806909
research-article2018

SCXXXX10.1177/1075547018806909Science CommunicationNadkarni and Morris

Research Article

Baseline Attitudes andImpacts of Informal
Science Education
Lectures on Content
Knowledge and Valueof Science Among
Incarcerated Populations

Science Communication
2018, Vol. 40(6) 718­–748© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018806909
DOI: 10.1177/1075547018806909
journals.sagepub.com/home/scx

Nalini M. Nadkarni1 and Jeremy S. Morris2

Abstract
Many public audiences lack access to traditional science education. We
examined baseline perceptions and the impacts of science lectures on
incarcerated adults in two correctional institutions. Although incarcerated
populations are often characterized as having poor educational backgrounds,
being disinterested in learning, and having few tools to seek science education,
our incarcerated audiences were interested in, capable of, and desirous ofscience education. We found positive baseline attitudes about science and asignificant positive effect of science lectures on content knowledge, attitudes,
and behavioral intentions related to science, suggesting that informal sciencelectures may be an appropriate portal to science education for this population.
Keywords
informal science education, science attitudes and perceptions, science
content knowledge, incarceration, science literacy
1University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
2Wofford College, Spartanburg, SC, USA

Extensive data summaries and statistical details are available from the authors.
Corresponding Author:
Nalini M. Nadkarni, Department of Biology, University of Utah, 257 South 1400 East, Salt
Lake City, UT 84112, USA.
Email: nalini.nadkarni@utah.edu

Nadkarni and Morris

719

Introduction
A substantial challenge for scientists and science educators is to engage those
who come from nonacademic backgrounds (Holdren, 2008; Leshner, 2007).
Scientists tend to develop their questions and disseminate their work withpeople of similar cultures and education, and who hold similar values andshare common vocabularies. However, broadening participation of those
who have been traditionally underrepresented in science fields can foster adiversity of thinking, problem solving, and ways of knowing that can serve asa critical driver of excellence in research and innovation in scientific disciplines (Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering, 2013;
Guterl, 2014; National Academy of Sciences, 2011; Phillips, 2014; President’s
Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, 2012). Similarly, public
engagement in science is important for expanding the scientifically literate
populace, facilitating individuals to make decisions on issues of personal
health and public policy as informed, independent thinkers, and to decrease
the presently large gap in science understanding and trust between the scientific community and the public (Miller, 2004, 2013; Pew Research Center,2015b). The increasing importance of broadening participation and public
engagement in science has led to the designation of these practices as major
investment priorities for the National Science Foundation (National Science
Foundation, 2015) and other STEM research and education agencies (e.g.,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2015).
Although greater support for public engagement in science has led to anincrease in the number of programs and communities reached (e.g., Bauer &Jensen, 2011), there remain many communities for which pubic engagement
is limited or absent. One such audience with virtually no access to formal(K-16) science education or informal science education (ISE) venues (e.g.,
educational institutions, museums, zoos) are the 2.3 million incarcerated
people in the United States (Carson, 2015; Kirk, 2015; Minton & Zeng,2015). More than 600,000 inmates are released from federal and state prisonseach year (Carson & Golinelli, 2013). Recidivism rates (52% return to prison
within 3 years; Durose, Cooper, & Snyder, 2014) are essentially unchanged
over the past decade despite unprecedented spending on incarceration andother strategies aimed at criminal deterrence.
In addition to the general benefits of public engagement in science, educational engagement is particularly important to the incarcerated because of thedirect impact it has on their future success. A meta-analysis commissioned by
the Bureau of Justice Administration (Davis, Bozick, Steele, Saunders, &Miles, 2013) that included adult basic education, high school, GED, postsecondary education, and vocational training programs showed strong positive

