RVC Lates 2013Evaluation Report 

The ‘wordle ‘ image above is an illustration of paper survey responses to RVC lates, where words are shown in size proportional to their frequency of occurrence. Response n=61. 

Draft report compiled by Grace Kimble 21.10.20131

Contents

1. Aims of Evaluation2. Event Context

2.1 Aims 2.2 Objectives2.3 RVC staff2.4 Advertising2.5 Web page 

3. Event 3.1 Live events 3.2 Stand descriptions 

4. Impact4.1 Public

4.1.1 Who was there?4.1.2 Where had they come from?4.1.3 Why were they there?4.1.4 What did they do?4.1.5 What did visitors think of RVC Lates? 4.1.6 How did RVC Lates change visitor attitudes?

4.2  Researchers4.3 Student ambassadors

5. Operational improvements

6. Recommendations

7. Conclusions

8. Strategy: future directions

2

1. Aims of evaluation

This evaluation report aims to summarise the impact of the public engagement event ‘RVCLates‐ The Heart of RVC’ which took place on October 17th 2013.Evaluation aimed to:• Provide a comparison with the inaugural RVC Lates event held in 2012• Provide evidence to meet requirements of the Physiology Society, who funded the

event• Collate evidence about the impact of the event for visitors, students and RVC staff• Provide insight to inform future RVC Access strategy

Evaluation Process

Event evaluation

•Visitors completed paper feedback form on exiting RVC•Visitors were interviewed by Student Ambassadors

RVC staff feedback

• Student Ambassadors were asked to complete an online survey

•Researchers and presenters were asked to complete an online survey

Debrief meeting

• This evaluation draft circulated for comment• Final report produced following debrief meeting to incorporate viewpoints from as many staff involved as possible

3

2. Event Context 

2.1 Aims

‘RVC Lates: The Heart of RVC’ took place on Thursday October 17th 2013, from 1845‐2200, on the Camden Campus at the Royal Veterinary College, London. It is the secondever RVC Lates event; the first was initiated in October 2012 by former WideningParticipation Officer James Cannon. James worked with Lisa Pritchard, PhD student atRVC, to submit a successful bid to the Physiological Society to fund two subsequentpublic engagement events.The aims of the event for public audiences were:• Educate people about physiology through anatomy and dissection – something

many of them will never have nor ever will have the chance to do otherwise.• Allow people to perform laboratory techniques so that they understand exactly

what research entails.• Demonstrate clearly the importance of research to human health.• Wipe out the stereotypes of scientists as reclusive eccentrics or socially inept

“nerds”.• Raise awareness of the various career streams available in this area in teachers. A

great many of the visitors in October 2012 were teachers – the more they knowabout physiology and its relevant careers, the more they can tell their pupils.

(source: Funding bid application submitted Feb’ 2013)

2.2 Objectives

• To run between 5 and 10 walk‐up activity stands for each event.• To run an animal dissection demonstration each event. The dissections will focus

on each physiological system in turn and how they differ between species.• To run 2 – 3 mini‐lectures of around 20 minutes in length each event• To encourage creativity alongside scientific attention to detail with drawing

workshops in our Anatomy Museum.• Recruit a minimum of 200 people for each event using advertising in papers to

create an extensive mailing list.

4

2.3 RVC Staff involvementRVC staff were recruited to run research stands by Lisa Pritchard during summer 2013. Thumbnails of their profiles are shown here. The event was supported by student ambassadors from a range of years and courses.  

5

2.4 AdvertisingThe event was advertised in the Camden New Journal, Time Out, and via online marketing sites Meetup , Biology week promotion, and TES Connect. Twitter and Facebook social media advertising linked to an online booking form. Education contacts were emailed  in advance by Chris Hobson. 

6

2.5 RVC web pageThe following description appeared on the website, leading to an online booking form which gathered information about visitors address, and how they found out about the event. 

7

3. Event

3.1 Live eventsThe images below show the front and reverse of a floor plan leaflet which was used to guidevisitors during the event. You can see a description of live events and summarie4s of theactivities taking place.

