6

Highest Priorities for the Field

The publication of Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits (LSIE) (National Research Council, 2009) sparked a catalyzing moment in the field of informal science education by presenting evidence, practices, and recommendations that both validated existing work and spearheaded new work. This convocation served as an opportunity for the research, practice, and policy communities within the informal science and engineering education (ISEE) field to gather and reflect on the impacts of LSIE, examine the field’s evolution over the past 15 years, celebrate achievements, take stock of progress, and think collectively about “what’s next” for the field to continue to advance its work—the focus of the last session of the convocation. Specifically,

• What are the remaining challenges to be met?
• How best can ISEE meet the needs of the present moment?
• What are the highest priorities for research, practice, and policy?

Planning committee chair Kirsten Ellenbogen, president and CEO, Great Lakes Science Center, framed the session as a large-group conversation about priorities and ways to move the field forward. The discussion included key takeaways from planning committee members based on their own reflections and comments by other participants during the lunch table discussions and throughout the two-day meeting. Box 6-1 provides a list of some of the priorities identified by various participants over the course of the convening, and this chapter summarizes and categorizes additional ideas from the final discussion into the following areas: priorities for the

field as a whole, priorities for research, priorities for practice, and priorities for policy. The convocation concluded with final reflections on the current status of ISEE, issues for the field to continue to grapple with, and potential avenues for sustaining momentum.

PRIORITIES FOR THE FIELD OF INFORMAL SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING EDUCATION

Planning committee member Kevin Crowley, professor of education, senior scientist at the Learning Research and Development Center, and co-director of the University of Pittsburgh Center for Learning in Out-of-School Environments (UPCLOSE), University of Pittsburgh, set the stage for the discussion, sharing that it would focus on “speculative futures” around research, practice, and policy based on the conversations throughout the two-day meeting. He reminded participants that this turn toward the speculative futures of the field is based in the Statement of Task, which contained the charge to identify “exciting emerging directions,” “gaps in research and practice” in the field, and the “highest priority next steps” (see Box 1-2). Picking up on a theme sounded throughout the convening, Crowley raised the need to strike a balance between fostering a field-wide sense of identity for informal science education (e.g., a collective research and development agenda and a broad vision to inform policymaking) and preserving the unique aspects of different contexts (i.e., place, people, interests, and goals) as a priority. Although creating a collective identity might offer some comfort, Crowley wondered whether “sameness” is the goal, particularly when contemplating the concept of the “bigger field” in regard to policy and funding decisions, or whether the field is comfortable with being “disparate.” To answer these questions, he said, the field must ask other questions that will

help to determine which goal is more useful (echoing Emma Banay’s remarks on Day 1): “What’s going to be more innovative? What’s going to be more equitable? What’s going to be more resilient as we go forward?”

Extending this line of thought, planning committee member Anita Krishnamurthi, senior vice president for STEM & Youth Civic Engagement and president of the Collective for Youth Empowerment in STEM & Society (CYESS), Afterschool Alliance, drew the analogy that the informal science education field may be like Hawaii: different islands with unique characteristics and affordances but also a shared identity and each with a lot to share with the others. She asserted that most needed then are bridges between the “islands” to enable more cross-pollination and to create structures that facilitate more engagement and collaboration across sectors (e.g., youth-serving organizations, science centers, libraries, community science). Sue Allen, planning committee member and co-director of the Clean Conferencing Institute, agreed, emphasizing that this moment calls for breaking down silos, thinking in terms of the “bigger we” and supporting each other, and taking advantage of all the existing resources, assets, and infrastructure.

Gina Navoa Svarovsky, faculty director at the Center for Broader Impacts and professor of the practice at the Institute for Educational Initiatives, University of Notre Dame, returned to the concept of “refugia,” contending that as the field contemplates how to survive the immense change that is happening, it must build bridges to other fields and leaders. She gave the example of university leaders building bridges to industry leaders by demonstrating how informal science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education can help them increase their bottom line, such as helping them message their products differently. Svarovsky said that to continue to uphold the field’s commitment to do meaningful work, it must first push into places of survival, even if that means engaging in unconventional cross-sector partnerships. She also noted that people who have privilege and resources are usually the survivors of really difficult times, and so the field must ensure that it does not leave behind the people who it has committed to support and elevate, namely the marginalized and vulnerable. Building on this point, an unidentified participant commented that this moment of the survival of the fittest, in some sense, provides and opportunity to be intentional about what is preserved. This person observed that over time several different but redundant systems, platforms, frameworks, and terminologies have emerged; therefore, it may be time to do “some purging,” even if forced to do so as a result of lost funding. In doing so, this person said that the informal education field could establish a common basis to grow into a core set of systems and languages that reflects shared agreement and more intentionality about the work to move forward, connect, and build on. Elsa Bailey, principal, Elsa Bailey Consulting, added that the informal education sector is well positioned to survive the major policy changes currently happening because, similar to the past, it is positioned outside of the central

