 9 3.3: Relevance 9 3.4: Importance 10 3.5: Contribution of physics to society 10 3.6: Views on physics compared with science and engineering 10 3.7: Conclusion 10

4: Interest in physics 12 4.1: Introduction 12 4.2: Importance 124.3: Benefits and concerns 13 4.4: Familiarity 144.5: Personal interest 154.6: Conclusion 17

5: Conclusions and recommendations 18 5.1: Conclusions 185.2: Recommendations 18


P u b l i c P e r c e P t i o n s o f P h y s i c s : a r e P o r t f o r t h e i n s t i t u t e o f P h y s i c s J u l y 2 0 0 8 iv

6: Appendices 206.1: Literature review 206.2: Methodology 256.3: Focus group questionnaire 286.4: Focus group questionnaire data 296.5: Focus group topic guide 306.6: Omnibus survey questionnaire 336.7: Omnibus survey data tables 34

1P u b l i c P e r c e P t i o n s o f P h y s i c s : a r e P o r t f o r t h e i n s t i t u t e o f P h y s i c s J u l y 2 0 0 8

Executive summary

IntroductionThe Institute of Physics (IOP) is a scientific membership organisation devoted to increasing the understanding and application of physics. The vision of the Institute’s Physics in Society programme is to change public perceptions of physics: physics can, and does, make a difference.

The objectives for this research were to:

recognise what, if anything, people understand by ●●

the word “physics”;understand what aspects of physics people find ●●

interesting (whether they label them as physics or not);know how people perceive physics (whatever they ●●

understand by the term) and start to understand more about why these perceptions and attitudes exist;understand how to narrow any gap between ●●

people’s current perceptions and the reality (i.e. what physicists and IOP think physics is); develop a series of questions that can be added ●●

to all future Physics in Society project evaluations so that IOP can understand the differing impact of individual projects on people’s perceptions of physics, as well as the impact of the programme as a whole.

Knowledge of physicsThe public’s knowledge of physics was limited and they felt less knowledgeable about it than about biology or chemistry. Once focus group participants had decided which topics from a list they thought were physics, they saw them as interesting, useful and related to advances in technology. Those who had some impression of physics associated it with school science, formulae and theories, and different types of power.

Only half of survey respondents and few focus group participants had any idea of what physicists do. Despite this lack of knowledge, participants considered physicists, like all scientists, to be trustworthy. Younger people, and those from lower social grades and who were less well educated, were less knowledgeable about physics and less likely to have any concept about what physicists’ work involves.

General perceptions of physicsPerceptions of physics were positive, but not quite as positive as views about science in general. Men, and those in higher social grades and who were more highly educated, tended to be more positive about

physics than women and those in lower social grades and who were less well educated. Physics was often thought to be harder to relate to than biology or chemistry, particularly for women.

General science topics that participants had heard about tended to relate to the environment and climate change. The physics topics that were spontaneously mentioned were advances in telecommunications and technology, which were thought to have benefited society.

Interest in physics Having an understanding of physics was considered to be important by the majority of the public, although a significant number felt that it was too complicated for them personally to understand. Interest in a topic typically depended on importance and effects on individuals and/or society; potential benefits and concerns; familiarity with a topic; and personal interest. In general, men, older people, and those in higher social grades and with higher levels of education were likely to be more interested in, and knowledgeable about, physics than women, younger people, and those with lower levels of education and from lower social grades.

The “importance” of a topic as judged by its impact on individuals and society was at the core of whether or not most people found a topic to be interesting. If a topic was in the news it was perceived to be important and therefore interesting. It was considered even more interesting if the topic was likely to have an immediate or short-term impact on individuals and/or society. If the potential positive impact of the topic was too long term then it was less interesting because people could not see how it benefited them. If an individual could not relate to the topic (i.e. see how it was useful to them, other individuals or society) then it was not interesting. The same was usually the case if a topic could not be understood, as part of the understanding related to usefulness.

Recommendations In general, the public thought that physics was important. However, they found it difficult to relate it to their everyday lives so believed that it had limited relevance to them.

Despite there being a lack of knowledge of physics and physicists among the public, we suggest that the focus of the recommendations should be on increasing interest and knowledge of physics topics rather than on being able to define physics. By focusing on topics, which are easier for people to relate to, IOP

Executive summary

P u b l i c P e r c e P t i o n s o f P h y s i c s : a r e P o r t f o r t h e i n s t i t u t e o f P h y s i c s J u l y 2 0 0 8 2

Executive summary

can use the topic as a hook and then emphasise how physics and physicists are involved. We also suggest that IOP focuses some of its engagement activity on creating an atmosphere in which physics can flourish by encouraging young people to take up careers in physics, as well as discouraging adults from putting their children off physics.

The recommendations can be summarised as follows:

to increase familiarity, physics research needs to ●●

have a high profile in the media; to use climate change and renewable energy as ●●

useful hooks on which physicists’ work can be hung;to emphasise potential benefits to individuals and/●●

or society of physics research and how applications relate to everyday life; to target specific physics topics at particular ●●

audiences;

to promote careers in physics to young people and ●●

their parents;to establish a figurehead for physics, which would ●●

be invaluable for the promotion of the subject;to exploit television programmes, which have an ●●

important role to play in promoting physics.

Methodology The project comprised:

a review of existing UK research on the general ●●

public’s knowledge of, and attitudes towards, physics and how this compares with other science subjects; eight focus groups with members of the general ●●

public (age 19+); a telephone omnibus survey of attitudes of the ●●

general public to physics to establish a baseline against which change can be measured.


1: Introduction

1.1 BackgroundThe Institute of Physics (IOP) is a scientific membership organisation devoted to increasing the understanding and application of physics. It has an extensive worldwide membership and is a leading communicator of physics with all audiences, from specialists through government to the general public. Its publishing company, IOP Publishing, is a world leader in scientific publishing and the electronic dissemination of physics.

The vision of the Institute’s Physics in Society programme is to change public perceptions of physics: physics can, and does, make a difference. To do this, it aims to raise awareness that:

physics affects people of all ages personally, and ●●

society in general;physics provides opportunities to know more ●●

about our world and therefore make more informed decisions.

The programme aims to inspire people of all ages about physics and engage them in meaningful debate on scientific topics through a variety of activities that capture their imagination, highlight the relevance of physics to their everyday lives and portray physics as accessible, aspirational and curiosity-driven.

To reach as wide an audience as possible, IOP is committed to encouraging physicists to take physics to their communities through outreach and engagement activities, such as hands-on workshops, interactive talks, debates, discussions, websites and performances.

1.2 Research objectives The objectives for this research were to:

recognise what, if anything, people understand by ●●

the word “physics”; understand what aspects of physics people find ●●

interesting (whether they label them as physics or not); know how people perceive physics (whatever they ●●

understand by it), and start to understand more about why these perceptions and attitudes exist;understand how to narrow any gap between ●●

people’s current perceptions and the reality (i.e. what physicists and IOP think physics is); develop a series of questions that can be added ●●

to all future Physics in Society project evaluations so that IOP can understand the differing impact of individual projects on people’s perceptions of physics, as well as the impact of the programme as a whole.

A great deal of research has already looked into the attitudes of young people to physics, so this research focuses on the views of adults.

1.3 Methodology The project comprised:


public’s knowledge of, and attitudes towards, physics and how this compares with other science subjects (appendix 6.1);

1: Introduction

Table 1: the list of topics included on the shuffle cards in the topic guide.

Physics Chemistry Biologyorigins of the universe medicines (pharmaceuticals) genetically modified (GM) cropstelecommunications new materials for clothes understanding diseasesnuclear power environmental monitoring and

clean-upanimal behaviour

medical devices, for example magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanners

food processing/manufacture how the body works

renewable energy sources analysis of samples, for example in forensics

deciphering the human genome

space exploration plastics forestrybuilding-blocks of nature gritting roads human fertilityweather forecasting water treatment, for example fluorine

in drinking water, sewage plantscloning

understanding climate change understanding chemicals and their properties

evolution


1: Introduction

eight focus groups with members of the general ●●

public (age 19+); and a telephone omnibus survey of attitudes of the ●●

general public to physics to establish a baseline against which change can be measured.

In total 67 adults took part in the focus groups, including those from a range of ages, social grades, and both men and women, as set out in appendix 6.2. People with no interest in science were excluded from the project. Participants were given a short attitudinal questionnaire to complete while they were waiting for the focus groups to begin (see appendix 6.3 for the questionnaire and appendix 6.4 for the data summary). The focus group topic guide can be found in appendix 6.5. The list of topics on the shuffle cards included in the topic guide is presented in table 1 for ease of reference.

Some 1023 members of the public aged 18 and over were surveyed in the telephone omnibus. The survey questionnaire and data summary tables are in appendices 6.6 and 6.7, respectively.

An overview of the methodology can be found in appendix 6.2.

1.4 The reportChapter 2 describes the public’s understanding of physics and how they define it. Public perceptions of physicists and what working in physics involves are also discussed. Where and how the public gets, and would like to get, information about physics is explored at the end of this chapter. It also provides context to findings discussed in the following two chapters.

The public’s general perceptions of physics are covered in chapter 3, which describes their overall and initial views of physics in the context of their views of science in general.

Chapter 4 covers in detail the basis for the public’s initial reactions to physics by exploring what makes them interested in physics. The importance of topics, benefits and concerns, familiarity and personal interest in topics are therefore considered.

The final chapter draws together the conclusions from each of the preceding chapters and makes recommendations based on these findings.

References are made throughout the report to other literature, further details of which can be found in appendix 6.1.


2: Knowledge of physics

2.1 Introduction Focus group participants and omnibus survey respondents were asked for their initial reactions to the word “physics”. Responses to this question provide a picture of knowledge levels. To explore this further, participants in the focus groups were also asked to decide which topics on a set of shuffle cards (see appendix 6.5 for the list of topics) related to each of the sciences – physics, biology and chemistry. There was awareness that topics often overlapped disciplines, but participants were asked to say the science that each topic was mainly covered by.

Knowledge of physics as a subject is discussed first, followed by an exploration of how people define physics. The image of physicists and working in physics is then covered, followed by how people would like to find out more about physics.

2.2 General knowledge of physics When asked simply about physics, focus group participants had limited knowledge of the subject, mostly related to school science. Topics that were most often suggested when they were asked about physics were:

forces; ●●

power/energy; ●●

gravity. ●●

This is consistent with the findings from other research conducted by PSP (2006). In that, quick brainstorming sessions on physics revealed that participants thought of “maths”, “formulae”, “laws”, “gravity”, “magnetics”, “atoms”, “circuits”, “lasers”, “forces”, “engines”, “electricity” and other curriculum topics.

In the omnibus survey the following topics were most likely to be mentioned when asked: “What comes to mind when I say ‘physics’?”:

scientific/science (17%);●●

formulae/numbers/theories/laws (15%);●●

school/education/curriculum (14%);●●

to do with the body/health/exercise (11%);●●

electricity/energy/light/power/heat (10%);●●

astronomy/universe/world (7%);●●

technology/mechanics/engineering (6%);●●

momentum/speeds/forces (6%).●●

“Something scientific that you do in school.” “The laws and nature of items, energy, power, electricity, gravity.”Omnibus respondents

These answers are similar to those given in response to the same question that was asked about science generally in the MORI (2005) survey. There, the most popular responses were related to laboratories and chemicals (19%), as well as health and medicine (17%), innovation (16%), and advancement (14%).

One in five respondents did not know what to say in response to this question. However, only 4% did not know what to say in response to the same question about science (MORI 2005).

As highlighted above, each of the topics related to physics was mentioned by fewer than 20% of the omnibus survey respondents, therefore it is difficult to see any pattern of responses based on respondent characteristics. The data indicate that women were more likely than men to think initially that physics is “scientific” (20% versus 15%), but men were more likely to say it is something to do with technology or mechanics and engineering (8% versus 3%). The youngest (18–24) and oldest (65+) respondents, as well as those in the lower social grades and without a degree-level qualification, were also more likely than the average to say that they did not know what physics is.

Among focus group participants, level of education did not seem to determine level of knowledge of physics. Men seemed more knowledgeable than women. However, contrary to the omnibus survey results, younger participants seemed to be more knowledgeable than older participants. Very few focus group participants had a science qualification, so it is not possible to draw any conclusions about whether this had an effect on knowledge.