8

3.2 Research standsThe stand labels below described the range of research stands on offer. We also had stands from the Francis Crick Institute and the Physiology Society. 

9

4. Impact

4.1 PublicPublic impact will be considered under the following questions, in order to characterise the audience and provide information on which to decide future public engagement event planning. 

Methods

Visitor responses to the event were gathered using three methods, with a range of closed and open question types: 

a) A paper survey on exiting the event. This survey was designed to gather demographic information and to allow comparison with the 2012 event by repeating questions asked last year. Answers provided formative information about how to improve the event, and summative information about the activities which took place. 61 forms were collected. 

b) Interviews with student ambassadors. These interviews focussed on event aims (see context section). 19 interviews were collected. 

c) A quiz about research stand information. 17 quizzes were correctly completed. 

Qualitative and quantitative data will be presented to compare the event with the 2012 event, and to demonstrate evidence that the event aims have been successfully met. 

• Who was there?

• Where had they come from?

• Why were they there?

• What did they do?

• What did they think of it?

• How did it change their attitudes?

10

4.1.1 Who was there?

The following data are results from questions which were asked using the paper exit survey, n=61.

What are the age ranges of people you have visited with? 

What is your occupation? 

32

25

108

31

18‐25 26‐35 36‐45 46‐55 56‐65 66‐75

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

ActorSports coach

WriterLecturerScientistVet nurse

AdministrationArt/crafts

Finance/ lawTeacher/education

Student

How many people in your group?

Num

ber o

f visitors

The majority of visitors were 18‐25, with frequency decreasingwith age.Even if data show a bias towardsyounger people completing theform, then there is still evidencethat the public who visited RVCLates were largely under 35.

Number of visitors

The largest sector of RVC Latesaudiences were in theeducation sector; either asstudents or as teachers. Thismay be linked to advertising toRVC schools contacts, andadverts online using TESconnect.

Are these the audiences thatRVC public engagement eventsshould aim to engage?

The majority of groups surveyedcontained two visitors.Compared to similar events, thenumber of individual visitorsand groups of four people washigh.

11

4.1.2 Where had they come from?

Event Reach

The data below are  anonymous records from booking data, and show the reach of advertising. It is clear that Word of Mouth (Friends and Colleagues), Facebook and Emails were the top three ways  visitors found out about the event. 

Arrival

The data above are corroborated by interview data asking visitorshow long they took to arrive at the event. The journey times rangedfrom 10 minutes (Zoo staff) to two hours. The most common journeytime was one hour. Surprisingly, visitors arrived later at the eventthan expected: as shown in the table left (data from interviewsample) .

Time Number1815 11845 21855 21900 61915 21920 11930 31945 12000 32045 1

12

4.1.3 Why were they there? 

Interview question 3. asked: What attracted you to the event?From the 19 people surveyed, three groups emerge:

1. RVC connectionsAlumni or former employees, or people whose family work or study there wanted to see thesite, see if there were any changes, remember being there, and to find out about what theirfamily do all day!

2. Science supportersSome people who work in related industries such as biomedical research wanted an insight intolatest research at RVC. They might be prospective students, or teachers looking for subjectenrichment or career information for their pupils. They might be studying a related subject; forexample a group of 3 sports science students and their lecturer from St. Mary’s College.

3. Curious publicPublic who did not have connections with RVC were attracted by the unique opportunity to seedissections, and the fact that it is a free event and a new experience.

Visitors taking part in dissection room workshop activities

13

Where did visitors go? The graph below was calculated by subtracting  ‘NA’ data from the total responses per activity type (survey question 2) , to show which aspects of the event visitors did not attend. The overall pattern is similar, with slightly greater percentages of visitors taking part in the quiz and visiting the Haxby bar. 

0102030405060708090100

What did visitors participate in? (%) 

2012

2013

4.1.4 What did they do?

Did you try any practical skills?Data from paper survey, n=61.