720

Science Communication 40(6)outcomes following exposure of inmates to corrections education of any
type. Such exposure reduced the probability of recidivism by 13% andincreased the probability of postrelease employment by 13% (Davis et al.,2013). Similarly, formal prison education programs (e.g., Bard College’s
Bard Prison Initiative, Washington State’s College in Prisons Program) havedocumented that higher education behind bars decreases recidivism andincreases postrelease employment (Karpowitz, 2005; MacKenzie, 2006).
Incarcerated populations are also disproportionately composed of underserved populations. Ethnic minorities make up a disproportionate amount of
this population: Approximately 57% of prisoners are African American or
Latino, although they make up only 29% of the total population in the UnitedStates (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). Additionally, inmates have low levels of
educational attainment relative to the general population: 41% of inmates do
not have high school diplomas (relative to 18% for the general U.S. population), and only 13% of incarcerated people have any amount of postsecondary
education (relative to 48% for the general U.S. population; Harlow, 2003).
While formal prison education has clear benefits, these programs can bedifficult to initiate, maintain, and evaluate, especially in states where legislators
do not wish to appear “soft on crime” by expending state educational funds for
those who have broken laws. Additionally, prison education programs are often
focused on life skills and job training, which are important to corrections
administrators and politicians because they represent efforts to reduce rates ofrecidivism and increase postrelease employment. Few programs in correctional
institutions have been structured within the framework of ISE, which is characterized by fostering changes in knowledge and understanding through lifelong
learning; growing skills that develop capabilities, values, and ways of thinking;and understanding and appreciating critical thinking and scientific processes,
all outcomes that can be achieved through informal (outside of the classroom)
contexts (National Research Council, 2009).
In 2012, we started the Initiative to Bring Science Programs to the
Incarcerated (INSPIRE), a program that applies the framework of ISE toincarcerated populations. This program was modeled on the Sustainability in
Prisons Project, a partnership (cofounded in 2003 by the author, NMN)
between The Evergreen State College and the Washington State Departmentof Corrections that has established science and conservation programming at
all security levels of correctional institutions (Gallagher, 2013; Nadkarni,
Hasbach, Thys, Crockett, & Schnacker, 2017; Ulrich & Nadkarni, 2009). The
mission of INSPIRE is to bring science and nature to incarcerated populations, with the explicit goals of (1) providing inmates access to science andscientists to inspire interest in and a sense of connection to science, (2) promoting a shift in the self-images of inmates (who often have poor educational

Nadkarni and Morris721

backgrounds) from being “science-incapable” to being “science learners,”and (3) providing science knowledge, training, and skills to support a successful return of inmates to their communities. INSPIRE has established avariety of programs at correctional facilities in Utah that build connections
between science, scientists, inmates, and the corrections community throughscience lectures, workshops, and conservation projects.
The work we describe here operates within the ISE framework whose goal
is to stimulate capabilities for the “strands” of informal science learning(National Research Council, 2009). Of those, our activities apply to four of thesix strands: Strand 1. Experience excitement, interest, and motivation to learn
about phenomena in the natural and physical world; Strand 2. Come to understand, remember, and use concepts, explanations, and facts related to science;
Strand 4. Reflect on science as a way of knowing, and on a participant’s own
process of learning about phenomena; and Strand 6. Think about themselves
as science learners and develop and identity as someone who knows about,uses, and sometimes contributes to science. Our work did not directly addresscapabilities for the other two strands. The short time for interactions and useof a lecture format did not facilitate the inmates’ capacity to deeply explore,
manipulate, test, and make sense of the physical and natural world (Strand 3).
The restricted logistical capacity of the corrections environment prevented
participation in an authentic research investigation (Strand 6).
Here we present two distinct and separate data sets that are important forunderstanding participants in this program (inmates) and their reception of
one form of science programming. The first data set (baseline surveys) is frominstitution-wide onetime surveys to inmates and staff at the Salt Lake County
Jail and the Utah State Prison. These surveys characterize and compare baseline attitudes and perspectives about science, math, and nature of different
groups of inmates and corrections staff. We compared inmates survey results
among demographic variables (gender, ethnic background, and educationlevel) and correctional institutions (jail and prison), given that the differences
between institutions (e.g., in duration of incarceration, mental health [Gibbs,
1975], and opportunities for participation in other programs) may lead to different impacts on inmates. We also wanted to understand how inmate perspectives compare to the general U.S. population. For this, we used staff as a proxy
for the general U.S. population, given that they have similar demographics
and education levels (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010, 2016).
The second data set we present here if from our monthly science lecture
series. This data set assesses the impacts of science lectures on inmates’ content knowledge, attitudes, and behavioral intentions about science, math, andnature. Our lecture series program is voluntary for inmates and scientists, has
no set curriculum, and does not grant academic credit. These lectures were722

Science Communication 40(6)created collaboratively by scientists and INSPIRE staff with the express
goals of (1) promoting a high degree of interaction between presenter andaudience (within the logistical constraints imposed by correctional facilities)and (2) promoting understanding by all or most audience members, whileaccommodating the broad range in educational background of participants.
Because there was no precedent for documenting the impacts of informal
science lectures on adult populations inside corrections institutions, we carried out exploratory research (Institute of Education Sciences, 2013) basedon our previous program work with incarcerated populations. We had to create very short surveys with simple language because of the limited time available for our lecture sessions due to jail/prison scheduling constraints and toallow broader participation given the low literacy and educational levels ofsome participants. This approach is appropriate because (1) we were taking
first steps to answer questions about reception of science lectures to a novel
audience, rather than testing theory about science communication or educational constructs, and (2) we did not have access to large numbers of participants due to security and logistical constraints. Where possible, we used
items from validated surveys, modified items as necessary, and developed
our own questions when preexisting surveys did not apply. This study represents a first step in examining the potential impacts of ISE on a population
with virtually no access to formal or informal science education and may
serve as a valuable resource for engagement programs focused on communicating science to nontraditional audiences.