2.3 Defining physics Focus group participants were reasonably good at allocating selected topics to the different sciences, while recognising that the context of the topic affected their decision. However when deciding on which topics were physics, participants often did this by a process of elimination with topics that they thought were neither biology nor chemistry being allocated to physics. For example, some participants defined physics by what they thought it was not (i.e. nature and the human body). This shows that participants found it easier to define biology and chemistry rather than physics.

“We didn’t think they were biology or chemistry.”Woman, C2DE, age 40–54

Those focus group participants who did provide an




explanation often associated physics with forces, energy and electrics, as well as production and making things.

“I always associate energy with physics because it is all about the laws…like harnessing [wind] to create power.”Woman, ABC1, 30–39

“We were looking at things that were matter and energy.”Woman, C2DE, age 40–54

“It’s all to do with how things work.”“It’s all physics, finding things out.”Men, C2DE, age 55+

Focus group participants also recognised that some topics covered many disciplines of science and so either described these as a mixture or placed them with the subject that they thought covered most of the topic.

“Physics must go into making this complicated machinery, chemistry because of all the things they’re made of…plastics…and biology because you have to know what you’re specifically looking for.” [topic: medical devices such as MRI scanners]Woman, C2DE, age 40–54

“Monitoring equipment might be more physics, effects are biology…chemistry of emissions from cars effecting the actual climate change.” [topic: understanding climate change]Man, ABC1, age 19–29

For some focus group participants, seeing physics topics on the cards helped them to conceptualise their idea of physics away from school and thus made them think that it was more interesting than they had originally thought.

“It’s only when you see the cards [on physics topics], where you have to think about what it relates to in everyday life, where you think ‘actually, that is quite interesting’.”Woman, ABC1, 30–39

Most of the physics topics were seen as useful to varying degrees, with importance and urgency of research being key factors. For example, gritting the roads was often seen as something essential and important but, compared with other topics, there did not seem to be a need for further research or a need for the public to understand the chemical processes involved.

Physics topics were also usually seen as advancing technology. Things such as the everyday use of telecommunications, computers and mobile technology were likely to be associated with physics, as well as developments as a result of space exploration. Some participants also associated physics with mathematics.

2.4 Image of physicists Nearly half (46%) of respondents to the omnibus survey could not answer the question: “What do physicists do?”. Of those who had some idea, most were likely to associate the following with the work of physicists:

research/development/advancement/invention/●●

study how things work/problem solving (33% of those who had some idea about the work of physicists); carry out experiments/work in laboratory (11%);●●

energy/environment (10%);●●

involved in health/fitness/the body (9%);●●

science/scientists (9%).●●

“I think that they help make things work, they find out things and apply them to everyday life.” “They discover the structure of existence that leads to improvements.”“They study how the world works.” Omnibus respondents

Respondents to the MORI (2005) survey were asked: “When I say scientists, what comes to mind?” Given the phrasing of the question and the more generic term “scientist”, respondents answered differently. More than a quarter (27%) associated scientists not only with research but also with academics, professors and teachers. A fifth (22%) also associated scientists with being experts, and being highly educated and skilled.

Omnibus survey respondents who mentioned research and development often said that this leads to benefits to society.

“They do a lot of experimental work and research. They work with elements and atoms, etc., to develop new advances in science, such as in the medical field.” “They try and do a good job, I don’t fully understand it. They are trying to help everybody.”Omnibus respondents

The 46% of respondents who did not know what physicists do were more likely to be young (61% of 18–24-year-olds), from lower social grades and with lower levels of education.

In the focus groups there was limited knowledge



of physicists, what they do and for whom they work. Participants had more of an idea about biologists and chemists, whom they associated with working in healthcare (medicine), in laboratories and for pharmaceutical companies.

“…you do have an image: stereotypical chemist – white coat, biology – hospital, and then physicists – workshop. All experimenting.”Man, ABC1, age 19–29

Physics was often cited as a “boy’s subject” by the women and physicists were typically seen as male.

Famous physicists mentioned were Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking and the scientist in the film Back to the Future. The nuclear power plant in the television programme The Simpsons was also mentioned. There were no fewer famous physicists mentioned than biologists and chemists, where participants were most likely to mention naturalists such as David Attenborough and David Bellamy.

2.5 Working in physics Focus group participants generally thought scientists to be trustworthy. Any concern was linked to individual topics and how the research might be used (or misused) rather than with regard to the individual scientists. Many assumed that scientists are regulated but participants did not really know how; they assumed it was likely that the government oversees the process.

Those participants with degrees seemed a little more familiar with the life of a researcher (i.e. that it involves being aware of the research of others and how this might impact on their work) and that scientists are continually looking for better solutions.

“They’re always looking for the next best thing to improve on whatever field they’re working in.”Man, ABC1, age 19–29

Participants thought that physicists work for government (including NASA), and large companies and industries, such as ICI, BP, manufacturing, telecommunications and power/energy. There was also some recognition that physics research costs a lot of money, so funds are needed from industry to support research.

A career in science was seen as a good thing for which you need to be clever. Scientists (including physicists) were seen as patient, conscientious, creative and hard working, with participants often mentioning the need to repeat work over and over again to get results.

“It’s a very creative form of employment…whichever line you go in…you are creating

something…also IT…not just white coats.”Woman, ABC1, age 55+

2.6 Sources of information While discussing improving their personal knowledge, focus group participants highlighted where they currently get information, and from where they would like to receive information. The library, Internet and television were seen as sources of information about science, with documentaries such as Horizon being mentioned most often. Men were most likely to mention documentaries and said that they watch those with trailers that sparked an interest. The Royal Institution Christmas lectures were suggested by one participant as a good way to learn about science. Television programmes such as CSI were popular and were mentioned when discussing the analysis of samples, which many participants cited as interesting. They could relate to the topic and had a concept of how samples could be used in real life. The three national UK surveys of public attitudes to science also found that documentaries were the preferred source for keeping up to date with science (OST/Wellcome Trust 2000, MORI 2005, RCUK/DIUS 2008); Use of the Internet had increased significantly in 2008 compared with 2000 and 2005.

One group of women in the focus groups linked lots of the topics to the work of their local council (e.g. gritting the roads, environmental policies and telecommunications). They therefore saw the council as a potential source of information.

It was mentioned by two groups of men that physics needs a figurehead to whom the public can relate, as biology has David Attenborough.1

“If they [IOP] want to get across to people then they have to get a…figurehead, somebody that people can relate to…Planet Earth…you relate to the person who is presenting it. Any subject can be…made interesting if you’ve got the right people teaching it.”Man, C2DE, age 55+

The need for a figurehead was thought to be particularly important as there was often concern that what people read or hear about in the media is not always accurate; people want to hear the information direct from the scientist. However, there was awareness that scientific information is usually filtered through the media in some form, but documentaries were seen as more trustworthy than the news.

The OST/Wellcome Trust (2000) research highlighted that the most trusted sources for information about science were scientists in universities, those working for charities and television documentaries.

There was an appreciation among focus group

1. David Attenborough is an established figure who is able to undertake big-budget documentaries. It would take time and significant support to establish such a figure for physics.



participants that the public cannot be kept informed about all scientific research going on, and that conflicting reports can damage the reputation of the scientists and the research under examination. There was also an awareness among some participants that scientific research is constantly developing, and knowledge growing, and sometimes “facts” are corrected as more knowledge is gained. The OST/Wellcome Trust (2000), however, found that the concept that doing more research on a topic might bring more questions than answers is difficult to communicate to the general public.

The BMRB (2007) findings on engineering also support the current research findings. They concluded, based on their research with the public for the Royal Academy of Engineering, that there are several factors that determine the success of engagement strategies on engineering. These are:

the “wow factor”; ●●

the simplicity of the idea; ●●

social responsibility related to the research/topic; ●●

the potential for large-scale change;●●

personal relevance. ●●

The last three factors were emphasised by participants in this research as important (see the section on “Interest in physics”, p12).

2.7 Conclusion The public’s knowledge of physics is limited and they feel less knowledgeable about physics than about biology and chemistry. This is emphasised by the fact

that most focus group participants defined topics as physics by default (i.e. if it isn’t biology or chemistry it must be physics).

Those who had some knowledge of physics associated it with school science, formulae, theories, and different types of power.

Once focus group participants had decided which topics they thought were physics, they saw them as interesting, useful and related to advances in technology.

Only half of respondents and few focus group participants had any idea of what physicists do. More had a feel for the daily work of biologists and chemists, although this was still limited. Despite this lack of knowledge, participants considered physicists, like all scientists, to be trustworthy. Younger people, and those from lower social grades and who were less well educated, were less knowledgeable about physics and less likely to have any concept of what physicists’ work involves.

Focus group participants cited the library, the Internet and television as sources of information about science. The media helped participants not only to learn more about a topic but also to be able to appreciate its relevance to them and society. A figurehead for physics was mentioned as a good idea to increase awareness and knowledge of work in physics.


3: General perceptions of physics

3.1 Introduction General perceptions of physics were explored in a number of ways:

focus group participants were asked to brainstorm ●●

the word “physics” (as well as the words “biology” and “chemistry”); focus group participants were asked to agree or ●●

disagree on a five-point scale with a series of attitude statements about science in general and specifically about biology, chemistry and physics, in a short questionnaire at the start of the focus group; omnibus survey respondents were asked a number ●●

of attitude questions about physics.

This chapter first provides a context to views about physics by discussing public attitudes to science in general. The public’s immediate reaction to the word “physics” and a selection of physics topics are then discussed using data from both the focus groups and the survey questionnaire. Initial perceptions of physics can be grouped under three headings: relevance to individuals; importance; and contribution of physics to society. These are then compared with the views about science and engineering in general.

Reasons behind these initial views are explored in more detail in the following chapter.

3.2 General awareness of scienceGeneral perceptions of science were explored to provide a context and set the scene for discussing the findings on perceptions of physics. Responses to the short attitude questionnaire given to focus group participants showed that the participants were not only positive about science overall but also keen to find out more about topics such as the origins of the universe, new sources of energy, and developing more powerful computers and new technologies (appendices 6.3 and 6.4). This is expected because participants were screened so that those not interested in science were not included. However, previous research has also shown that the public overall does have a positive attitude to science (OST/ Wellcome Trust 2000, MORI 2005, RCUK/DIUS 2008). Encouragingly, few participants agreed that “science is getting out of control and there is nothing we can do to stop it”.

Participants also thought that scientists should tell the public more about what they are doing and why. This is in line with the result of the 2008 survey in which 73% said that they would like more scientists to spend more time than they do discussing the

implications of their research with the general public (RCUK/DIUS 2008).

Near the beginning of the focus groups, participants were asked what science topics they had heard about recently. Many found it difficult to think of something off the top of their heads. However, of the topics thought of, the following were most commonly mentioned:

the environment; ●●

climate change; ●●

global warming; ●●

energy shortages. ●●

These topics were no more or less likely to be mentioned by a particular type of person and it was emphasised that they came to mind because they “affected everyone”.

Participants did not, at this stage, link these topics to a particular branch of science. The topics were all newsworthy and well covered in the media.

The physics topics that were spontaneously mentioned were advances in telecommunications and technology, which were thought to have benefited society. Participants felt a direct impact on their lives from advances in telecommunications, such as mobile phones and computers.

3.3 Relevance Focus group participants were asked for their reactions to the words “physics”, “chemistry” and “biology”. All of them showed a more positive response to subjects to which they felt they could relate. This was particularly evident with biology for women. The quote below reflects this and how some participants felt that physics, in particular, was too difficult or complicated for them to understand, and therefore a subject to which it was difficult to relate.

“We know more about it [biology]. I think with physics you need to have a…very sharp brain…they’re clever people these scientists that do all of that…too much above us.”Woman, ABC1, age 55+

In general, women’s initial reactions to physics were less positive than men’s. As with all of the sciences, participants generally associated them with school, and for many their experiences at school had cemented their views on the topics into adulthood.

Initial reactions to physics from men were generally positive because they felt that physics is related to everyday life and they saw it as the practical




Figure 1: Agreement with the statement “physics makes a valuable contribution to society”.

implementation of science. It was often seen as a subject that explains cause and effect, and how things work.

“It’s [physics] how things work, cause and effect. What happens when you do this and why does it happen.”Man, C2DE, age 30–39

3.4 Importance It was generally thought by focus group participants that all of the sciences are important to individuals and to society, and that it is important for everyone to have some understanding of them. This supports the national findings about attitudes to science (OST/Wellcome Trust 2000, MORI 2005, RCUK/DIUS 2008).