structures that have been the major parts of society up to now. That said, she emphasized the need to preserve central repositories of resources and to continue creative thinking about how to build on what has worked and communicate about the work in current and relevant ways.

Ralph Bouquet, planning committee member and director of education and outreach at NOVA, emphasized the important need for the field to orientate around informal science education that prioritizes general science literacy as a goal toward a more informed citizenry. He said that this goal should serve as a “central background goal” that, in some way, underpins and informs all other goals for content and programming as the field looks to the future. Bouquet said that the field must be intentional about equipping children with the knowledge, tools, and skill sets to be scientifically literate about issues that will shape so much of the world moving forward, such as public health, climate change, and AI. Pointing to the COVID-19 pandemic as an example, he stated that “there are real life-and-death ramifications . . . when people do not understand basic things about how viruses work, when misinformation is rampant, [and] when they are being told not to trust vaccines, for example, and then take other steps to manage their health.” Bouquet also commented that this goal of science literacy is separate from educational outcomes attached to formal education; rather, it is more of a fundamental mindset—“the bedrock of how people are understanding science and how they’re making decisions.”

PRIORITIES FOR RESEARCH

Scott Pattison, planning committee member and research scientist at TERC, stated that rather than conceptualizing big-picture perspectives and national efforts as sitting opposite of local efforts and specificity, “a great next step for our field would be to move past those dichotomies.” He observed that since 2009 and even before, tensions about the focus of the field have been ongoing: national efforts versus local efforts, standardized measures versus individual and highly relevant measures, fidelity versus adaptation, quantitative versus qualitative. All of these considerations are important, he asserted, and rather than getting caught up in which one is more relevant, he said, there should be increased and intentional exchange between the “ends of the spectrum.” For example, people who are doing broad skill work need to be learning from those who are doing highly local, highly focused work, and vice versa; and people doing broad skill work need to recognize the implications of positivism and other ideologies that underlie the work and the limitations of that work in highly local contexts, and vice versa. Pattison noted that the need to move past dichotomies also extends to the notion of scale-up, whereby local work and work at higher scales are both important. Toward this end, he suggested that the field should develop more sophisticated scale-up models that enable adaptability

to local and community contexts and stressed that funders play a critical role in signaling to the field the methods that should be prioritized.

Preeti Gupta, planning committee member and senior director for children, family, and youth programs and research at the American Museum of Natural History, highlighted the need for more robust infrastructure that enables the sharing and coordination of data, resources, tools, and evidence, adding that the field has a “dissemination problem.” She continued that the field cannot expect to receive credit for its products from people outside of the field if it cannot figure out how to use all of its products itself. Stephen Alkins, diversity, equity, and inclusion officer/principal investigator at TERC and director for vision and accountability at the REVISE (Reimagining Equity and Values in Informal STEM Education)¹ Center, explained that REVISE—a database that houses approximately 10,000 resources to support the research, evaluation, and practitioner communities—can serve as a mechanism to support sharing and coordination. He mentioned that REVISE also provides additional resources through the EBSCO database, which provides access not only to research on education but also to research on diversity and inclusion within educational contexts. Although REVISE is currently undergoing a rescoping period in response to the current climate, Alkins emphasized that curating and amplifying the content that currently exists within the informal education sector remains critically important. He encouraged participants to upload resources that they believe should be a part of the “research archive” to informalscience.org, and he explained that alongside the work of continuing to build the archive, REVISE is also focused on identifying different strategies for amplifying projects and findings so that people can more easily share and gain access to the work. An unidentified speaker shared that some cross-sector journals such as Connected Science Learning and the Informal Learning Review are also good resources for interesting articles and papers about both the informal and formal education fields.