Materials and Method
General Framework and Survey Design
For each facility (Salt Lake County Jail and Utah State Prison), our study
consisted of two parts: (1) a onetime baseline survey of the entire populationof inmates (not including maximum security units) and staff and (2) pre- andpostlecture surveys administered to participants at each lecture. All surveys
were voluntary and were accompanied by approved consent letters. Survey
design and data management were carried out in collaboration with the Utah
Education Policy Center, an independent educational research organization
within the University of Utah. This study was reviewed and approved by theInstitutional Review Board (IRB) of the University of Utah (IRB_00061095),
including the protocols for implementing the baseline and lecture surveys,
and data management procedures. The consent letter, survey documents,
study logic model, and recruitment flyer texts were also reviewed andapproved for the duration of this study.

Nadkarni and Morris723

The exploratory nature of this work suggests a preliminary qualitative
research approach, but we have used quantitative surveys for assessment. Our
research team has been carrying out a range of activities that bring science andnature to the incarcerated since 2003 (Ulrich & Nadkarni, 2009). For the first
8 years, science lectures were sporadically delivered to adult inmates in a variety of corrections institutions without formal and systematic evaluation instruments. However, these provided opportunities for informal feedback ofinmates and corrections staff and allowed us to gauge the level of appropriate
lecture terminology and concepts and to understand the reading abilities andattention spans of inmates. This information led us to place necessary constraints on language, amount of text, and length of written surveys.
Using this knowledge, the questions and categories for our surveys werecreated by a professional evaluator at the Utah Education Policy Center(based at the University of Utah). Survey questions were based around the
topics of science, math, nature, and conservation because those are the primary focus on INSPIRE programming. Evaluation instruments were based inpart on the theory of planned behavior and the theory of reasoned action(Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; de Leeuw, Valois, Aizen, & Schmidt, 2015).
However, the novel nature of this audience (incarcerated men and womenand corrections staff) and lack of preceding studies did not allow direct use ofthat literature. Where possible, we used items from validated surveys, modified items as necessary, and developed our own questions when preexisting
surveys did not apply. The following survey question topics were derived
from validated scales: attitudes toward science, who can do science, andenjoyment of studying science and math (Scientific Attitude Inventory;
Moore & Foy, 1997); perception of the utility of science in daily life
(Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire; Pintrich & De Groot,1990); value of knowing math to help earn a living (Fennema–Sherman
Mathematics Attitudes Scale; Fennema & Sherman, 1976); and value of environmental protection for benefits to self and others (New Environmental/
Ecological Paradigm scale; Dunlap & Van Liere, 1978; Dunlap, Van Liere,
Mertig, & Jones, 2000). All other survey questions were original and notderived from validated scales.

Study Sites
The Salt Lake County Jail is operated by the Salt Lake County Sheriff’s
Office and houses approximately 2,300 inmates. The Utah State Prison,
located 20 miles south of Salt Lake City, is managed by the Utah Departmentof Corrections. It is the primary state prison in Utah and has a capacity of
4,300 inmates, from minimum to maximum security. Baseline surveys were724

Science Communication 40(6)delivered to all inmates (both men and women) in minimum and medium
level security at both the jail and prison. Because of logistical constraints,science lectures were delivered to men only. At the jail, lectures occurred ina minimum and medium security cellblock in the “Metro” facility, whichhouses up to 64 inmates in double-tiered cells. At the prison, lectures weredelivered in the gymnasium of the “Promontory” Unit, a 400-bed medium
security–level sub-unit for men who participate in structured substance abuseor sex offender treatment programs.