Focus group participants completed an attitude questionnaire that included some statements about the importance of the various sciences to their lives. Focus group participants’ attitudes to science in general were typically more positive than their attitudes to chemistry, physics or biology being important to their daily lives. Due to the small sample size it is difficult to draw conclusions about differences in responses by gender, age and social grade. However, the following differences are suggested by this small survey:

those in social grades ABC1 are more likely to agree ●●

that chemistry/physics/biology is important in their daily life than those in social grades C2DE; men are more likely than women to agree that ●●

physics is important in their daily lives.

These findings are consistent with previous research (e.g. Creative Research 1999).

Biology was generally the preferred topic among women, with physics being more “boring” or “scary”. However, some women did recognise the importance

of physics.

“It’s important towards the future, both physics and chemistry. We need it for medicine, for future energy sources.”Woman, C2DE, age 19–29

3.5 Contribution of physics to society The majority of respondents to the omnibus survey agreed that physics makes a valuable contribution to society and that it is important that young people have a grasp of physics (78% and 81%, respectively). Levels of agreement with this statement vary between groups (figure 1). Men and older people were more likely than women and younger people to agree with this statement. Social grade and education level also affected agreement with this statement in that those in social grades AB and those who are highly educated were most likely to agree.

Linked to the contribution of physics to society, 8 out of 10 (81%) agreed that it is important for young people to have a grasp of physics. However, only 70% of 18–24-year-olds agreed with this statement. Again, higher social grade and more education led to increased agreement with this statement. Those with children (under 18 years old) were less likely to agree with this statement than those without (78% versus 83%).

3.6 Views on physics compared with science and engineering Table 2 displays the results for the responses to the attitude statements in the omnibus survey and the equivalent questions asked about science/engineering in other surveys.

The data indicate that views about physics were generally slightly less positive than those about science and engineering. Nevertheless, views were still positive overall. About the same number of respondents agreed that physics is too specialised for most people to understand it as did with regard to science and technology in the 2008 survey (59% versus 56%). Those who thought that physics is too specialised for most people to understand it were more likely to be women, those from lower social grades and those with lower levels of education.

3.7 Conclusion Overall perceptions of physics are positive, but not quite as positive as views on science in general. As with views on science in general, men, and those in higher social grades and who were more highly educated tended to be more positive about physics than women, and those in lower social grades and those who were less well educated.

Initial views about physics are centred on science at school. Physics is also often thought to be harder

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

agre

ed/a

gree

d st

rong

ly (%

)

men women 18–24 45+ AB C1C2DE none/secondary

degree/higher degree

gender age social grade qualification



to relate to than biology and chemistry, particularly for women.

General science topics that participants had heard about tended to relate to the environment and climate change. These were no more or less likely to be mentioned by a particular type of person and it was

emphasised that they came to mind because they “affected everyone”. Participants did not, at this stage, link these topics to a particular branch of science. The physics topics that were spontaneously mentioned were advances in telecommunications and technology, which were thought to have benefited society.

Table 2: Comparison of responses to physics attitude statements with similar statements on science/engineering from other surveys.Question: Do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements?

Net agree (%) Use in other surveys:*

physics/physicists replaced with:Net agree (%)

Physics makes a valuable contribution to society. 78 OST/WT – “scientists” 84MORI – “science” 85RAEng/etb –”engineering” 94RCUK/DIUS – “science and technology” 85

Physics is too specialised for most people to understand it. 59 OST/WT – “science and technology” 66RCUK/DUIS – “science and technology” 56

I am not interested in physics and don’t see why I should be. 31 OST/WT – “science” 21

It is important that young people have a grasp of physics. 81 OST/WT –”science and technology” 91MORI – “science” 96RCUK/DIUS –”science and technology” 92

* OST/Wellcome Trust survey was conducted in 2000, MORI in 2005, RAEng/etb in 2007 and RCUK/DIUS in 2008.


4: Interest in physics

4.1 Introduction Focus group participants were given a number of shuffle cards covering research topics from all of the sciences (see appendix 6.5 for the full list). They were asked to group them into those that they found interesting and those that they did not find interesting. The participants then discussed why they found some topics more interesting than others. Respondents to the omnibus survey were also asked about their interest in a number of specific topics related to physics.

When participants in the focus groups were sorting the shuffle cards, there were more topics that they found interesting than not. Reasons why topics were interesting are discussed in detail below. There are a number of factors that affect interest in physics. First, there is the level of importance that the public attaches to the topic, which usually relates to the impact on individuals and society of the research outputs of the topic. An appreciation of potential benefits and perceived concern also affect interest. Concern can mean that people think research needs to be carried out to alleviate problems or that research should not be done on a controversial topic to which they attach no benefit. How the familiarity of a topic links to interest is then discussed, because the more familiar people are with a topic the more interested they seem to be in it. Finally, personal interest is considered, mainly by exploring interest in specific physics topics covered in the omnibus survey and exploring what types of people are interested, or not, in these different topics and why.

4.2 Importance “Importance” was the term most commonly used by focus group participants when deciding whether or not a topic was interesting or, more specifically, “importance and relevance to the individual and/or society, now and in the future”.

“If it doesn’t bother you then you aren’t going to be interested.”Woman, C2DE, age 19–29

“Selfish points, something that’s actually going to affect you, you’ll actually take it out as interesting. If it is not in my daily life, or I don’t have to see it or be involved in it, I’m not really that bothered.”Man, ABC1, 19–29

“We can relate to it more.” “There’s so many different things in biology that

affect our lives all of the time.”Women, ABC1, age 55+

The application of knowledge gained from research, and how this benefited society, was paramount to most.

“I’m not really interested in understanding the diseases. I’m interested in whether there’s a cure for a disease.”Man, ABC1, age 19–29

Below is an example in which one woman was not interested in nuclear power, per se, but could appreciate the importance of the topic because of the potential effects of increased use of nuclear power. However, she felt that she had no control over the topic, so was not interested.

“I’m not really interested in it [nuclear power] but we’re affected by it.”Woman, ABC1, age 55+

One group also mentioned that, although studying evolution is interesting, it is not as important as other topics because it “doesn’t have the same impact on our lives”. This highlights the view that it is usually the importance of the application of a topic that participants are generally interested in, rather than the details of the science behind it.

“I’m interested in what it [particle accelerator] can eventually achieve, but I’m not interested in the daily experiments they do, but where the experiments can take us.”Man. ABC1, age 19–29

Furthermore, the quote below highlights that science that is taken for granted, such as a functioning kettle, would often not be considered interesting as it was not seen as important or new.

“They flip the kettle on…but they’re not worried about the physics of the kettle.”Man, C2DE, age 30–39

Among participants in the focus groups, the most interesting topics were climate change,2 renewable energy sources and how the body works. Participants felt that they were already experiencing the effects of climate change through changes in the weather. They also recognised the urgency of learning more about and developing renewable sources of energy, because


2. Weather forecasting was mentioned by some but this was usually associated with climate change.



they were aware of actual and potential energy shortages. Fertility was a popular topic among women. Many of the reasons given for topics being most interesting were related to how they could benefit individuals and society.

“Because of the way the climate is going at the moment…it’s such a massive thing that we try and find other sources of energy…The world will grind to a halt, cars will stop.” [topic: renewable energy]Woman, C2DE, age 19–29

“Assuming we’re all going to live much longer it is vital that we have somewhere to live. We need to understand what is happening and what we’re doing to our planet…What will we leave for future generations?” [topic: understanding climate change]Man, ABC1, age 40–54

The impact on health and healthcare was a common theme associated with interest in a topic. The literature on public attitudes to science highlights that one of the science topics of most interest to the public is health (e.g. OST/Wellcome Trust 2000, RCUK/DIUS 2008). Focus group participants were not necessarily interested in the technology behind medical devices but in what impact they had on the health of people.

“I would like to know more about medical devices and scanners because they are of help to all generations and can prevent anyone getting seriously ill.”Woman, ABC1, age 55+

As expected from previous research (OST/Wellcome Trust 2000, MORI 2005, RCUK/DIUS 2008), women more than men tended to focus their interest on health issues. Although health and medical research and applications were generally recognised as important, they were not always of interest to everyone.

It was also evident that topics that had been most prominent in the news, such as climate change and its impacts, affected what participants thought was important. This was usually because participants felt that they were better able to relate to the topic, or to relate its impact to their everyday lives. Furthermore, passively absorbing information from watching, listening to or reading the news is something that is very easily done and requires little time. The news is also repetitive, giving people a greater chance of recalling a topic.

Participants found it harder to be interested in topics that are more generic or do not have a specific context attached to them that make impacts on individuals and/or society clear (e.g. understanding chemicals and plastics). Topics such as these were

often still considered to be important but they were not new and therefore not considered to be exciting. This emphasises that appreciating the benefits of an application is fundamental to having an interest in it, though not essential to recognising the importance of a topic. PSP (2006) found that topics such as the fundamental forces of nature were seen as too broad and general for enthusiastic engagement. However, there are some people who are “just interested” in a topic for no particular reason (see below).

4.3 Benefits and concerns Future and potential benefits to society were often highlighted by focus group participants, alongside current impacts and applications of research. Concern about the future and effects on individuals and society, particularly the future of the planet, also stimulated interest by omnibus respondents in the benefits gained from research in the following topics (from a list of 10 topics that were covered in the survey; appendix 6.6):

telecommunications; ●●

nuclear power; ●●

renewable energy; ●●

space exploration; ●●

climate change; ●●

monitoring natural disasters. ●●

“Because it is going to affect us, it is actually affecting us. I’m interested in it for the future.” “Because we can protect the future against future disasters and natural calamities.”Omnibus respondents

The topics “origins of the universe” and “space exploration” presented to focus group participants evoked mixed reactions. Some appreciated the current and future benefits of understanding our past, whereas others thought that such research was expensive with little benefit for future generations. Men were more likely than women to emphasise how society today can benefit from learning about the past.

“Knowing where you’ve come from can aid you in the direction you’re going to.” [topic: origins of the universe]Man, C2DE, age 30–39

Useful spin-offs from space exploration were also quite often mentioned by the men.

“Generally things to do with space exploration are at the height of technology, so you look at the technology they’re using there. In 10 to 20 years time, similar technology is in everyday use.”Man, ABC1, age 19–29



Space exploration and telecommunications were thought to be the most interesting topics by a few men in the focus groups due to the advances in technology and the potential importance of future developments.

Some omnibus survey respondents were interested in finding out more about predicting financial markets because of potential effects on the economy and impact on personal financial investments.

“More effort on work in the financial market means that I will be able to make more profit and knowing this factor will make me happy.”Omnibus respondent

Some focus group participants could not see how cloning would be of benefit to society, although cloning human parts as opposed to whole humans was looked on more favourably.

“I can only see negatives when I think about it [cloning].”Woman, ABC1, age 55+

Concern about a topic sometimes made people think that research should not be done, as was the case for some focus group participants with regard to topics such as cloning and GM crops.

“I don’t like it; I don’t think it is right [to do the research].”Woman, ABC1, age 55+

For others, their concern meant that they thought that there should be research to find out more. Such topics included food processing and GM crops, because participants were concerned about what was going into their food.

“It’s [GM crops] what we feed our families…”“That will have an effect on us…on your health and your body.”Women, ABC1, age 30–39

“Everyone wants to know what they’re eating.” [topic: food processing]Woman, C2DE, age 19–29

There was also concern about the need to solve problems related to renewable energy sources and understanding the effects of climate change.

“…because we’ve got to come up with some alternatives because we’ve raped the planet of nearly everything that it can give us, so we need to start thinking of something new.” [topic: renewable energy sources]Man, ABC1, age 40–54

One group of participants had fears relating to cloning and to nuclear power, but said that cloning is interesting and nuclear power is not. Two participants explained this and the difference was related to their concerns and views of potential benefits.

“Maybe because cloning is seen as a very positive step as well as something that people are a bit wary of…the cloning side of things you think really could be positive for people, certain groups of people who are ill, or whatever. Nuclear power plants, I’m not sure if anyone understands the benefit.” “I think we’ve only ever seen the worst of nuclear power and the effects that it can have when it goes wrong, whereas we haven’t seen that of cloning.”Women, ABC1, age 30–39

For omnibus survey respondents, avoiding danger and concern over health risks were common reasons for finding out more about medical devices and transport safety.

“Because something like that affects me and my child because I travel on the train and the bus.”Omnibus respondent

There was some discussion among focus group participants about whether the public should hear about developments in science earlier rather than later to help allay concerns. There was merit in knowing about research earlier, particularly if there were moral and ethical implications. However, it was also thought that it is not always good to know too soon when findings could be uncertain and therefore changeable, thus provoking unnecessary discussion or concern among the media and hence the public.

