Differences in self-reported benefits for student-artist versus faculty experiences in a virtual artist-in-residence program.

Abstract

The value of science communication in engaging the public has been well established. While many new programs bridge the arts and sciences, conducting comprehensive examination of exiting art-science programs can produce more efficient training and program development guidance for improving visual communications in the sciences. Here, we recruited a variety of scientists and artists to collaborate in creating visual science communication products over three summers. Using survey data, we performed qualitative and quantitative analyses to define sources for negative and positive experiences and outcomes from the Vanderbilt Institute for Infection, Immunology, and Inflammation (VI4) Artist-in-Residence (AiR) program. Further, we analyze responses from participants, student-artists and faculty, to specify areas for improvement and areas successful in producing a positive experience and outcome in an AiR program. We found that time and virtual delivery of the program could be modified to improve the experience. Additionally, we found that student participants had more positive responses about "learning something new" from the program than faculty members. However, the most surprising aspect of our analysis suggests that for both "way of thinking" and "science communication to the public or general audience," there may be more significant beneficial gains for faculty compared to students. We conclude this analysis with suggestions to enhance the benefits and outcomes of an AiR program and ways to minimize the difficulties, such as communication and collaboration, faced by participants and program designers.