Jamie Bell, senior advisor, Association of Science and Technology Centers, highlighted the opportunity to strengthen the connection between the informal STEM education field and science communication. He said that some cross-pollination is happening in certain venues (e.g., informal education professionals attending science communication conferences and contributing to science communication research and practice), but there is an incredible amount of knowledge-building happening and resources in science communication that the field has yet to learn from, and vice versa. Relatedly, an unidentified speaker commented that although major accomplishments have occurred in the wake of LSIE, the need remains for the field to determine how to engage adult audiences and families in a better way. In this same vein, Heidi Schweingruber, director, Board on Science Education,

___________________

¹ For more information about REVISE, see informalscience.org

National Academies, pointed out the need to expand the lens beyond children and youth to also capture multigenerational groups and communities. She said that this focus is especially important in American society, where many mainstream institutions are “age-graded” and older people tend to be discarded. She explained that little is known about what people experience during the later stages of life; therefore, both the challenge and the opportunity exist for informal education to create spaces to rebuild connections across generations and to reinforce the notion that these spaces are for everyone to engage with STEM. Both of these comments echoed others made throughout the convocation about the need to better balance efforts focused on children and youth and those focused on adults and lifelong learning.

PRIORITIES FOR PRACTICE

Some participants identified a range of priorities related to practice in the field. Bouquet said that taking an audience-centered approach toward digital engagement is a key priority. He mentioned that this approach would be informed by a better understanding of the information habits and needs of individuals and communities, and he reiterated the finding that the majority of Americans are getting science news from digital settings. He also stressed the need for a shift in orientation toward social media and other platforms as instrumental and necessary for outreach, engagement, and communication within the ISEE field. Bouquet challenged some attitudes in the field toward social media platforms that completely dismiss their utility, pointing out that although audience fit is crucially important (not every platform is for everyone), the field places itself at a “severe disadvantage” when it does not seriously consider the strategies, tactics, and tools afforded by such platforms. For the field to move forward and remain relevant, Bouquet said that any outreach and engagement strategy must focus on and prioritize the “language and the communication of the [targeted] audiences.” Therefore, ISEE professionals should learn more about their audiences (e.g., how they get their news and information) and be more equipped as effective communicators in digital spaces. Ron Ottinger, executive director, STEM Next Opportunity Fund, added that a top priority is to help frontline workers effectively incorporate new tools and technologies such as AI into their programming, particularly those who are not scientists and engineers by training and work with children.

Christine Reich, president, TERC, agreed and noted the importance of using existing technologies and tools “for good” rather than withholding them from learners, specifically early learners, who are already using them. She shared her observation that the gaming community is absent from the conversation and stressed the importance of “expand[ing] the universe of people” that the ISEE field talks to and hosting conversations “in the mediums and the format that will reach the people who are developing new

learning experiences in new media.” She said that this work might take the form of establishing a channel on a major streaming platform for informal science learning researchers to disseminate, share, and exchange ideas within the mediums that already exist. Reich added that this is a call to action to innovate, expand the conversation to include broader communities, and change the ways that the field communicates to enable learning from other people’s ideas. In this way, she said the field will guard against “institutional isomorphism,” which she explained is a self-reinforcing state in which the more an organization becomes challenged, the more it looks to other similar organizations for solutions without data, ultimately adapting the wrong solutions and creating further challenges.

Allen also agreed with Bouquet and noted that when people lack a source of information that they can rely on, they turn to any information they can get, including misinformation, as shown in Understanding and Addressing Misinformation About Science (National Academies, 2025b). Integrating science communication practices with audience-centered informal science education practices can support the dissemination of high-quality, reliable information and fill information gaps. Allen said that the field of informal science education is well positioned to do this work, especially because many informal learning settings are deeply embedded in communities (e.g., afterschool programs, libraries) and have already built the necessary credibility and trust. She asserted that now is an opportune time for the ISEE field to support efforts to get “curated, relevant, important, timely information to people who don’t know where to find it.” The National Academies in particular, she said, is a national, nonpartisan synthesizer and holder of top-quality, critically important science information; therefore, a challenge is for the field to think about ways to disseminate such quality information. Leslie Goodyear, principal evaluation director, Education Development Center, added that with respect to science communication, people in the ISEE field should not assume that public audiences share the same interpretation and understandings of what science is as they do. People are approaching science learning with different understandings of science than perhaps they had even 10 years ago, and misinterpretation of the information being communicated is a possible issue, she said. Therefore, Goodyear stressed the importance of thinking “not just about whether the science is being communicated well” but also about whether what is understood about the science actually reflects the intended outcomes.