Previous research has indicated that risk and concern about topics has an impact on interest and that there is a general fear of the unknown (MORI 2005). Even so, personal issues are usually found to be the most prominent factors in determining interest (Poortinga and Pidgeon 2003). PSP (2004) found that women, older people and those in lower social grades were more likely to express concern. These differences between people with regard to level of concern were not strongly evident in the current research.

4.4 Familiarity Participants in the focus groups mentioned that because things were frequently mentioned in the news, it made them think that the topics were more important and hence more interesting. This was particularly evident when discussing climate change, renewable energy and environmental monitoring.



“[It’s interesting] because it [climate change] is affecting everyday life, or so we’re told.” “…and we’re told that we’re the ones who can do something to stop it.”Women, ABC1, age 30–39

“Climate change was a big factor in what we chose…[it] matters at the moment and we all know that.”Man, ABC1, age 40–54

Generally, the more familiar respondents were with a topic the more interested they were in it.

Familiarity with a topic is often closely associated with interest (Creative Research 1999). NESTA (2005) concluded that the biggest barrier to a greater understanding of science by the public is a lack of appreciation about how scientific developments affect them, or society in general. They found that this lack of appreciation about how science affects people was more apparent in the physical sciences than in other sciences.

The topic that focus group participants typically did not understand was “deciphering the human genome”, and many misinterpreted the “building-blocks of nature” to be more about biological evolution than understanding the different particles that make up matter. A lack of interest was often associated with a lack of knowledge of such topics, thus indicating that a basic knowledge or awareness is required to spark interest in finding out more. This is consistent with previous research. For example, BMRB (2007) found that greater knowledge of engineers and engineering led to a more positive attitude towards them.

4.5 Personal interest 4.5.1 General personal interest Omnibus survey respondents were asked to what extent they agreed with the statement: “I am not interested in physics and don’t see why I should be.” Half disagreed but nearly a third (31%) agreed. Women were slightly more likely than men to agree with this statement, as were older respondents, those from lower social grades and those with lower levels of education. Those who had children (under 18 years old) were less likely than those who did not have children to agree with this statement.

The main reason given by omnibus survey respondents for being interested a topic was a wish to improve their knowledge and/or understanding.

“Just for interest, keep my knowledge up to date.”Omnibus respondent

The focus group discussions show that the perceived importance of an issue was often crucial to it being interesting and is discussed in detail above.

This might explain why many omnibus respondents said that they wanted to keep up to date on topics, because they consider them to be important.

Those omnibus respondents interested in the origins of the universe and space exploration also said that it was simply because they thought the subject to be fascinating.

“It fascinates me; it intrigues me the way the universe is.”Omnibus respondent

Focus group participants also recognised that the same topics would not necessarily be interesting to all people. There is some degree of “innate” interest in that some people just find some things interesting for no reason other than wonder.

“It’s a people thing, it’s how much people want to know about it. I might sit and watch National Geographic all night whereas my next-door neighbour might sit and watch Sky Sports. It’s a choice.”Man, C2DE, age 30–39

In contrast, a few focus group participants raised the issue that, while they recognised that something was important or useful, it might still not be interesting to them. This is because they felt that they did not need to know how something works to be able to use it or benefit from it. This contrasts with the views of those who are interested in a topic purely because it fascinates them – they do not necessarily need to see a tangible benefit or usefulness.

“That’s [understanding chemicals] for someone else to know.”Woman, C2DE, age 45–54

“I can see how it [deciphering the human genome] is useful but I haven’t got the need to know all that information.”Man, C2DE, age 30–39

4.5.2 Interest in physics topics This section looks at specific topics addressed in the omnibus survey that involve the work of physicists. We examined what types of people are interested or otherwise in 10 different research topics. Interest in the selection of physics topics covered by the omnibus survey is summarised in table 3, starting with those that were considered the most interesting.

Topics that respondents were most interested in finding out more about tended to relate to the environment and health.3 Although not all of the same topics were discussed in the focus groups, these results broadly concur with the qualitative findings.

3. Respondents often linked transport safety to their personal health and safety.



In the 2000 (OST/Wellcome Trust) and 2008 (RCUK/DIUS) surveys, respondents were given a showcard and asked how interested they were in a number of scientific topics. Where possible, the findings can be compared with those in our omnibus survey. Interest in climate change had increased from 59% in 2000 to 67% and interest in space had decreased to 38% from 46% in 2000. Interest in economics and finance was higher in 2000 (59%) and 2008 (70%) than interest in predicting financial markets (29%), but this could be linked to the specific nature of the recent question rather than any changes in views, or because of current fears of recession. There is a similar level of interest in nuclear power as there was in 2000

(47%). Energy/nuclear power issues were addressed together in 2008 and 69% were interested. This is more or less comparable with those who indicated interest in renewable energy (64%) and nuclear power (45%) in the omnibus survey. No other comparisons can be made because the remaining omnibus topics were not the same as those used in 2000 and 2008. However, the 2008 results confirm that health and environmental topics were of most interest to the public, and that climate change has become a much more prominent issue since 2000. Furthermore, the 2008 survey showed that 93% of respondents thought that research into understanding the causes of climate change was either very or fairly beneficial.

In general, younger people were less interested than the average in all topics except telecommunications and monitoring natural disasters, and they had the same level of interest as the average in medical devices and origins of the universe (figure 2). Those respondents who have a social grade of AB were more interested than the average with regard to all topics except medical devices, where they have the same level of interest as the average (figure 2). Older people and those in social grades C1, C2 and DE were similar to the average in their responses.

Other research on the public’s attitudes to science has found that these are usually affected by age, level of education, gender (OST/Wellcome Trust 2000, RCUK/DIUS 2008) and/or social grade (PSP 2004).

A sample of respondents who indicated interest in each of the physics topics in the omnibus survey were asked to explain why it was interesting. Between a tenth and a fifth of these subsets of respondents did not know why they were interested in finding out more about a topic.

Table 3: Response to: “To what extent would you be interested in finding out more about the following topics?”

Topic Very and quite interested (%)

Neither interested nor disinterested

(%)

Not very and not at all

interested (%)

understanding climate change 67 6 26renewable energy 64 6 29transport safety 63 7 30medical devices 60 7 33monitoring natural disasters 55 7 37nuclear power 45 9 45origins of the universe 42 7 51space exploration 38 7 55telecommunications 37 7 56predicting financial markets 29 8 63

N = 1023

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

very

and

qui

te in

tere

sted

average young people (age 18–24) social grade AB

climate

chan

ge

renew

able

energ

y

trans

port s

afety

medica

l dev

ices

natur

al dis

aster

s

nucle

ar po

wer

origin

s of th

e univ

erse

spac

e exp

lorati

on

telec

ommun

icatio

ns

finan

cial m

arkets

Figure 2: Interest in topics of young people and social grade AB with the average.



The profiles in table 4 indicate that gender and social grade have an impact on whether or not respondents could provide an answer to why they were interested in a topic. Women and those of lower social grades tended not to know why. It could also be that those who did not know why they were interested in a topic were those who were simply interested or fascinated in a topic but did not know why.

4.6 Conclusion Interest in a topic typically depended on:

importance and effects on individuals and/or ●●

society; potential benefits and concerns; ●●

familiarity with a topic; and ●●

personal interest. ●●

Topics that respondents were most interested in finding out about related to the environment and health. Climate change and renewable energy sources are of interest to the majority of the public. Levels

of interest were affected by age, level of education, social grade and gender. In general, men, older people, those in higher social grades and those with higher levels of education were likely to be more interested in and knowledgeable about physics than women, younger people and those with lower levels of education and from lower social grades.

The “importance” of a topic, as judged by its impact on individuals and society, was at the core of whether or not most individuals found a topic to be interesting. If people knew about a topic or were familiar with it, they felt that it had come to their attention because it was important. If they could see the relevance of these topics and relate them to their everyday lives, as well as seeing the current and/or potential benefits, then they were usually interested. Not all of these criteria need to be met for a topic to be interesting, but the more criteria that are met the more likely the topic is to be seen as interesting by a wider proportion of the population. Furthermore, it can be argued that the general public often measures importance by the priority that a topic is given in the media.

Table 4: Respondents who did not know why they are interested in a topic.Topic Number who

did not know why they were

interested*

Profile of those respondents who answered “don’t know”†

renewable energy 25 (N = 118) female, age 55+, C1, no qualificationstelecommunications 14 (N = 66) age 18–24 and 35–44, AB and DE, no qualificationsnuclear power 13 (N = 73) age 45+, DE, no qualificationsmedical devices 23 (N = 125) female, age 35–44 and 55–64, C1 and DE, low-level qualificationsorigins of the universe 11 (N = 62) age 18–24, 35–44 and 55–64, C1 and DE, higher degreepredicting financial markets 7 (N = 43) female, DE, no qualificationstransport safety 19 (N = 124) female, C2 and DE, no qualificationsunderstanding climate change 17 (N = 133) age 65+, no qualifications, higher degreespace exploration 8 (N = 73) male, C2 and DE, higher degreemonitoring natural disasters 8 (N = 92) female, age 25–34 and 45–54, C2

*The weighted N varies for each topic and is often less than 100 so numbers rather than percentages are used. The topics are listed in order, starting

with the highest proportion of “don’t know” responses. †Caution should be applied to the interpretation of these profiles because the numbers of

respondents answering “don’t know” is very small.


5: Conclusions and recommendations

5.1 Conclusions Linking back to the objectives of the research, we can conclude that understanding of the word “physics” is very limited and the public’s perception of physics is usually linked to the science experienced at school. Due to this lack of understanding of physics, people find it hard to appreciate the importance of physics topics because they do not realise that they are things that physicists work on, and cannot see how they relate to their everyday lives. Improving the general public’s understanding of physics and narrowing the gap between perceptions and reality is discussed below.

The perception of physics and physicists among the general public is very positive, although their knowledge is relatively poor. The public appear to be quite interested in a variety of topics related to physics. However, they often do not realise that these are subjects on which physicists work. Having an understanding of physics is considered to be important by the majority of the public, although a significant number feel that it is too complicated for them to understand.

Physics and the work of physicists are not widely understood outside the context of school science. There is a general awareness that physicists do important research, but this is less well understood than the work of biologists and chemists, of which the public has some knowledge, although it is still limited. Furthermore, most focus group participants were only able to categorise topics as physics through a process of elimination because they felt that they knew more about biology and chemistry.

If a topic is in the news it is perceived to be important and therefore interesting (e.g. climate change and renewable energy). It is considered even more interesting if the topic is likely to have an immediate or short-term impact on individuals and/or society. If someone cannot fully understand a concept but can see how it is, or might be, useful, then it is still interesting even if understanding is not great. Context is therefore important. For example, some people can see how space exploration and researching the origins of the universe might be important, but the application and context of this research needs to be explained for more people to appreciate its usefulness. In support of this, participants were more likely to be interested in the topic “analysis of samples” because this was linked to forensic science, which they understood and could relate to through watching crime programmes.

Plastics and gritting roads, for example, are not

seen to be interesting because they are taken for granted, although they may be considered important. Furthermore, if the potential positive impact of the topic is too long term then it is less interesting because people can’t see how it benefits them. If someone cannot relate to the topic (i.e. cannot see how it is useful to them, other individuals or society) then it is not interesting. The same is usually the case if a topic cannot be understood because part of the understanding relates to usefulness.

5.2 Recommendations There are a number of ways in which IOP can improve the public’s knowledge and understanding of physics, and recommendations for doing so are given below. It is our understanding that the Institute wishes to improve interest in and knowledge of physics topics. Given the strong positive attitudes to physics in general it would be difficult to improve these further, but they need to be maintained. Therefore, we suggest that the Institute also focus some of its engagement activity on creating an atmosphere in which physics can flourish by encouraging young people to take up careers in physics as well as discouraging adults from putting their children off physics. There is a significant proportion of adults who, while thinking physics is good, do not really understand it, so they might not realise the full range of career opportunities in physics available to their children or that their children are bright enough to pursue them.

Despite there being a lack of knowledge of physics and physicists among the public, we suggest that the focus of the recommendations should be on increasing interest and knowledge of physics topics rather than on being able to define physics. By focusing on topics that are easier for people to relate to, IOP can use the topic as a hook and then emphasise how physics and physicists are involved.