Baseline Survey
Inmates. At the Salt Lake County Jail, all inmates (both men and women) in
minimum- and medium-level security facilities (approximately 1,500 inmates
total) were invited to participate in the baseline survey. INSPIRE staff visited
each participating housing unit to distribute surveys. Inmates who chose toparticipate completed the surveys immediately, which were then collected byjail officers. At the Utah State Prison, all inmates (approximately 2,800, both
men and women, excluding maximum security and severe mental illness
units) were invited to complete baseline surveys. Prison staff distributed thesurveys. Inmates returned their completed survey within 3 days, using theinternal mail system. Inmate surveys at both locations were available in English and Spanish. Baseline survey questions were based in the following constructs (with Cronbach’s alpha or Spearman–Brown (rSB) reliability scores):(1) Identity With Science and Scientists (α = .70), (2) Science and MathConnection to Life (α = .81), (3) Relationship With the Environment (α =.83), (4) Behavioral Intentions Related to Science (rSB = .79), (5) General
Education or Job Training (rSB = .69), (6) Science Education (rSB = .76), (7)Math Education (rSB = .56), (8) Employment Related to the Environment (α= .87), (9) Incarceration (α = .13), and (10) Logistics (rSB = .56). As indicated by Cronbach’s alpha and rSB scores (for two-item categories; Eisinga,
Grotenhuis, & Pelzer, 2013), constructs for science-, math-, and naturerelated questions were acceptably reliable. For Incarceration questions, reliability was low. Questions on the surveys were randomly ordered but arereordered here to facilitate interpretation. Questions were formatted as
5-point Likert-type scale items. The response scale ranged from strongly disagree to strongly agree; for behavioral intention-based questions, the scale
ranged from very unlikely to very likely.
Staff. Staff working at the jail (approximately 700) and prison (approximately 890) were invited to complete staff baseline surveys. These surveys
were conducted online (Qualtrics LLC, Provo, UT) and were accessedNadkarni and Morris

725

through a recruitment e-mail message that was written by INSPIRE staff anddistributed by administration at each facility. Baseline survey questions werebased in the following constructs (with Cronbach’s alpha reliability scores):(1) Identity With Science and Scientists (α = .66), (2) Science and MathConnection to Life (α = .84), (3) Relationship With the Environment (α =.83), (4) Science Education (α = .77), and (5) Math Education (α = .57).
Reliability scores are calculated for inmate and staff data separately because
the surveys were not identical (some inmate-focused questions were notapplicable to staff). Questions on the actual surveys were randomly ordered.
Questions were reordered here to facilitate interpretation.
Analysis. Demographic data were self-reported on surveys. For gender, we
compared individuals identifying as men and women. For ethnic background, because of the small percentage of minority inmates at the jail (35%)
and the prison (19%), we compared White non-Hispanics with all minorities
pooled. For the analysis based on educational level, we used three groupings: less than high school diploma, high school diploma or GED, and morethan high school diploma (included some college, associate’s or bachelor’s
degree, and graduate or professional school). To determine if baseline survey responses differed by institution and demographic variables, we used a
2 (location: jail, prison) × 2 (gender: men, women) × 2 (ethnic background:White, minority) × 3 (education level: less than high school degree, highschool degree of GED, more than high school) analysis of variance (ANOVA)
with each set of construct scores as dependent variables. To examine differences in construct scores among demographic variables within each institution, we used 2 (gender) × 2 (ethnic background) × 3 (education level)
ANOVA tests with post hoc Dunn tests for 3-group comparisons (educational level). To compare data between inmates and staff within each institution, we used 2 (group: inmates, staff) × 2 (gender) × 2 (ethnic background)× 3 (education level) ANOVA tests. Construct scores for inmates-staff comparisons were built from common questions between inmate and staff surveys (indicated on tables). Additionally, we used Wilcoxon rank sum tests to
examine differences for individual survey question responses. Within each
set of comparisons, p values were adjusted using the false discovery rate
procedure (Benjamini & Hochberg, 1995). To summarize baseline survey
data, we calculated the percentage of agree or strongly agree responses foreach survey question. For questions with reversed polarity, we calculated thepercentage of disagree or strongly disagree responses. For behavioral intention questions, percentages represent likely or very likely responses. Allanalyses were carried out in the R Statistical Programming Environment (RDevelopment Core Team, 2016).

726

Science Communication 40(6)Lecture Surveys
Inmates. Lectures were carried out in men’s facilities only at both the jail andprison. At the jail, the lecture was verbally announced 5 minutes before it
started and was available to any inmate in the unit who chose and was allowed
to attend. At the prison, the lecture was announced by printed flyers 2 weeks
in advance. All attendees at science lectures were given the opportunity tocomplete voluntary pre- and postlecture surveys (approximately 25-80 people per lecture). The surveys were passed out by corrections staff and/or
INSPIRE staff. Prelecture surveys were distributed and collected before thelecture started. Postlecture surveys were distributed and collected after thelecture had ended. Pre- and postlecture survey questions were identical.
Science content knowledge questions (3 lecture-specific questions,grouped at the beginning of each survey) were unique for each lecture. These
were written by INSPIRE staff and were designed to gauge learning of broadconcepts covered in a given lecture. For example, in a lecture on diabetes, thefollowing true/false content knowledge questions were asked: (1) Diabetes
affects only people who are very unhealthy; (2) Blood sugar levels should
always be high; and (3) Insulin helps control the level of sugar in the bloodstream. For a lecture on the sun, the questions were the following: (1) The sun
outputs about the same amount of power as an atomic bomb; (2) The sun does
not have a magnetic field; and (3) The sun releases only visible forms of light.
For a lecture on CRISPR, the questions were the following: (1) CRISPR is agene editing tool that scientists invented and (2) Scientists understand thefunction of all the DNA in the human genome; (3) Enhancers are pieces of
DNA that act like switches to control genes.
Survey questions focusing on attitudes related to science and math werebased in the following categories: (1) Identity With Science and Scientists, (2)Science and Math Connection to Life, (3) Relationship With the Environment,(4) Science Education, (5) Math Education, and (6) Employment Related to
the Environment. These attitude-based questions were reliable as a construct
for both pre- and postlecture surveys (α = .79 and .80, respectively). Questions
on the actual surveys were randomly ordered but are reordered here to aid ininterpretation. Survey questions focusing on behavioral intentions related toscience and science media were grouped at the end of each survey. The reliability for the behavioral intention–based question construct was also satisfactory (α = .80 and .83 for pre- and postlecture surveys).
Lectures and Recruitment of Speakers. We coordinated 23 lectures at the jailand 12 at the prison. Topics included a wide variety of scientific research:trees, cone snail venom, worm memory, human gut microbiota, antibiotic