Proteins7% Make model 

hearts7%

Atherosclerosis7%

Microscope7%

Exercise and cardiology

14%

Haptic Cow17%

Cow Heart dissection

20%

Dissection lecture21%

14

Did you see anything which links to human health?Data from interview, n=19) 

Heart rate

Exercise bike

Cardiovascular pathology stand

Posters

Proteins

Human skeleton

Atherosclerosis stand

Blood pressure monitor

4.1.4 What did they do (continued) ?

15

Activity ratings The graphs below show the proportions of ratings per activity.  Comments given are shown in speech bubbles (2013  survey data only, question 2b, n=61). 

020406080

100

2012 activity ratings (%)

Below Average

Average

Good

Excellent

0102030405060708090100

2013 Activity ratings (%)

Poor

Below Average

Average

Good

Excellent

More time‘Wish it was longer’ 

‘We didn’t have time to try everything’ 

‘didn’t see everything but what I saw was great‐will be back next 

time’

‘came some way to satisfying my terminal curiosity’

Approachability‘Very friendly students’

and‘very friendly staff and interesting lecture’

Overall, how would you rate RVC Lates?

100% of the 61 survey respondents rated RVC Lates good or excellent.This is similar to 2012, where 100% of visitors rated the event good or excellent. 

4.1.5 What did visitors think of RVC Lates? 

16

Which part of RVC lates did you enjoy the most? Survey data Q3, n=61. 

3 4

30

62 3

1

6

Which part of RVC Lates did you enjoy the least?Survey data Q4, n=61. There were very few comments about the least popular part of theevening. A number of people said nothing, none, or words to the effect that they enjoyedeverything e.g. ‘All of it was wonderful!’However, the only area mentioned as an issue was the smell of the dissection!

Would you recommend RVC Lates?  100% YES

100% of 61 survey respondents answered Yes to this question (Q5). In addition, there were some supporting comments: • ‘Because it’s awesome‐ really educational and suitable for public and students’

• ‘Good for students, especially others working with me in veterinary practice’

• ‘very useful study for drawing, as an art graduate I would recommend’

How does this event compare with your expectations?Survey question 8, N=61. 

70% exceeded, 30 % met. 

Num

ber o

f visitors

‘Better than science museum lates as more 

personal’ 17

4.1.5 What did visitors think of RVC Lates?(continued)  

Has this event changed your perception of physiology? 

82% YES

33 respondents answered this question in the exit survey. 

Comments included:

YES• My enthusiasm has continued to grow!• made it very interesting• learnt a lot• Learnt much more about changes in 

physiology, especially during foetal stages

• widened it, increased my curiosity, research for myself (in a general way) 

• always learning new things• came last year, still find it fascinating• Made me realise how quickly research 

is advancing for medicine• made me more interested• cuttlefish have three hearts!• Not much previous knowledge!

NO• already fab• I was interested in it before I came! • I already work in a medical museum and 

have an interest in the area• Mother is a vet, very interesting though

4.1.6 How did RVC Lates change visitor attitudes?

18

What surprised you about the event?Survey question 10, n=61 

• Amount of displays and hands on activities• Angiogenesis research‐would definitely see it 

used in the veterinary field in future• attention to detail• Didn't want to leave• Dissection• Enthusiasm• Excellent facilities• excellent museum‐ should've been expecting 

it but wasn’t!• Exercise is good for the immune system! 

Sheep are fed magnets! • First time I've ever seen a dissection• Free!• Front legs are not attached to the skeleton!• happiness of students and teachers• haptic cow• How close you get to the body, great lecturer!• How friendly and knowledgeable everyone is• how hands on it is

19

• how much I would learn tonight• How well it was presented• I came last year; and same as intriguing, what's not to find worthwhile. Thank you for 

the evening• I didn’t realise that sheep's stomachs were so big…• I felt that the talks were pitched at the same level as my 18 year old students could do…• Making hearts• sheep dissection!• The detail that everything was explained• the haptic cow• The huge variety of stands on offer• The knowledge and enthusiasm of students• The range of things to do and see• The size of a sheep stomach• The smell in dissection• The smell of sheep innards. Also size, if I'm honest. • the smell of the dissection• wide range of displays the RVC has

4.1.6 How did RVC Lates change visitor attitudes? (continued)

Were the researchers like you expected them to be?Interview question 6, n‐19

• friendly and open and not boffins• friendly and approachable• friendly and open• Andrew Crook excellent. Otherwise all very friendly• geeky but nice• approachable. Especially pathology stand• knowledgeable and helpful• yes, informative, easy to chat to• no, they don’t look like researchers! 