Physics topics and research need to have a high profile in the media Interest is strongly linked to familiarity – topics that are in the media are more familiar to the public and hence more interesting. To reach as wide a cross-section of society as possible, a variety of media need to be used. The topic will act as a hook to gain interest, after which it can be further explained how physics and physicists contribute. The implementation of the recommendations below should help to make journalists more likely to report on physics topics.




Climate change and renewable energy sources should be used as hooks on which physicists’ work can be hung Most focus group participants and omnibus survey respondents were interested in climate change and renewable energy sources, and they see them as important issues that require immediate action. These are examples of high-profile topics that can act as good hooks on which physics research can be hung, thus explaining to the public what physics involves so that they are better able to define and conceptualise it, and thus realise its usefulness. Furthermore, as other scientific issues arise in the media, they can be used as hooks, where relevant, to highlight any physics research involved.

Potential benefits to individuals and/or society from research need to be clearly identified Potential or actual short-term and medical or health benefits of research should be emphasised most. However, in relation to climate change and renewable energy sources, it is possible to link short-term effects, which are being felt now by the public, with long-term benefits. Realising the benefits is more important than understanding all of the details of the research. Risks and potential uncertainty should be explained clearly alongside the benefits to enhance trust and reduce suspicion or fear of the impact of the research.

Research and its applications should be related to everyday life It is important for the public to be able to relate to a topic to gain their interest. Therefore, where possible, this should be emphasised.

Other research has found that if educators and science communicators link concepts in physics and chemistry to real-life situations, and include more ethical issues, the popularity of these subjects will be raised (Planet Science, Science Museum and Institute of Education 2003).

Particular audiences should be targeted with specific topicsDespite excellent framing of a topic, not all topics will be interesting to everyone. Men tend to be more interested in how things work, processes and technology, whereas women tend to be more

interested in the possible health and social benefits of research. Young people are more interested in technological advances. Women, young people, the less well educated and those from lower social grades tend overall to be less engaged than others. The key is to frame each topic so that it is relevant to the life of the target group. Making topics real and relevant to their lives will assist with engagement.

Young people should be encouraged to consider a career in physics The Institute should promote academic and non-academic physics careers more widely in the general public. This will show clearly the variety of possible careers and how these can lead to developments in knowledge that might help society. The Institute should therefore continue to use working physicists as role models to engage directly with the general public.

A figurehead for physics should be foundReal scientists are viewed as impartial and trustworthy by the public. An expert in physics who can communicate at the right level with the general public would be beneficial in increasing the mass appeal of physics topics, in the same way as other popular figures have done for biology. The Institute could build on the profiles of physics researchers with an existing media profile, such as Jim Al-Khalili and Brian Cox.

Television programmes should be used to promote physicsFactual and fictional programmes have an important role to play in promoting physics and physics-related topics. Programmes such as CSI play a significant role in making science “real” for the public. It brings the topic to life and helps people to relate to it and see how it is useful and interesting. Using fictional programmes as a hook when trying to raise the profile of physics topics covered in the programme should be effective.

The Institute should continue to help to ensure that programme makers have access to relevant experts in physics. A large proportion of the public say that they watch science documentaries on television, but a certain level of prior interest or familiarity with a topic is often needed before programmes such as these are watched.


6: Appendices

6.1 Literature review

6.1.1 IntroductionThere is no readily available data that show what the public think and feel about physics (rather than science), and it is not clear whether “physics” has any meaning outside the classroom. This review provides important background data that will set the findings of the new research into context. It covers:

attitudes to UK science in general to give a context ●●

to the more specific physics findings;attitudes to specific topics in physics in the UK;●●

a discussion of some of the methods used to inform ●●

and engage with the public.

6.1.2 Attitudes to science in generalIn general, the public are interested in, and have a positive attitude towards, science. A recent large study found that 82% of the British public are “amazed” by the achievements of science (RCUK/DIUS 2008), up from 75% in 2000 (OST/Wellcome Trust 2000). This positive view is largely due to the perceived direct benefits of science and engineering, which make lives “healthier, easier and more comfortable”. However, views are not totally driven by the need for science to be productive. In 2008, 81% of the public agreed that “even if it brings no immediate benefits, scientific research that advances the frontiers of knowledge is necessary and should be supported by the government”. Alongside this, the majority agree that Britain needs to develop science and technology in order to enhance its international competitiveness.

The OST/Wellcome Trust (2000) survey reported that the public’s greatest interest was in health (91%) and medical discoveries (87%), with least interest in energy and nuclear power (47%). In 2008 (RCUK/DIUS), health issues remained most interesting to the public (94%). The next most interesting topic was crime/antisocial behaviour (91%), which had not been addressed in 2000. Interest in environmental issues had increased from 82% in 2000 to 89% in 2008.

Interest in science and attitudes to science are affected by age, level of education and gender. Generally, as familiarity increases, interest increases, but attitudes to science are, in reality, more complex than this. RCUK/DIUS (2008) concluded that the public can be divided into different groups dependent on their attitudes to science. These groups have distinct profiles and are summarised below:

Confident●● (21%): most positive about science, high confidence in scientific research and well informed. They are highly educated and more likely to be male.Sceptical enthusiasts●● (14%): positive about science but sceptical about authority. They think more should be done to communicate with, and involve, the public in decisions about science.Less confident●● (26%): poorly informed about science with a lack of understanding. They are concerned that science and scientific development are out of control. Nearly half are aged 60 or over and have low levels of education.Distrustful●● (17%): lack of trust in government and authority generally, and low levels of interest in science. They are young and the most female group.Indifferent●● (22%): limited understanding of science and not concerned about how science is controlled and regulated. They are likely to be female, parents of children under 16 and have quite low levels of education.

These clusters of people are similar to those described in 2000, where six groups were identified.

The survey by MORI (2005) also found that, overall, public opinion of science is positive. There is a general fear of the unknown among the public with regard to scientific developments. Opinions about science are not only affected by demographics and level of scientific knowledge, but also by the perceived level of risk of the processes, products and results of scientific advances. Scientists working for industry and the government were least trusted when compared with other employers or funders. Crucial factors in determining trust in scientists were competence, credentials, experience and honesty (MORI 2005, RCUK/DIUS 2008). People are generally amazed by scientific achievements yet have greater uncertainty with regard to the benefits of science being greater than any harmful effects (OST/Wellcome Trust 2000, RCUK/DIUS 2008). These studies also indicated a relatively low level of confidence in regulation and the government, alongside limited knowledge of regulation.

A major quantitative survey was undertaken in 2002 as part of a study to help to understand public attitudes towards science, risk and forms of governance (Poortinga and Pidgeon 2003). Various risk cases (e.g. climate change and radioactive waste) were put into context by comparing them with various personal and social issues. The most important issues were mainly personal ones, nevertheless respondents were still interested in the various risk

6: Appendices


6: Appendices

cases mentioned above. When considering trust in scientists, respondents trusted scientists working for environmental organisations and universities most and those working for government and industry least. There was an overall distrust of government, which was not thought to be responsive to the needs of ordinary people. Respondents were ambivalent with regard to their feelings of trust for scientists working for government. There was some concern, however, that the funding of science had become too commercialised and support for more public control over science was expressed. The 2008 survey results indicated that the public seem to be more trusting of scientists and scientific research than in 2000, but they are still distrustful of the way that science is done. This appeared to be related to the need for independence in research and science, which is not primarily about making money.

PSP worked with the Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC) to help to develop a communication strategy to engage with interested adults (PSP 2004). This research involved focus groups and a telephone survey. More than three-quarters of those surveyed agreed that: “science and technology are making our lives healthier, easier and more comfortable”. Men (83% versus 73% of women) and those from the higher social classes (83% AB versus 73% E) were more likely to agree with this statement. Science was seen as a “hard” (difficult) subject at school, though people were largely interested in and supportive of science despite this.

Notwithstanding the generally positive view of science, there was a significant minority of people who were concerned about the control of science. Women, older people and those in the lower social grades were more likely to be concerned (PSP 2004). Scientists were seen as rather special but slightly detached people, dedicated to their work with the intent to make life better for the average person. It was thought that there was a role for CCLRC scientists in supporting communication work, both through the generation of ideas and offering audiences direct interaction with working scientists.

6.1.3 Attitudes to physicsAttitudes and understanding of different physics topics tend to vary greatly, and research about physics tends to be part of more general “attitudes to science studies”. However, there have been some studies that have specifically considered attitudes to physics. These are discussed below.

In work conducted for the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (PPARC), PSP (2006) found that the public’s perceptions of physics hark back to school science lessons. Quick brainstorming sessions on “physics” revealed that participants thought of “maths”, “formulae”, “laws”, “gravity”,

“magnetics”, “atoms”, “circuits”, “lasers”, “forces”, “engines”, “electricity” and other curriculum topics. In the study, PSP discussed a number of different physics topics with participants, and found that the Big Bang and the origins of the universe were of most interest to them. Some topics, such as why mass matters and how gravity works, were thought to be known already so were of less interest. Furthermore, topics such as the fundamental laws of nature were seen as too broad and general for enthusiastic engagement.

Prior to the above research, a survey of visitors to museums, science centres and visitor centres was conducted on behalf of PPARC to look specifically at understanding of astronomy and particle physics (Creative Research 1999). Respondents were found to be more familiar with concepts relating to astronomy than with those relating to particle physics. Each respondent scored familiarity with concepts on a scale of zero to three and an average score was calculated for each concept. Respondents were most familiar with the Sun (2.9), stars (2.8) and planets (2.8), and least familiar with particle accelerators (0.9) and quarks (0.6). Interest in concepts was closely correlated to familiarity. There were differences between level of familiarity for all concepts in relation to gender, age and level of educational attainment. Gender differences were most striking, with men significantly more familiar with and more interested in particle physics concepts than women.

Interest and benefits of some topics related to physics were covered in the survey commissioned by RCUK/DIUS (2008). Most notably, interest in energy/nuclear power had increased significantly since 2000, from 48% to 69%. The public thought that two of the most beneficial areas of research were research into new sources of energy (95%) and understanding climate change (93%); only research into new drugs to cure human diseases was considered more beneficial (98%). Research into understanding more about space, planets and stars, and the development of robots that can think for themselves were considered least beneficial (68% and 43% respectively). However, other than the development of robots that can think for themselves, two-thirds of the public thought that there were benefits from doing research on all of the topics listed. This is more than in 2000 (see below).

The MORI (2005) survey of public attitudes to science covered some physics topics. Results show that when respondents think about science issues, they spontaneously think of general school science and medical issues. Topics related to physics are not often mentioned but, when they are, they are likely to be topics such as ideas, innovation, invention, discovery, research, analysis and logic. These are mentioned more often than specific issues, such as energy, power and technology. The survey also


6: Appendices

shows that, given a list of scientific developments, respondents felt again that issues to do with medicine were the most beneficial, with genetic issues the least beneficial. Attitudes to physics topics were varied – computers and the Internet were seen as fairly beneficial developments, but robots and space research were more likely to be considered of limited benefit.

The Eurobarometer (2001) asked respondents to indicate whether certain topics appeared to them to be “rather scientific”, “not very scientific” or “don’t know”. The options, starting with those thought to be the most scientific, were medicine, physics, biology, astronomy, mathematics, psychology, astrology, economics and history. Europeans’ answers about defining the boundaries between scientific and non-scientific subjects led to the definition of two groups comprising the major sciences on the one hand and the minor sciences on the other.

The first group comprised, with the positive replies ●●

in descending order, medicine (92.6%), physics (89.5%), biology (88.2%), astronomy (77.9%) and mathematics (72.3%).The second group includes psychology (64.5%), ●●

astrology (52.7%), economics (42.3%) and history (33.1%).

The OST/Wellcome Trust (2000) survey results showed that there were mixed opinions about the different topics related to physics. From a list of general science topics, respondents were least interested in energy/nuclear power. Only 12% of respondents said that they were very interested in energy/nuclear power issues, with 36% saying that they were moderately interested; 51% said that they were not interested in this issue at all. Overall, however, topics relating to physics were neither particularly popular nor unpopular in relation to other topics, such as new medicines and cloning. The percentages of respondents who were very interested, compared with those who were not interested, for computing and the Internet (20% and 15%), telecommunications (16% and 8%), and space research and astronomy (14% and 16%) are about average compared with topics from the other sciences. The perceived benefits of the physics-related topics are:

computing and the Internet (29% moderately ●●

beneficial and 3% very beneficial);telecommunications (28% and 2%); ●●

space and astronomy (22% and 4%). ●●

In research for the Royal Academy of Engineering and the Engineering Technology Board, the public were found to have an initially limited awareness

and understanding of engineering and engineers, which was narrowly defined and primarily related to construction and manual professions. On further discussion with members of the public, BMRB (2007) found that some started to relate engineering to design and problem solving. However, there was a general lack of confidence in knowledge about engineering.