Nadkarni and Morris

727

resistance, ant diversity, pika ecology, physics of the human voice, biomechanics of gray wolves, structure of viruses, watersheds, the effects of inactivity on human health, bird anatomy, ant–plant ecological interactions,biochemistry of cancer drugs, bird migration, large carnivore conservation,mathematical modeling of the common cold, and the genetics of feather traits
in pigeons. All speakers delivering lectures were academic researchers (faculty, graduate students, and postdoctoral researchers) from science departments at universities in Utah. INSPIRE staff assisted speakers in the designof their presentations in order to ensure that the material was at the correct
educational level, was the correct length, and incorporated audience interactions. Speakers were encouraged to pose questions during the presentationand to solicit frequent feedback from the audience. Following each lecture, aquestion-and-answer session occurred that typically lasted about 15 minutes.
Lectures were each stand-alone presentations, and there was no set curriculum. This is crucial in correctional institutions, where turnover is high.
Indeed, most lecture participants attended only one lecture (detailed below).
To recruit speakers, an initial solicitation for speakers was sent throughdepartmental correspondence within the University of Utah. Following this,all speaker recruitment has been word of mouth and has been sustained
through the perceived values of the program and positive experiences of
speakers. Speakers were offered a letter of appreciation and a modest stipend(most speakers declined the stipend).
Analysis. Pre- and postlecture surveys were matched using inmate identification numbers (issued by the correctional institutions) that participants provided on surveys. Unmatched surveys were omitted from analysis. A small
number of surveys (n = 33 and 16 at the jail and prison, respectively) wereomitted due to our interpretation that responses were arbitrary (e.g., a line
drawn through all rows, indicating that participant was not actually answering each question individually). To determine if survey responses changed asa result of the lecture experience, we compared survey constructs between
pre- and postlecture survey data using nonparametric Wilcoxon signed rank
tests on the first factor of each survey construct. For this analysis, we used
only data from the first lecture attended by each participant (some individuals
attended multiple lectures). We also used Wilcoxon signed rank tests to
examine individual survey questions. To summarize pre-post changes byquestion type (content, attitude, and behavioral intention), we compared themean difference in responses from pre- to postlecture. To determine if the
pre-post changes differed by institution, we compared data from the jail andprison. Within each set of comparisons, p values were adjusted using the false
discovery rate procedure (Benjamini & Hochberg, 1995).

728

Science Communication 40(6)Results
Baseline Surveys
Demographics. About one third of the eligible inmates at both the jail (34%)
and prison (38%) completed the baseline surveys (n = 511 and 1066, respectively). About 8% of jail staff and 28% of prison staff completed surveys (n= 57 and 247, respectively). Demographic summaries for all participants
indicate that survey respondents at both the jail and the prison were mostlymen (77% and 70%, respectively) and that the majority were White nonHispanic (65% at the jail and 81% at the prison). Hispanics made up the largest proportion of minority groups (26% at the jail and 12% at the prison). For
highest level of educational attained, the largest category in both the jail andprison was a high school diploma (26% and 34%), followed by “some college” (23% and 29%) and “some high school” (18% and 6%). Participating
staff from both institutions had a fairly even gender balance, with men representing 56% of respondents at the jail and 59% at the prison. Staff were
mostly White non-Hispanic (89% at the jail and 83% at the prison). As withinmates, the highest proportion of minority groups was Hispanic (9% and4%). For education level, the most common category for staff was “somecollege” (42% and 31%) or an associate’s degree (26% and 23%).
Survey Responses. In general, responses for attitudes about science, math, andnature were highly positive, with an average of 83% and 78% of inmates
responding with agree or strongly agree (on attitude questions) or likely orvery likely (on behavioral intention questions) at the jail and prison, respectively (Table 1). Positive responses were highest for questions in the categories of Science Education, Relationship With the Environment, Math
Education, Identity With Science and Scientists, and Science and Math Connection to Life. Inmates responded positively to questions on Employment
Related to the Environment and were fairly likely to seek out science media
or discuss science with others (Behavioral Intentions Related to Science).
Questions not related to science/math/nature indicated that inmates werehighly interested in continuing their education (General Education or Job
Training), that they did not feel strongly connected to the outside world(Incarceration), and that they did not like filling out surveys (Logistics).
Responses were significantly more positive (p < .05; ANOVA) for jailinmates as compared to prison inmates for 8 of 10 survey constructs (theexceptions were General Education or Job Training and Incarceration) and in
30 of 39 survey questions. Prison inmates had more positive responses forone survey construct (Incarceration).