• veterinary medicine and science• already PhD students• didn’t know about pathologist• academic not for me• yes, saw people doing things, makes me want to research roles• came for interest more, and to see about possible research pathways• yes, about how people get into it• yes, research. Enjoy the students being here• being a vet• don’t know yet‐ want to work with wild animals• researcher• wanted to talk to vet med students about applying

Have you found out about careers in this area?Interview question 7, n‐19

20

4.1.6 How did RVC Lates change visitor attitudes? (continued)

4.2 Research Staff

Data based on 8 responses to online survey  (so far, 21/10/2013) 

Did you find out anything new through taking part in RVC Lates? • I didn't have a huge chance to visit the other stalls but when discussing the prep for making 

them I learnt a great deal about animals hearts which I'd never studied.• I heard some interesting heart murmurs in people (that they already knew about... ;‐))• Some of the stands provided useful information.• How quickly a chick embryo develops a beating heart• Yes. Many things.• No.• I talked to some colleagues about their research and found out new things.

What did you enjoy about being part of the event? • The positive atmosphere and meeting the public• I enjoyed engaging with the public and encouraging them to be as enthusiastic about 

science as I am.• The enthusiastic reactions from the public!• Engaging with the public• Talking to the public and seeing how interested they were.• Good variety of questions, the other stands, the help of the ambassadors• Uniting parts of the College and meeting new guests onsite.• It was nice to see the RVC so lively in the evening.

21

4.3 Student ambassadorsData based on 9 responses to online survey (so far, 21.10.2013)

Did you learn anything new through taking part in the event?• Not really because I was at the entrance most of the time.• Yes ‐ all about the cuttlefish heart and how our slides are created!• Yes from a few of the stands I got a chance to go around. They were very interactive which

made them great fun!• Yes, a little about how they produce 3‐d images of protein structures and about the

research they have done into the link between atherosclerosis and immunology.• Yes, the event was amazing! I improved my understanding massively on the Haptic cow ‐

Tierney was really lovely to work with and explained everything I needed to know so I couldteach the guests when they came to our stand to have a go on the Haptic cow. It made merevise some of the topics we did last year and was useful to know roughly how things feel. Itwas very interactive which I think was good and looking round the other stands I picked upsome information on other areas of the cardiovascular system.

• Yes: about angiogenesis research and atherosclerosis research and proteins involved.• Yes. Lectures provided great way to learn, listening to the research, E.i. diet affecting

endothelium and therefore circulatory function, and also valvular degeneration and itssymptoms (Boswood).

• Yes in Adrian Boswood's lecture

22

Did you try out any practical skills? • No because I was at the entrance.• Making hearts out of plasticine!• Used the microscopes.• Yes, at the beginning of the evening at the stalls I looked at• No (x2)• Yes ‐ the Haptic cow was evidently very practical and allowed you to practice how it would feel 

to palpate certain structures within the abdomen and on the pelvic floor.• Used the microscope to show different bits of the slide to people.• Had a go at the haptic cow

Staff view: My student ambassador was 

absolutely great. She hardly got a break at all and remained as engaged at 10pm as she had started at 5.30pm. Really nice 

idea to partner us up, and for me it wouldn’t have been possible 

without her.

What did you enjoy about being part of the event?• I enjoyed hearing how much so many people enjoyed themselves. It was great to talk to

people as they came in and hearing their expectations and then most were satisfied uponleaving.

• Learning more about what RVC Lates actually is and seeing some of the research carriedout here

• Love talking to people about Veterinary Medicine and the college. Enjoyed working withElaine and meeting members of staff.

• Hearing such positive feedback whilst people were leaving‐ they all seemed to have had agreat night!

• It was nice to talk with a variety of different people and see some of the research that goeson fairly hidden away in the RVC.