Engineering as a profession was viewed positively. There are so many types of engineers that the public were confused about what they did, but overall it was thought that “engineers fix things”. BMRB (2007) found that greater knowledge of engineers and engineering led to a more positive attitude towards them. Top-of-the-mind associations with the word “engineer” vary considerably, with no response getting more than 10%. The three most popular answers were mechanic/mechanical (9%), building/construction (7%) and cars (5%). The most common associations with the word “engineering” were building/construction (11%), cars (6%) and bridges (4%). Most respondents tended to agree that engineers are involved in construction (98%), the armed forces (94%) and designing the Olympic village (94%). Options with the lowest percentages included the medical profession (75%) and the digital television switchover (89%). Nearly all (94%) respondents believed that engineering makes a good contribution to society.

6.1.4 Methods used to inform and engage the publicResearch was conducted by MORI on behalf of the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (NESTA, 2005) to coincide with the launch of FameLab.4 They found that the general public are positive about the need to be informed about new developments in science and technology, though only 4 out of 10 actually felt sufficiently informed. The most common reasons given for wanting to be informed were:

to raise awareness/improve knowledge;●●

to make implications/concerns clear to everyone; ●●

to make information/results/research available to ●●

all.

People generally wanted to know the rationale behind scientific research (e.g. the reasons why researchers want to do whole-animal cloning; OST/Wellcome Trust 2000). The public also want to learn about scientific developments during the research stage rather than hearing about them in the mass media after the research has been conducted (MORI 2005). However, the OST/Wellcome Trust (2000) found that the concept that improvements in knowledge might bring more questions than answers is difficult to communicate to the general public. Furthermore, the findings of the RCUK/DIUS (2008)

4. FameLab is an annual national competition to find the UK’s best new talent in science communication.


6: Appendices

study suggest that conflicting information can lead people to disengage from science, and it can also lead to distrust in scientists and suspicion about their motivations.

Trusted sourcesWhen asked who they trust to provide accurate information about scientific facts, the most frequent answers given by respondents to the OST/Wellcome Trust (2000) survey were scientists in universities (48%), those working for charities (45%) and television documentaries (41%). Least popular were newspapers (10% broadsheets, 4% tabloids) and government politicians (4%). Similar responses were given to the MORI survey in 2005.

Respondents to the OST/Wellcome Trust (2000) survey wanted to receive information from television programmes such as documentaries (57%) and news (56%). These findings are consistent with those from 2005 (MORI) but the latter saw an increase in those opting for the Internet (from 17% to 24%). The biggest change in preferred sources of information in 2008 was also the use of the Internet: some 35% had actively searched the Internet for information about a scientific topic (RCUK/DIUS 2008).

BarriersThose members of the public who do not think it is important to be kept up to date believe that such developments are either not relevant or too technical/specialised for the general public to understand (NESTA 2005). Two-thirds of those surveyed for the OST/Wellcome Trust (2000) and more than half (56%) of those surveyed for RCUK/DIUS (2008) agreed that science and technology were too specialised for most people to understand. The public believe the following to be barriers to a greater understanding of science and technology (NESTA 2005):

a lack of appreciation by the public about how ●●

science affects them (35%);a lack of public interest (29%);●●

scientific jargon/technical language/terminology ●●

(29%);a lack of education (28%). ●●

These barriers are more likely to relate to the abilities of the public themselves rather than to scientists (NESTA 2005). NESTA concluded that the biggest barrier to a greater understanding of science by the public is a lack of appreciation about how scientific developments affect them personally or society in general. This is more apparent in the physical sciences than in any other science.

The RCUK/DIUS (2008) survey also highlighted that a significant barrier to engagement is the public’s lack of knowledge and confidence in the regulation of

science, which has remained unchanged since 2005 (MORI 2005).

Successful strategies and hooksBMRB (2007) concluded that there are several factors that determine the success of engagement strategies on engineering. These are:

the “wow factor”;●●

the simplicity of the idea;●●

social responsibility related to the research/topic;●●

the potential for large-scale change;●●

personal relevance. ●●

Overall, it found that for any engagement strategy to be successful there needs to be a general increase in knowledge and awareness of engineering.

PSP (2006) looked into how PPARC should focus its public communication work about the Large Hadron Collider project and drew conclusions similar to those listed above. It concluded that there are primary hooks (the Big Bang and the origins of the universe) that should underpin all communication activity. PSP suggested that these hooks should be supported by reference to the benefits (potential or otherwise) that the research and the associated engineering will yield. For general communications, it found that medical applications were likely to be especially powerful, with more specific applications highlighted for more specialist audiences. PSP also suggested that PPARC should explore television opportunities such as documentaries. There was evidence from focus groups with the general public that documentaries would be watched if marketed and trailed appropriately. PSP also recommended that communications must tell real stories, include photos and feature real scientists.

Interested adults (the target market for CCLRC communications) tended to be up-market and middle-aged (PSP 2004). In the qualitative research for this project, three main hooks were identified as ways of engaging interested adults in science:

the quality of UK science;●●

new investments in UK science;●●

understanding how things work. ●●

The telephone survey showed that these were all issues that would engage a significant proportion of interested adults. While there was a good deal of overlap among the people who were interested in the UK’s position in world science, and those interested in investments in UK science, there were some subtle differences, with the latter group tending to be younger and more ethnically and socially mixed. Such differences would allow CCLRC to develop differentiated messages for different occasions and audiences.


6: Appendices

The role of researchersVarious strategies are needed when communicating with different target audiences about science, so different methods, tools and media need to be employed. The main finding of a Royal Society (2006) survey of scientists was that researchers do not give priority to science communication activities because they feel that they need to spend their time on research, although many scientists (45%) wanted to be able to spend more time engaging with the public. Another key point is the willingness of researchers to get involved in activities organised by others but, for some, developing and delivering a science communication activity is outside their expertise (38% did not feel very well equipped) and takes them away from research for too long (16%). Two of the key findings of the Royal Society’s survey were researchers’ beliefs that:

engaging with non-specialists is needed to promote ●●

the public understanding of science so that the public can become better informed and understand the relevance of science to everyday life;the most important audiences to engage directly are ●●

policy makers, schools and industry.

PPARC commissioned Creative Research to review its Public Understanding of Science and Technology programme. This involved a survey of researchers to find out what science communication they were doing and to explore ways in which they might be enabled to do more (Creative Research 2000). PPARC-funded scientists were encouraged to do outreach work by spending up to 1% of their grant on suitable activities. Half of those surveyed had been involved in some form of outreach work. PhD students were least likely to have done something – many were keen but indicated that they had not been asked. The most frequent forms of outreach work included giving public lectures (3.4 days per respondent over the previous two years) and media interviews (4.3 days). The least frequent forms included taking part in SET weeks (0.4 days) and being involved in masterclasses for teachers and schools (0.6 days). It was suggested that PPARC could encourage more outreach work through a combination of more effective communication of what help and resources it already provides, and the provision of new information, such as a database of good practice based on examples of successful work carried out by other researchers.

Numerous reports have indicated that the media are seen by the public and science communicators as a vital part of any science communication strategy. Television tends to be the most commonly used source of information about science and the most preferred method for future science communication (MORI 2005, RCUK/DIUS 2008). There is also a general view that the Internet is a good way to communicate and

that it is more important for people to know where to find the information than to have it (OST/Wellcome Trust 2000, RCK/DIUS 2008). More than half of the respondents surveyed by MORI (NESTA 2005) cited the government as having the main responsibility for providing information. This was followed by newspapers and television (MORI 2005). In general, people do not think that they are overloaded with information, but both scientists and the general public are equally concerned about the biased nature of media coverage related to science (OST/Wellcome Trust 2000, RCUK/DIUS 2008). Furthermore, there is a demand from the public for more direct communication about science from the scientists (RCUK/DIUS 2008).

Hargreaves, Lewis and Speers (2003) found that what, and how, people learn from the media indicates that “the details or subtleties of media coverage are…much less important than the general themes of that coverage, in which certain ideas are repeated and associated with one another”. They concluded that “while this does mean some information is communicated effectively to most people, it can result in widespread misunderstanding – even if the reporting is generally accurate”. Therefore the media can be used to get the main themes across but it is unlikely to reach the public with any details. The challenge remains as to whether this overall view is enough information to allow the public to develop a greater understanding and perhaps allay any concerns that they have. Furthermore, one-way information provision is not thought of as adequate for addressing public concerns that are likely to emerge in relation to new technologies (Grove-White, Macnaughton and Wynne 2000). Controversies of the GM food kind are more likely to emerge where the public believes there is a lack of knowledge. People generally make judgements by relying on those of trusted others (individuals and organisations), but take it for granted that information provided by institutions will tend to be framed to that institution’s advantage. It is important to establish connections between science, policy and the general interests of the public (Hargreaves, Lewis and Speers 2003). In addition, if educators and science communicators link concepts in physics and chemistry to real-life situations, and include more ethical issues, the popularity of these subjects will be increased (Planet Science, Science Museum and Institute of Education 2003).

6.1.5 ReferencesBMRB 2007 Public Attitudes to and Perceptions of

Engineering and Engineers commissioned by the Royal Academy of Engineering and the Engineering and Technology Board.

Creative Research 1999 Levels of Understanding of Astronomy and Particle Physics: Report of a Survey


6: Appendices

among Museum Visitors PPARC.Creative Research 2000 PPARC PUST Survey among

Research Community: Report of Findings PPARC.Eurobarometer 2001 Eurobarometer 55.2: Europeans,

Science and Technology TNS Opinion and Social.Grove-White R, Macnaughton P and Wynne B 2000

Wising Up: the Public and New Technologies Lancaster University.

Hargreaves I, Lewis J and Speers T 2003 Towards a Better Map: Science, the Public and the Media ESRC.

MORI 2005 Science in Society: Findings from Qualitative and Quantitative Research conducted for the Office of Science and Technology, Department of Trade and Industry.

NESTA 2005 Public Attitudes towards Information about Science and Technology MORI.

OST/Wellcome Trust 2000 Science and the Public: a Review of Science Communication and Public Attitudes to Science in Britain Office for Science and Technology and the Wellcome Trust.

Planet Science, Science Museum and Institute of Education 2003 Student Review of the Science Curriculum: Major Findings NESTA.

Poortinga W and Pidgeon N 2003 Public Perceptions of Risk, Science and Governance UEA, ESRC, MORI, the Leverhulme Trust.

PSP 2004 Developing Communications between CCLRC and Interested Adults CCLRC.

PSP 2006 Formative Evaluation of the Large Hadron Collider Communication Project conducted for PPARC.

RCUK/DIUS 2008 Public Attitudes to Science 2008 TNS/PSP.

Royal Society 2006 Factors Affecting Science Communication: a Survey of Scientists and Engineers Royal Society London.

6.2 Methodology

6.2.1 IntroductionThe project comprised:


public’s knowledge of and attitudes towards physics, and how this compares with other science subjects;eight focus groups with members of the general ●●

public (age 19+);an omnibus survey of the general public’s (age 18●● +) attitudes to physics to establish a baseline against which future changes can be measured.

All focus group discussions were recorded and participants were paid an incentive for taking part in the research.

6.2.2 Focus groupsWe ran eight focus groups of 1½ hours in length, each with about eight members of the general public and structured as below.

Region Men WomenNorth ABC1, age 19–29 C2DE, age 40–54 Midlands C2DE, age 30–39 ABC1, age 55+South ABC1, age 40–54 C2DE, age 19–29South west C2DE age 55+ ABC1, age 30–39

In total, 67 people took part. A recruitment questionnaire (see below) was agreed with IOP to ensure that we recruited an appropriate cross-section of individuals. People who had no interest in science were excluded from the project. Recruitment was subcontracted to a specialist market research recruitment company.

QuestionnaireParticipants completed a short questionnaire (appendix 6.3) while waiting for the group to start. This was designed to assess their general interest in science, as well as specific sciences.

DiscussionsEach focus group lasted approximately 1½ hours and was broadly structured around the topic guide in appendix 6.5.

Following a brief introduction to the evening, the participants introduced themselves. They were then asked a few questions, as an ice breaker, about perspectives on science in general, and biology, chemistry and physics in particular. Thereafter the conversation focused on interest and knowledge of various scientific topics described on a set of shuffle cards (see list in the topic guide in appendix 6.5). The general issues explored included interest in and usefulness of the topics, as well as participants’ knowledge of whether the topics were researched by physicists, chemists or biologists. The final focus was to identify those topics that interested participants most and why. Participants were asked to say how they would highlight this topic to others. This task was undertaken to help to inform IOP’s engagement programme.