729

Nadkarni and Morris
Table 1. Summary of Responses From Institution-Wide Baseline Surveys for
Inmates at the Salt Lake County Jail and the Utah State Prison.

% Agree orstrongly agree
Baseline survey constructs and questions

Jail

PrisonIdentity With Science and Scientists (F = 26.07, p < .001*; mean difference = −0.245)
82*
75  1a. Only highly trained scientists can understandscience.b   2. Scientists are not so different from me.
66
65  3a. Scientific work is useful only to scientists.
75
80*
72*
68
  4a. Scientific work would be too hard for me.b   5. Working in science or learning about science would
92*
86
be fun.
   6. I would probably sign up for a university
90*
78
presentation on science if it were available.
   7. I would probably sign up for university presentation
84*
79
about something other than science if it wereavailable.
80
76
Science and Math Connection to Life (F = 6.21, p = .014*; mean difference = −0.116)
74*
72
8. Science helps me in my daily life.b
9. Math helps me in my daily life.
86*
84
10. Knowing science will help me earn a living.
67*
60
82
83
11. Knowing math will help me earn a living.b
77
75
Relationship With the Environment (F = 17.67, p < .001*; mean difference = −0.241)
12. The earth has plenty of natural resources if we just
90*
80
learn how to develop them.
13. Engaging in actions that help the Earth, such as
90
89
recycling and reducing waste, is important to me.
14. I think of myself as a part of nature, not separate
84*
81
from it.b
15. I really enjoy being outdoors.
98*
95
16. I would like to learn to grow my own vegetables.
91*
87
17. I feel a personal bond with things in my natural
89*
82
surroundings, like trees, a stream, wildlife, or theview on the horizon.
80
79
18a. I do not worry about environmental problems.
19. Sustainability is about balancing economic
74*
70
development with environmental conservation andfairness.
(continued)

730

Science Communication 40(6)Table 1. (continued)% Agree orstrongly agree
Baseline survey constructs and questions

Jail

Prison

86*

82

92*

88

94*
88
Behavioral Intentions Related to Science (F = 13.63, p < .001*; meandifference = −0.137)
77*
23c. How likely are you to look for information
about science (for example, on television or innewspapers)?b
24c. How likely are you to talk to someone in the jail/64*
prison about issues related to science?b
71
General Education or Job Training (F = 2.63, p = .105)
25. I would like to continue my education.
95*
26. I am interested in vocational education or job skills
89
training.
92
Science Education (F = 30.06, p < .001*; mean difference = −0.275)
91*
27. I would enjoy studying science while I’m in jail/prison.b28. I would like to participate in a science project
93*
during my time in jail/prison (such as raisingendangered butterflies or endangered plants).
92
Math Education (F = 7.30, p = .010*; mean difference = −0.140)82*
29. I would enjoy studying math while I’m in jail/prison.b
30. I am sure that I can learn math.
90*
86
Employment Related to the Environment (F = 42.44, p < .001*; meandifference = −0.363)
73*
31. When I leave jail/prison, I would prefer a job where
I work with plants or animals.b
32. When I leave jail/prison, I would prefer a job that76*
helps protect the natural environment.b

91
84

20. Sustainability is about conserving resources, so thatthey are available to future generations.
21. In order to conserve resources, I would be willingto take personal action such as using less water andturning off lights.
22. Environmental protection benefits everyone.b

71
61
66
92
88
90
82
84
83
72
88
80

56
64
(continued)

731Nadkarni and Morris
Table 1. (continued)% Agree orstrongly agree
Baseline survey constructs and questions
33. I would like to spend time in jail/prison learning
skills I could use in a “green” job when I leave jail/prison. (Green jobs are those that help improve theenvironment.)
Incarceration (F = 6.59, p = .013*; mean difference = 0.140)
34. My family or friends outside jail/prison know whatsort of work or programs I am involved in here.
35. I don’t feel like I am part of a community inside thisjail/prison.
36. Even though I am in jail/prison, I still feel connectedto the outside community.
37. Even though I am in jail/prison, it is important to me
to contribute to the outside community if I can.
Logistics (F = 37.42, p < .001*; mean difference = −0.272)
38a. I do not like filling out surveys.
39. I would be willing to complete a longer survey than
this one.