PRIORITIES FOR POLICY

Regarding potential policy priorities around ISEE, Allen said, it is essential to articulate the value of the field’s work in this particular moment in time. Reflecting on the past days’ conversation, she noted that

demonstrating the value of ISEE has implications for policy at all levels and urged people in the field to identify the value of their work and to be more explicit and clearer about that value. As an example, she highlighted the arguments around workforce development as a goal of informal STEM education and wondered to what extent these arguments are shared across the field and talked about similarly. Allen said that she learned in conversations with educators and policymakers that making connections between informal STEM education and innovation and economic issues is critically important. Referencing an earlier comment made by James Brown, executive director, STEM Education Coalition, she said that such a connection could be made via Strand 1 of the six strands of science learning from LSIE: Learners in informal environments will “experience excitement, interest, and motivation to learn about phenomena in the natural and physical world” (see Box 1-1). Allen emphasized that to advance STEM-focused innovation, people will need to be interested in doing this work, and that “high-quality, engaging, social, hands-on learning experiences” that facilitate the development of such interest are afforded through ISEE. She also pointed to the important role of storytelling in demonstrating the value of the field (including how the voices of youth are very powerful in advocating about the value) and providing concrete examples of the benefits of ISEE, including that science learning has a positive influence on people’s emotional and physical well-being. These benefits to society, she concluded, should be highlighted as a way to further policy objectives across the field.

Krishnamurthi agreed that more efforts to demonstrate the value of the work are needed and could include inviting community leaders, lawmakers, or other decision-makers to viscerally experience what is happening in the programs that serve their constituent; being able to “see, touch, and feel” firsthand can make its value clear. She emphasized that many lawmakers like to respond to what is happening in their “neck of the woods”; therefore, providing such opportunities can build knowledge, familiarity, and ultimately loyalty with respect to preserving funding streams that support these programs. Showing what is happening is also a part of the storytelling, she said, because everything that is happening cannot be fully captured with the current measurement frameworks. Krishnamurthi also raised the need to interrogate the current policy structure, including big “P” policies at the federal and state levels and small “p” policies that lead to artificially established institutional barriers and hinder cross-sector and cross-disciplinary engagement and collaboration. She highlighted that more efforts could be directed toward establishing a relationship between the informal STEM education field and the civics education community, which has seen a recent “resurgence.” Krishnamurthi explained that this community may not always think about STEM as a tool that could be used for them, which presents an opportunity to build a bridge here and take advantage of the moment.

The notion of demonstrating the value of the field also extends to the workforce, and Gupta emphasized the absolute and fundamentally essential nature of fair compensation for people in the workplace. It is not enough or relevant to talk just about skills and competencies when people are underpaid, she contended, “and we all know underpaid does mean undervalued.” In looking to the future, she stressed that this long-standing issue must be resolved and that it will be unacceptable 15 years from now to still be having the conversation about how staff are underpaid. Gupta said that “as leaders we make choices, and we are not making the right choices if we are sitting here saying that [staff] are underpaid, but we actually may be able to do something about it. We can do something about it.” She concluded that if the field really believes that the health of the ecosystem depends on educators and facilitators (as the keystone species), then it must nurture and support them in many ways.

A final policy area to possibly prioritize, Goodyear suggested, is establishing funding structures that support the incubation of novel ideas and projects. She criticized current structures that require publications, a lot of proof of concept, and an established body of work to qualify for funding. She commented that these structures send the message that a person’s ideas must be beyond the nascent level to warrant funding, which is not the stage at which people who are entering the field with new ideas are. At a moment when funding conventions are being upended, Goodyear asserted that it is worth seeking ways to turn this moment into an opportunity to “take risks and make [funding structures] radically different in the best way possible.”