One member of IOP staff observed two of the groups.

6.2.3 Omnibus surveyA specialist market research agency was commissioned to undertake an omnibus survey of 1000 adults, aged 18 and over, in Great Britain (1023 were surveyed). The nationally representative telephone omnibus survey was carried out in mid-January. A copy of the questions is provided in appendix 6.6, and summaries of the data are presented in appendix 6.7.


6: Appendices

6.2.4 Recruitment questionnaire

BriefingWe want to recruit nine people for eight to show up in each group. People who think that science is of no interest to them should be excluded from the project.

Date Location Men Women5 December Woking ABC1, age 19–29 C2DE, age 40–54 6 December Bristol C2DE, age 30–39 ABC1, age 55+11 December Manchester ABC1, age 40–54 C2DE, age 19–2912 December Birmingham C2DE age 55+ ABC1, age 30–39

IntroductionHello, my name is…and I work for… We are looking for people who live in your area to take part in some research to explore what people think about science. Could you spare me a few minutes to answer some questions, please?

Q1 Do you or any of your close relatives work in any of the following occupations?

market research 1 close

scientific research 2

journalism 3

public relations 4

marketing 5

teaching 6

accounting 7 continue

manufacturing 8

public services (e.g. NHS, local authority) 9

other 10

Q2 Are you… working full time 1

working part-time 2

retired/not working 3

unemployed 4 code as E

a student 5 code as C1

Q3 Job title (write in)

Q4 Job description (write in)

Q5 Qualifications (write in)

Q6 How many people are you responsible for? (write in)

Q7 Code social grade A/B 1 refer to quota

C1 2

C2 3

D 4

E 5

Q8 Check whether the respondent is male or female

male 1 refer to quota

female 2

Q9 What was your age last birthday? 19–29 1 refer to quota

30–39 2

40–54 3

55+ 4


6: Appendices

I am going to read out a statement and I would like you to say whether you agree or disagree with it.

Q10 I am not interested in science and don’t see why I should be

agree 1 close

disagree 2 go to Q10A

don’t know 3

not sure 4

This should result in about 8 out of 10 people being eligible. If the number falls significantly below this, please contact your supervisor.

Q10A Have you ever attended a group discussion or depth interview before?

yes 1 go to Q10B

no 2 recruit

Q10B Have you been to a group discussion or depth interview in the last six months?

yes 1 close

no 2 go to Q10C

Q10C How many group discussions or depth interviews have you been to in the last two years? (i.e. six months – two years ago)

none 1 go to Q10E

1 or 2 2 go to Q10D

more than 2 3 close

Q10D Did you go to any groups or depths between two and seven years ago?

yes 1 close

no 2 go to Q10E

Q10E What was the subject matter of the discussion group(s)/depth(s) you took part in before? (Write in the subject matter and estimate when it was for each occasion. If about science, close. This is very important. The respondent must never have participated in a discussion on the same subject. Otherwise, recruit.)


6: Appendices

6.3 Focus group questionnaire Q1 Please write your name here.Q2 Please say whether you agree strongly, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree or disagree strongly with each of the following statements.

Agree strongly

Agree Neither agree nor disagree

Disagree Disagree strongly

Science and engineering are making our lives healthier, easier and more comfortable.

■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Chemistry is important in my daily life. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Because of science and engineering there will be more opportunities for the next generation.

■ ■ ■ ■ ■

It is important to develop new technologies, such as medical devices like scanners.

■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Britain needs to develop science and engineering in order to enhance its international competitiveness.

■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Physics is important in my daily life. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

I cannot follow developments in science and engineering because the speed of them is too fast.

■ ■ ■ ■ ■

It is important to develop more powerful computers. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

I would like to know more about new sources of energy. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Science is getting out of control and there is nothing we can do to stop it.

■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Scientists should tell the public more about what they are doing and why.

■ ■ ■ ■ ■

The speed of development in science and engineering means that it cannot be properly controlled by the government.

■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Biology is important in my daily life. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

I would like to understand more about the origins of the universe.

■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Thank you very much for your help.


6: Appendices

6.4 Focus group questionnaire data

Number of responses*

Strongly agree and agree

Neither agree nor disagree

Strongly disagree and

disagree

Science and engineering are making our lives healthier, easier and more comfortable.

44 7 0

Chemistry is important in my daily life. 15 29 7

Because of science and engineering there will be more opportunities for the next generation.

45 5 1

It is important to develop new technologies, such as medical devices like scanners.

49 2 0

Britain needs to develop science and engineering in order to enhance its international competitiveness.

44 5 1

Physics is important in my daily life. 22 25 4

I cannot follow developments in science and engineering because the speed of them is too fast.

17 21 12

It is important to develop more powerful computers. 32 17 1

I would like to know more about new sources of energy. 42 8 1

Science is getting out of control and there is nothing we can do to stop it.

4 19 28

Scientists should tell the public more about what they are doing and why.

42 6 3

The speed of development in science and engineering means that it cannot be properly controlled by the government.

13 28 10

Biology is important in my daily life. 24 23 4

I would like to understand more about the origins of the universe.

29 15 7

*The sample is small, therefore numbers rather than percentages are provided. Two groups of participants did not complete the questionnaire (female

C2DE age 45–54 and male ABC1 age 19–29). The analysis of the results has taken this into account. The data therefore relate to 51 participants.

Further, not all 51 participants answered all questions.


6: Appendices

6.5 Focus group topic guide

6.5.1 IntroductionIntroduce yourself.●●

Introduce PSP and its independence from the client.●●

Introduce anyone else who is observing or helping.●●

“Has anyone been to anything like this before?”●●

“I have here a list of things I’d like to cover but ●●

really want to hear your views on the issues we’ll be introducing.”“There are no right or wrong answers. Everyone is ●●

entitled to their own view, so I’d like to hear from everyone because everyone’s view is valid.”“You don’t have to answer all of the questions.”●●

“You are free to leave before the end of the session, ●●

if you wish.”“I would like to tape record the discussions, just ●●

to save me taking notes and so that I can listen to what you’re all saying.”“No one will be identified in the report. All of the ●●

information will be collected together and made anonymous.”“This is just one session of eight that we are running ●●

around the country for this project.”“Is everyone happy for me to record the session?”●●

“Please could everyone turn off their mobile phone ●●

because it interferes with the tape, even on silent.”Switch on the tape and microphone.●●

“I will tell you who is sponsoring this research at ●●

the end but I don’t want to prejudice your views in advance. The report will be published in the summer next year, if anyone is interested in having a look at it.”Make it clear that PSP is independent of the client.●●

Do the standard warm-up round the room of ●●

introductions (first name, what you do and if you have any qualifications in science, such as a GCSE, A-level, degree or higher degree).

6.5.2 The sciencesTop-of-mind views

Brainstorm on chemistry – what words and phrases ●●

come to mind?Brainstorm on physics – what words and phrases ●●

come to mind?Brainstorm on biology – what words and phrases ●●

come to mind? Write the responses on a notepad to have available later.

Probes for each scienceGo back to each science and explore views further.

“What is interesting/not interesting about it?”●●

“How knowledgeable do you feel about it? Why/why ●●

not?”

“Is it valuable/useful? Why/why not?”●●

General science questions

“Is science important? Why/why not?”●●

“Is science a good thing? Why/why not?”●●

“Can you give me any examples of how science has ●●

benefited people?”“Is it important for you to have an understanding of ●●

science? What about others?”“What do you think scientists do? What do you think ●●

a typical day would be like?”“Are there any topical science issues that are you ●●

aware of/interested in at the moment?”“Are they interesting? Why/why not?”●●

“Let’s take one of the sciences, say physics. What ●●

do you think physicists do/research/develop?”

Add relevant topics to each set of shuffle cards.It is likely that school science will come up. If so,

ask:“Did you enjoy science in school? Which subjects? ●●

Why/why not?”“Thinking about what you learned in science at ●●

school, does any of it help you in your day-to-day life, outside work or studying? Why/why not? How? What is useful?”

6.5.3 Interest in topicsShuffle cardsSplit the participants into two groups and give both a full set of shuffle cards. Ask participants to split the topics into those that they think are interesting and not interesting by ranking them in order of interest. They should also be thinking about why some topics are more or less interesting than others, and indicating which they do not understand.

After 10 minutes, one person from each group should report back (all participants can join in the subsequent discussion). Write the responses on a notepad to have available later.

Science research and applications on the shuffle cards (roughly split into the three sciences):

Physicsorigins of the universe;●●

telecommunications;●●

nuclear power;●●

medical devices (e.g. MRI scanners);●●

renewable energy sources;●●

space exploration;●●

building-blocks of nature;●●

weather forecasting;●●

understanding climate change. ●●

Chemistrymedicines (pharmaceuticals);●●


6: Appendices

new materials for clothes;●●

environmental monitoring and clean-up;●●

food processing and manufacture;●●

analysis of samples (e.g. in forensics);●●

plastics;●●

gritting roads;●●

water treatment (e.g. fluorine in drinking water, ●●

sewage plants);understanding chemicals and their properties. ●●

BiologyGM crops;●●

understanding diseases;●●

animal behaviour;●●

how the body works;●●

deciphering the human genome;●●

forestry;●●

human fertility;●●

cloning;●●

evolution. ●●

Explore further using these probes. (In this section we are trying to understand what makes some topics more interesting than others, without providing further information.)

For interesting topics (start with the most interesting):

“What is it that interests you about those topics?” ●●

(Explore differences of opinion.)“What do you understand by these topics? Do you ●●

think other people understand these topics?”“Do you think these topics are useful? How? In what ●●

way?”“Do you think these topics are important? How? In ●●

what way?”“Do you think these topics are relevant to society ●●

today? Why/why not? In what way?”“What do you think is good about each topic? Is ●●

there anything bad?”“Do you have any concerns about each topic? ●●

What are they? How does that affect their interest/importance/usefulness?”“Is this topic one in which you think it would be good ●●

to have a career? Why/why not? Would you want your children to work in this area? Why/why not?”If there is time, for some topics, probe behind ●●

people’s understanding. For example, what “chemicals” or “diseases” were they thing of?

For topics that aren’t interesting (start with the least interesting):

“Why do these topics not interest you?” (Explore ●●

differences of opinion.)“What do you understand by these topics? Do you ●●

think other people understand these topics?”

“Do you think these topics are useful? How? In what ●●

way?”“Do you think these topics are important? How? In ●●

what way?”“Do you think these topics are relevant to society ●●

today? Why/why not? In what way?”“What do you think is bad about each topic? Is ●●

there anything good?”“Do you have any concerns about each topic? ●●

What are they? How does that affect their interest/importance/usefulness?”“Is this something that you think would be a good ●●

career? Why/why not? Would you want your children to work in this area? Why/why not?”

6.5.4 Splitting topics into the different sciencesShuffle cardsSplit the participants into two groups and ask them (using the same shuffle cards) to split the topics into those that they think are answered or developed by physics, biology and chemistry, and to explain why.

After 10 minutes, one person from each group should reports back (all participants can join in subsequent discussion). Write the responses on a notepad to have available later.

Explore further using these probes. (In this section we are trying to explore the extent of participants’ knowledge of the applications of research from the various fields of science, without providing further information.) Ask about all topics but focus on physics ones.

“Why do you think that is physics/chemistry/●●

biology? What makes you think that?”“What does the topic mean to you? Is the topic ●●

useful? Why/why not? How is it useful?” (If this has not been covered earlier.)“Who do you think works on the topic? What type of ●●

person are they?”“Where and for whom do they work?”●●

“Do you trust scientists doing this research? Why/●●

why not?”“What are the pros and cons of the topic?” ●●

Ask each person to pick out one or two topics that they think are the most interesting, and to think about what they would tell others about the topic(s) and what headlines they would use in a newspaper (ask them to write their ideas on a piece of paper). Give each participant a few minutes to think about this. Responses here can be compared with the views shared during the first discussion, with the shuffle cards, about interest in the topics.

Explore further using these probes:

“Why do you think that is the most interesting? ●●

What is it that makes it more interesting than the


6: Appendices

other topics? What do you understand the topic to be?”“Is it useful? How? What are the benefits?”●●

“Have any of your views changed as a result of the ●●

discussions here today? How?”