Jail

Prison

84*

73

78

64

58

72*

47*

43

37

40*

86

84

57

60

52*
72*

33
61

62

47

Note: Analysis of variance tests were used to compare factor scores for each survey
construct (results shown after category heading; mean difference between factor scores,
prison relative to jail, for significant results). Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to compare
raw Likert-type scale data between institutions for individual survey questions. Mean
percentage scores for each question category are in boldface.
aQuestions with reversed polarity; percentages represented are for disagree or strongly
disagree. bSimilar or identical question also appears on lecture surveys. cBehavioral Intention
questions; percentages represented are for likely or very likely.
*p < .05, after correction for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate method.

Our demographic analysis included comparisons of inmates within each
institution based on gender, ethnic background, and highest level of education attained (Table 2). No significant differences in survey constructs were
found between men and women inmates at the jail. However, among prison
inmates, men had significantly more positive scores (p < .05; ANOVA) in 7
of 10 survey constructs. For the analysis incorporating ethnic background,minorities had significantly more positive scores (p < .05; ANOVA) thanWhite, non-Hispanic inmates in one survey construct (Math Education) at the

732

Jail
Identity With Science and Scientists
Science and Math Connection to Life
Relationship With the Environment
Behavioral Intentions Related to Science
General Education or Job Training
Science Education
Math Education
Employment Related to Environment
Incarceration
Logistics
PrisonIdentity With Science and Scientists
Science and Math Connection to Life

Baseline survey constructs

9.35*
4.81*

3.40
2.60
1.80
2.84
0.86
0.18
1.04
0.10
0.80
0.43

F

♂>♀
♂>♀

Difference

Gender

1.17
0.31

1.75
1.38
0.58
4.48
0.10
2.10
1.68
1.12
1.58
0.94

F

Difference

Ethnicity

31.90*
12.04*

8.53*
6.62*
2.40
11.07*
1.05
1.71
3.61
0.07
2.18
5.00*

F

(continued)

HS+ > HS, HS−
HS+ > HS, HS−

HS+, HS− > HS

HS+ > HS, HS

HS+ > HS, HS−
HS+ > HS, HS−

Differencea

Education

Table 2. Results From demographic Analysis (Gender, Ethnic Background, and Education Level) of Institution-Wide Baseline
Surveys for Inmates at the Salt Lake County Jail and Utah State Prison.

733

8.06*
51.69*
0.85
2.35
5.24*
8.35*
2.36
11.05*

F
1.32
1.06
6.47
0.28
9.42*
0.72
0.25
0.90

♂>♀
♂>♀

♂>♀

♂>♀
♂>♀

F

M>W

Difference

Ethnicity

Difference

Gender

4.50*
23.02*
1.17
8.17*
8.52*
2.37
0.74
7.33*

F

HS+ > HS, HS−

HS+ > HS
HS+ > HS

HS+ > HS
HS+ > HS, HS−

Differencea

Education

Note: Analysis of variance tests (with post hoc Dunn tests for three-group comparisons) were used to compare data from demographic groups
using factor scores for each survey construct. For gender, we compare self-identified men (♂) and women (♀). For ethnic background, we compare
White, non-Hispanic (W) to all minorities (M) pooled, given the low proportion of minorities in our sample. For education level, we compare
those that have attained a GED or high school diploma (HS), those with less education (HS−), and those with more education (HS+). Relationships
between mean differences in construct factor scores are indicated when significant differences were found.
aDifferences shown only if significant (p < .05) using post hoc Dunn tests with correction.
*p < .05, after correction for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate method.

Relationship With the Environment
Behavioral Intentions Related to Science
General Education or Job Training
Science Education
Math Education
Employment Related to Environment
Incarceration
Logistics

Baseline survey constructs

Table 2. (continued)