• I enjoyed meeting a range of different people who work at the university who I hadn't evermet or spoken to before, for example Tierney, so it was great for networking. Also, I enjoyedhow practical and hands on all the stands were ‐ it is much more interesting than justreading things on stands. I thought the guests were all friendly and approachable too,which really helped, and as the Haptic cow was very popular, I was constantly busy, so thenight went very fast!

• Explaining things to people coming round to view stands, learning what goes on in theresearch departments at RVC.

• Was nice to able to go to the different stations and see what they were providing andteaching.

• Getting to speak to the attendees about visiting our university and what they got fromcoming along to the event.

23

4.3 Student ambassadors (continued) 

5. Operational improvements

In order to structure recommendations, they will be considered under the same headings asshown in Sections 2 ‘Context’ and 3 ‘Event’

Staff profiles and standsThere were no criticisms of the activity titles or staff profiles; thank you to the staff involved forproviding this information.Activities were frequently praised for being hands on, and there were no reported problems orissues. There were few comments from either RVC staff or student ambassadors about visitorresponses to research stands. One person stated that the most common questions was:‘What animal did those cells/tissue come from?’ (and disappointment if the answer was"human")Activities were highly rated and interactive and should continue with this engaging approach

So far, staff and students have felt well‐prepared for the event:• ‘I think there was sufficient time at the start for the researcher to explain to you what to do

and what the stand was about, and sending out the information prior to the event like youdid about the researchers was helpful’ (SA)

• I felt totally prepared and was able to answer any queries’ (SA).Other organisations offer public engagement training for researchers, hence research staff wereasked: is there any additional training you feel would be beneficial. So far, one person hassuggested creative thinking and public engagement training. Many already feel prepared.Public engagement training opportunities should be considered but are not a high priority

Logistics were praised in terms of extension cables, poster boards being present and in the rightplace; with thank s to staff involved.However, there was concern that safety was compromised in the pack up.Additional care should be taken to pack equipment away safely at the end of the night

Student ambassadors were offered the opportunity to swap at 9pm, to work with a wider rangeof stands. However, not all people did this.Student ambassadors to decide whether swapping is beneficial or not. GK facilitate majorityopinion.Food was provided for researchers and student ambassadors. However, the following quoteexplains an issue:I believe the event offered a good level of snack and food to keep us all going during the event.but I was just disappointed that the ambassadors ended taking advantage of this and by 7pmmost of the snacks had been eaten and then by 8:15pm a lot of the wine had gone, with mostresearchers not having access to much of these. I appreciate it was great to get plenty of pizzathough :). Breaks need to be better structured. 24

Advertising and attendance• Suggestions have been made for Society of Biology, Vet Record, and better intranet advertising ,

for example in Hawkshead. Posters on both sites are recommended.• There were no complaints about the web page and the online booking form provided good

information for the dissection event and analysis. Jack Sisterson quickly updated the webpagewhen the event automatically stopped receiving bookings on the day, which can be learnt fromfor next time. The web page needs to accept bookings on the day.

• Although 198 people booked online and seven additional people were welcomed on theevening, the was a high occurrence of non‐attendance. £5 cancellation fee recommended.

Event• The dissection event was well attended, although booked visitors did not attend and places

were filled by other visitors. Consequently, concurrent lectures were not well attended. Lecturesneed not to be scheduled concurrently with dissections.

• More people attended the Haxby bar in 2012 compared to 2013, due to better signage.However, this area was the only one scoring ‘poor’ in the activity ratings. Advertising shouldstate that the Haxby Bar is a student bar, to manage visitor expectations.

• Researchers need general RVC handout information for visitors. The British Museum and RoyalSociety are good at providing these, for example.

• The background music needs to be quieter, particularly for stands with stethoscopes.• The research stand area needs to be enlivened during the dissection event. Scheduling is a key

area to address e.g.• I think there were a few guests who felt there wasn't enough time to see everything e.g.. some

still wanted a try on the Haptic cow when we were already packing up, so maybe the time couldeven be extended slightly, as a lot of guests wanted to see the dissection, go to a lecture and stillhave time to see all the stands which I don't think they could squeeze in!