6.5.5 CloseThank participants. Explain that the client is the Institute of Physics and it wants to know more about the public’s attitudes to and understanding of physics and its applications to inform its engagement strategy.

6.5.6 Facilitator noteThe Institute’s definition of physicsThe dictionary definition of physics is “the study of matter, energy and the interaction between them”, but what that really means is that physics is about asking fundamental questions and trying to answer them by observing and experimenting.

Physicists ask really big questions, like:

How did the universe begin?●●

How will the universe change in the future?●●

How does the Sun keep on shining?●●

What are the basic building-blocks of matter?●●

What do physicists do?Many physicists work in pure research, trying to find answers to these types of question. The answers that they come up with often lead to unexpected technological applications. For example, all of the technology that we take for granted today, including games consoles, mobile phones, mp3 players and DVDs, is based on a theoretical understanding of electrons that was developed around the turn of the 20th century.

Physics doesn’t just deal with theoretical concepts – it’s applied in every sphere of human activity, including:

developing sustainable forms of energy production;●●

treating cancer through radiotherapy, and ●●

diagnosing illness through various types of imaging, all based on physics;developing computer games;●●

designing and manufacturing sports equipment;●●

understanding and predicting earthquakes. ●●

In fact, pretty much every sector you can think of needs people with physics knowledge.


6: Appendices

6.6 Omnibus survey questionnaireClient: People Science & PolicySurvey name: PhysicsDates: midweek 16–19 January 2008Sample: 1000 adults (Great Britain, 18+)Methodology: telephone omnibus

1 To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements?Read out–single code–rotate

1 Physics make a valuable contribution to society.

a strongly agreeb agreec neither agree nor

disagreed disagreee strongly disagreef don’t know

2 Physics is too specialised for most people to understand.

3 I am not interested in physics and don’t see why I should be.

4 It is important that young people have a grasp of physics.

2. When I say “physics”, what comes to mind? Prompt with what else. Probe fully.

1 insert answer

2 don’t know (do not read out)

3. What do you think physicists do? Prompt with what else. Probe fully.

1 insert answer2 don’t know (do not read out)

4. The following are topics that physicists work on. To what extent would you be interested in finding out more about these topics? Read out–single code–randomise

1 origins of the universe a very interestedb quite interestedc neither interested nor

disinterestedd not very interestede not at all interested

2 telecommunications (e.g. mobile phones)3 nuclear power4 medical devices (e.g. MRI scanners)5 renewable energy sources6 space exploration7 understanding climate change8 monitoring natural disasters9 transport safety10 predicting financial markets

Ask Q5 if the respondent answered very interested or quite interested – pull through one random statement only (1–10).5. Why would you like to find out more about [insert code (1–10) at Q4]? Probe what other reasons they have. Probe fully.

1 insert answer

2 don’t know (do not read out)


6: Appendices

6.7 Omnibus survey data tablesA summary of the data is presented below. Full data sets can be provided in separate files.

6.7.1 Profile of respondents

Number %Total 1023 100gender male 491 48

female 532 52age 18–24 121 12

25–34 162 1635–44 203 2045–54 172 1755–64 152 1565+ 213 21

social grade AB 266 26C1 297 29C2 215 21DE 245 24

education level secondary/high school NVQ 1–3 556 54university degree or equivalent professional qualification/NVQ4 275 27higher university degree/doctorate/MBA/NVQ 5 or equivalent 75 7none of these 86 8refused 31 3

6.7.2 Agreement with physics statements

Q1 To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements:

Physics makes a valuable

contribution to society.

Physics is too specialised for most people to

understand.

I am not interested in

physics and don’t see why I should

be.

It is important that young people

have a grasp of physics.

NET: agree (%) 78 59 31 81strongly agree (+2) (%) 31 16 10 33agree (+1) (%) 47 43 21 48neither agree nor disagree (0) (%) 12 11 18 11disagree (–1) (%) 6 21 33 6strongly disagree (–2) (%) 1 7 17 1NET: disagree (%) 7 28 50 7don’t know (%) 3 3 1 2mean 1.04 0.41 –0.26 1.08standard deviation 0.89 1.19 1.25 0.87

N = 1023 (weighted N = 1023)

N = 1023 (weighted N = 1023)


6: Appendices

6.7.3 What physics is

Q2 When I say “physics”, what comes to mind?* Number %scientific/science 178 17school/education/curriculum 146 14to do with the body/health/exercise 113 11formulae/numbers/mathematics 86 8astronomy/universe/world 67 7technology/mechanics/engineering 56 6electricity/circuits 52 5atoms/molecules/composition 47 5how things work 43 4chemicals 40 4important to society/influential effect on how we live 39 4other areas of science/chemistry/biology 38 4laws/laws of nature/universe 35 3momentum/speed/motion 34 3gravity 32 3physicists 29 3experiments 27 3how one thing drives another/forces 26 3theories/principles 20 2weight 18 2energy 17 2light 14 1not interested/boring/difficult 14 1measurement 11 1power 11 1magnetism 11 1temperature/heat 8 1GCSEs/exams 8 1environment 5 <1science teacher 4 <1sound 3 <1dimensions/mass 2 <1other 62 6none/nothing 28 3

N = 1023 (weighted N = 1023).

*Some of the codes that are similar have been merged when discussed in the main report.


6: Appendices

6.7.4 What physicists do

Q3 What do you think physicists do?* Number %research/development 69 7carry out experiments/work in a lab 60 6involved in body/health/fitness 52 5science/scientists 48 5develop/improve things/problem solving 47 5depends on their specified area/various fields (specified/unspecified) 36 4they do physics 33 3work towards new advancements/invent 33 3work within the medical profession/diseases/cures 33 3work with molecules/atoms 31 3work on mathematical problems/mathematics 30 3work with nuclear energy/power plants/energy 30 3educate/teach 29 3work with chemicals 28 3they work towards benefiting society/influence our everyday life 24 2engineering/manufacturing industry 20 2apply theories/principles/laws 19 2study how the world works 19 2investigate environmental factors/pollution/atmosphere 17 2work out how things work (unspecified) 15 1study composition of materials/matter 11 1study electricity/other power sources 10 1understanding of gravity 9 1various general things 8 1get paid a lot 5 <1work within design 4 <1calculate/measure things 4 <1other 59 6none/nothing 4 <1don’t know 467 46

N = 1023 (weighted N = 1023).

*Some of the codes that are similar have been merged when discussed in the main report.


6: Appendices

6.7.5 Interest in specific physics topics

Interest in the origins of the universe

Why are you interested in the origins of the universe? NumberWant to improve knowledge of the subject/gain a clearer understanding 26Fascinating/subject of interest 19It affects us all 2Other 5Don’t know 11

Interest in telecommunications

Why are you interested in telecommunications (e.g. mobile phones)? NumberWant to improve knowledge of the subject/gain a clearer understanding 30Concern about the future/protecting our future generations 4Related to my profession 3Fascinating/subject of interest 2Safety reasons/want to avoid danger/health risks 2It affects us all 1Economy/financial investments 1Concerned about present state/rate of deterioration 1Other 7No reason 1Don’t know 14

Q4 The following are topics that physicists work on. To what extent would you be interested in finding out more about them?

NET:

inte

rest

ed (

%)

Very

inte

rest

ed (+

2) (

%)

Qui

te in

tere

sted

(+1)

(%

)

Neith

er in

tere

sted

(0)

nor

not i

nter

este

d (%

)

Not v

ery

inte

rest

ed (–

1) (

%)

Not a

t all

inte

rest

ed (–

2) (

%)

NET:

not

inte

rest

ed (

%)

Don

’t kn

ow (

%)

Mea

n

Stan

dard

dev

iatio

n

Stan

dard

err

or

origins of the universe 42 15 27 7 21 30 51 <1 –0.23 1.5 0.05telecommunications (e.g. mobile phones)

37 10 27 7 28 27 56 <1 –0.36 1.38 0.04

nuclear power 45 14 32 9 21 24 45 1 –0.1 1.43 0.04medical devices (e.g. MRI scanners)

60 29 31 7 16 17 33 <1 0.39 1.48 0.05

renewable sources of energy 64 29 35 6 13 16 29 <1 0.48 1.44 0.05space exploration 38 13 24 7 23 32 55 <1 –0.36 1.47 0.05understanding climate change 67 28 40 6 14 12 26 <1 0.57 1.34 0.04monitoring natural disasters 55 18 37 7 18 19 37 <1 0.16 1.42 0.04transport safety 63 25 38 7 15 14 30 1 0.44 1.38 0.04predicting financial markets 29 10 19 8 26 37 63 1 –0.61 1.4 0.04

N = 1023 (weighted N = 1023)

N = 69 (weighted N = 62)



6: Appendices

Interest in nuclear power

Why are you interested in nuclear power? NumberWant to improve knowledge of the subject/gain a clearer understanding 24Concern about the future/protecting our future generations 8Energy supplied will run out/ need a safeguard 5Safety reasons/want to avoid danger/health risks 4Related to my profession 3Fascinating/subject of interest 2It affects us all 1Economy/financial investments 1Other 9No reason 2Don’t know 13

Interest in medical devices

Why are you interested in medical devices (e.g. MRI scanners)? NumberWant to improve knowledge of the subject/gain a clearer understanding 44Fascinating/subject of interest 12Safety reasons/want to avoid danger/health risks 9Personal circumstances, such as ill 7It affects us all 7Concerned about the future/protecting our future generations 6Related to my profession 6Other 12No reason 1Don’t know 23

Interest in renewable energy sources

Why are you interested in renewable energy sources? NumberConcerned about the future/protecting our future generations 24Energy supplies will run out/need a safeguard 19Want to improve knowledge of subject/gain a clearer understanding 19Concerned about present state/rate of deterioration 11Safety reasons/want to avoid danger/health risks 8It affects us all 7Economy/financial investments 2Personal circumstances, such as ill 2Fascinating/subject of interest 2


N = 124 (weighted N = 125)

N = 121 (weighted N = 118)


6: Appendices

Interest in space exploration

Why are you interested in space exploration? NumberFascinating/subject of interest 22Want to improve knowledge of subject/gain a clearer understanding 20Concerned about the future/protecting our future generations 14It affects us all 3Concerned about present state/rate of deterioration 1Energy supplies will run out/need a safeguard 1Other 5Don’t know 8

Interest in climate change

Why are you interested in climate change? NumberWant to improve knowledge on the subject/gain a clearer understanding 38Concerned about the future/protecting our future generations 27It affects us all 18Concerned about present state/rate of deterioration 13Fascinating/subject of interest 7Related to my profession 3Safety reasons/want to avoid danger/health risks 1Personal circumstances, such as ill 1Energy supplies will run out/need a safeguard 1Other 18No reason 1Don’t know 17

Interest in monitoring natural disasters

Why are you interested in monitoring natural disasters? NumberWant to improve knowledge on the subject/gain a clearer understanding 41Safety reasons/want to avoid danger/health risks 16Concerned about the future/protecting our future generations 13Fascinating/subject of interest 8Concerned about present state/rate of deterioration 7It affects us all 6Related to my profession 1I use transport 1Other 4Don’t know 8


N = 129 (weighted N = 133)



6: Appendices

Interest in transport safety

Why are you interested in transport safety? NumberI use transport 24Safety reasons/want to avoid danger/health risks 19Want to improve knowledge of subject/gain a clearer understanding 18Related to my profession 13It affects us all 12Concerned about the future/protecting our future generations 11Personal circumstances, such as ill 1Other 12No reason 3Don’t know 19

Interest in predicting financial markets

Why are you interested in predicting financial markets? NumberWant to improve knowledge on the subject/gain a clearer understanding 9Economy/financial investments 8Related to my profession 3It affects us all 3Fascinating/subject of interest 2Concerned about the future/protecting our future generations 2Safety reasons/want to avoid danger/health risks 1Personal circumstances, such as ill 1Other 6No reason 1Don’t know 7

N = 124 (weighted N = 124)



Institute of Physics Report

For further information about this report, contact:

Caitlin Watson The Institute of Physics Physics in Society ProgrammeThe Institute of Physics76 Portland PlaceLondon W1B 1NT, UKTel +44 (0)20 7470 4800 Fax +44 (0)20 7470 4848 E-mail [email protected] Web www.iop.orgRegistered charity no. 293851

© The Institute of Physics

The material included in this report may be reproduced and disseminated without infringing copyright providing the following acknowledgement is given:Public Perception of Physics, 2008. Reproduced by permission of the Institute of Physics.

public perceptions of physics - for all · magnetic resonance imaging (mri) scanners food...

Documents