FINAL REFLECTIONS

Ottinger spoke about the resilience of the field, gesturing to past struggles and “ups and downs” that the field has survived, which is a sign that “we are a field.” He also highlighted that the convocation helped to clearly show that LSIE provided a base and a roadmap for individuals in the field to pursue in different and similar ways, and that much has been accomplished since then. Allen celebrated how inspiring the convening had been and emphasized the extent to which it created and strengthened a “sense of we” and a “sense of connectedness” among participants. At the same time, however, the convening also illuminated gaps as a function of those who “are not yet at the table.” Gupta agreed, noting that some participants shared that several museum staff were not represented at the convening and that voices were missing. This absence is true both literally and figuratively, she said, explaining that many frontline workers may not even identify as ISEE professionals; therefore, the field should think about the onboarding that must occur to help these workers recognize the important ways that

they are a part of the field. Gupta also challenged participants to consider how they will share their takeaways about the convocation in their own workplaces: “How will you summarize [the meeting]? Who will you [share about it with]? What context do you need to be in, and how will you respect the existing cultures and contexts of the different kinds of workers that are there as you relay these messages? What kind of conversations will you want to [foster beyond] just sending an email [that summarizes what] was talked about?”

Picking up on Gupta’s point, Anika Taylor, vice president of programs, the Bakken Institute, pointed out that the nature of the conversations that occurred during the convocation, including the language and terminologies used, is disconnected from the people who are doing the majority of the work in the field. She highlighted that if the field is committed to including more people at the table, then it will have to re-examine how to have conversations that do not only target the “highly educated.” Schweingruber shared that although people were missing from the room, the meeting was intentionally designed to bring together “thought leaders” in the field. However, she said that she embraces the challenge that such leaders are not only from the older generation and issued a call to action for the “elders” to figure out how to become “wise elders” who cultivate environments for younger people to join, learn, and share their new ideas. Schweingruber explained that this work will involve setting aside “egos” and learning to move together.

Alkins stressed the importance of being more involved at the policy level, noting the power of collective action. He said that involvement means more than voting, and whether at the local or state government level, many councils provide opportunities for the ISEE field to influence policy, including shaping the mindsets that inform written policies and legislation. He explained that representation alone is not enough to advance the field’s goals; therefore, engagement in the spaces where one can influence policy is critical. Reflecting on his sphere of influence, Crowley highlighted a policy-related tension between different departments within his own institution. He explained that on the one hand, a group of chemists and engineers is supporting and facilitating the extraction of natural gas in western Pennsylvania, which has led to great economic benefits, but on the other hand, groups are working on issues such as air quality, water quality, and civic engagement to combat the severe socioeconomic impacts of fracking. Crowley said that he cannot recall a single conversation at the university about this tension, let alone efforts to address it. He asserted that the onus to resolve such tensions cannot rest solely with the informal education sector; therefore, individuals who are situated in both spaces should adopt “a more engaged version of science that thinks through our responsibilities to community as we do our work in universities and other places.”

Ellenbogen closed the convocation by thanking participants, reflecting on the key insights from the two-day meeting, and sharing her personal thoughts about the next steps for ISEE. She highlighted a tension that emerged in the meeting between lifting up the establishment and accomplishments of the field—a focus on thriving—and concerns about the future—a focus on surviving. She also noted that the language of the conversations shifted toward concern and worry when people pondered the future and needed next steps, emphasizing preservation as paramount (individually, institutionally, and globally as a field). Ellenbogen also reiterated that the convocation reinforced the collective identity of the field and workforce, and noted that dissemination—or “surfacing the value” of the field’s work—should be an important focus as the field moves forward. This effort includes, she said, better leveraging the research, resources, and lessons from practice to tell the story of the field, demonstrate its importance, and avoid unproductive repetition. Telling the story, she explained, requires an understanding of the “elevator speech” and different ways to talk about the work (e.g., describing informal and formal as axes, not dichotomies) to ensure that funder expectations for high research output do not inadvertently encourage repetitive work and instead enable work that builds on and advances what has already been done. She noted that the convening brought together people from a wide range of sectors, institutions, and disciplines, who expressed a strong interest in building bridges and a collective voice. In this vein, she said, “there were requests for more relationship-building, more common measures of impact, more shared grant making and grant writing together, more technical supports across the field, more shared accountability across the field, [and] more looking at . . . the lifelong and life-wide studies, making sure that we’re fully covering that as a field.” Ellenbogen emphasized that a collective voice requires “radical transparency” among those in the field, intentionality about moving forward, and defining of next steps and highest priorities. She concluded by saying that the participants are very capable of doing this work, and she encouraged them to continue the conversations that were sparked over the past two days.