• Better signage about live events taking place• Pub quiz event earlier; use another event to denote the end of the evening?• Straight table cloths• Use the Plasma screens to advertise the RVC• Offer tours of campus• Use the pod• Offer guests Wi‐Fi passport to try and make a social media impact• ACT need to be there to sell merchandise

25

5. Operational improvements (continued) 

6. Recommendations summary

Staff profiles and stands• Activities were highly rated and interactive and should continue with this engaging

approach• Public engagement training opportunities should be considered but are not a high

priority• Additional care should be taken to pack equipment away safely at the end of the night• Student ambassadors to decide whether swapping between stands is beneficial or not.

GK facilitate majority opinion.• Breaks need to be better structured.

Advertising and attendance• Posters on both sites are recommended.• web page needs to accept bookings on the day.• £5 cancellation fee recommended.

Event• Lectures need not to be scheduled concurrently with dissections.• Advertising should state that the Haxby Bar is a student bar, to manage visitor

expectations.• Researchers need general RVC handout information for visitors. The background music

needs to be quieter, particularly for stands with stethoscopes.• The research stand area needs to be enlivened during the dissection event.• Scheduling is a key area to address• Better signage about live events taking place• Pub quiz event earlier; use another event to denote the end of the evening?• Straight table cloths• Use the Plasma screens to advertise the RVC• Offer tours of campus• Use the pod• Offer guests Wi‐Fi passport to try and make a social media impact• ACT need to be there to sell merchandise

26

7. Conclusions

RVC Lates 2013 met objectives, however there are some issues which need addressedbefore the next event on Spring 2014:• To run between 5 and 10 walk‐up activity stands for each event.• To run an animal dissection demonstration each event. The dissections will focus on

each physiological system in turn and how they differ between species.• To run 2 – 3 mini‐lectures of around 20 minutes in length each event• Issue: low lecture attendance owing to scheduling issues• To encourage creativity alongside scientific attention to detail with drawing

workshops in our Anatomy Museum.• Recruit a minimum of 200 people for each event using advertising in papers to

create an extensive mailing list.• Issue: low attendance on the evening; cancellation fee recommended together with

higher capacity for event overall

To return to the initial funding bid for the Society of Physiology, the aims of the event forpublic audiences were (evidence summarised in purple text ):• Educate people about physiology through anatomy and dissection – something

many of them will never have nor ever will have the chance to do otherwise.]• The public took part in unique anatomy and dissection events, and 83% of

responses indicated that audience perception of physiology had changed.

• Allow people to perform laboratory techniques so that they understand exactly whatresearch entails.

• Research stands allowed visitors to take part in practical research activities.

• Demonstrate clearly the importance of research to human health.• Interview visitors were able to state links between RVC research stands and

human health.

• Wipe out the stereotypes of scientists• Scientists were seen to be friendly, positive, enthusiastic and approachable, and

this was unexpected for some visitors.

• Raise awareness of the various career streams available in this area in teachers.• Interviewed visitors were able to comment on career information, although this

could be improved.27

8. Strategy: Future directions

28

Post script: General comments

Research staff

• I liked the quiz!• I was surprised at how much people seemed to enjoy my stand, I had thought that

matching up hearts and heart rates with species would be a simple fun activity butnothing special. Lots of people commented on how much they enjoyed it and what agood idea it was. I'm sure you could do a similar thing with lots of differentorgans/body systems.

• None ‐ thanks for organising it all.• All in all I thought it ran very well and was happy to be a part of it.• It was really nice of you to provide snacks and drinks in a designated room for us. For

those of us who don’t know Camden very well, it was good to have a space to escapeto for a few minutes! And the minibus was great!!

• The announcements for the lectures, and ambassadors taking the public to therooms worked very well.

Student ambassadors

• Maybe try two shorter dissections so more people get to do that part seeing as it issuch a big hit for the evening.

• Brilliant event, well organised! All the staff were really friendly and approachable.Definitely my favourite event so far in terms of student ambassador events ‐ thanksfor the pizza and drinks too, that was really great!

• Was a great event that brought everyone together. Wondered about the targetaudience, prospective students, community, current students. Seemed like could be areal draw for prospective students and current wishing to revise!

29

30