734

Science Communication 40(6)prison, whereas no differences were found at the jail. For the analysis basedon educational level, we found significantly more positive scores with greaterlevels of educational attainment in four survey constructs at the jail (Identity
With Science and Scientists, Science and Math Connection to Life, Behavioral
Intentions Related to Science, and Logistics) and in seven constructs at theprison (all except General Education or Job Training, Employment Related toEnvironment, and Incarceration; p < .05; ANOVA with post hoc Dunn tests).
Staff baseline survey data indicated generally positive responses (Table3), with the highest scores in the categories of Relationship With theEnvironment and Identity With Science and Scientists. Scores were fairly
positive in the other three categories: Science Education, Math Education,and Science and Math Connection to Life. There were no significant differences between survey constructs or individual survey question responses by
jail and prison staff.
When comparing staff and inmate responses within institutions, inmates
had significantly more positive responses (p < .05; ANOVA) in all five survey constructs at both facilities and in 20 of 24 comparable individual survey
questions at the jail and in 22 of 24 at the prison (Table 3). An important notefor interpreting the results of individual survey questions comparing staff andinmate data is that for six of these comparisons (2 for jail data, 4 for prisondata), inmates had higher mean Likert-type scale scores while, simultaneously, staff had higher values for % agree or strongly agree. This occurredbecause, in these cases, inmates had proportionally more strongly agree
responses (Likert-type scale score = 5) than staff, who had proportionallymore agree responses (Likert-type scale score = 4).

Lecture Surveys
Demographics. Participating inmates (n = 395 and 167 unique participants at
the jail and prison, respectively) at both institutions were mostly White nonHispanic (62% and 80%). Hispanics made up the largest proportion of minority groups (24% and 13%). For highest level of educational attained, thelargest category in both the jail and prison was a high school diploma (32%
and 35%), followed by “some college” (18% and 27%) and “some highschool” (18% and 8%).
Survey Responses. Analysis included 521 matched pre- and postlecture surveys (23 lectures, 395 unique participants) from the jail and 402 matchedsurveys (12 lectures, 167 unique participants) from the prison (Table 4). Lecture-specific science content knowledge increased from pre- to postlecture
surveys at both the jail (58% to 84% of questions answered correctly) and735

Nadkarni and Morris

Table 3. Summary of Responses From Institution-Wide Baseline Surveys for Staff
at the Salt Lake County Jail and the Utah State Prison.
% Agree or strongly agree
Baseline survey constructs and questions

Jail (n = 57)

Prison (n = 247)

Identity With Science and Scientists (F = 0.03, p = .948)
Jail inmates/staff: F = 9.08, p = .003*; mean difference = 0.175
Prison inmates/staff: F = 13.19, p < .001*; mean difference = 0.099
93 I
84 S
1a. Only highly trained scientists canunderstand science.b
2.  Scientists are not so different from me.
69 N
64 I
3a. Scientific work is useful only to
90 N
91 I
scientists.
4a. Scientific work would be too hard for
83 N
77 N
me.b
   5. Working in science or learning about
76 I
82 I
science would be fun.
82
80
Science and Math Connection to Life (F = 0.66, p = 0.948)
Jail inmates/staff: F = 20.65, p < .001*; mean difference = 0.453
Prison inmates/staff: F = 72.91, p < .001*; mean difference = 0.517   6. Science helps me in my daily life.b
72 I
74 I
   7. Math helps me in my daily life.
81 I
82 I
   8. More science education would be good
55 I
53 I
for my professional advancement.
   9. More math education would be good for
64 I
56 I
my professional advancement.
10. Science education will help offenders get
53 N/A
48 N/Ajobs when they leave jail/prison.
11. Math education will help offenders get
64 N/A
71 N/Ajobs when they leave jail/prison.
65
64
Relationship With the Environment (F = 1.25, p = 0.948)
Jail inmates/staff: F = 26.85, p < .001*; mean difference = 0.594
Prison inmates/staff: F = 87.83, p < 0.001*; mean difference = 0.604
12. The earth has plenty of natural
74 I
79 I
resources if we just learn how todevelop them.
13. Engaging in actions that help the earth,
84 I
87 I
such as recycling and reducing waste, is
important to me.
(continued)

736

Science Communication 40(6)Table 3. (continued)% Agree or strongly agree
Baseline survey constructs and questions
14. I think of myself as a part of nature, notseparate from it.b
15. I really enjoy being outdoors.
16. I would like to learn to grow my own
vegetables.
17. I feel a personal bond with things in
my natural surroundings, like trees,a stream, wildlife, or the view on thehorizon.
18a. I do not worry about environmental
problems.
19. Sustainability is about balancing
economic development withenvironmental conservation andfairness.
20. Sustainability is about conserving
resources, so that they are available tofuture generations.
21. In order to conserve resources, I would
be willing to take personal action suchas using less water and turning off lights.
22. Environmental protection benefits
everyone.b

Jail (n = 57)

Prison (n = 247)

74 I

79 I

95 I
81 I

93 I
78 I

72 I

68 I

79 N

76 I

71 I

75 I

89 I

86 I

89 I

88 I

89 I

81 I

82
Science Education (F = 0.26, p = .948)
Jail inmates/staff: F = 42.66, p < .001*; mean difference = 0.613
Prison inmates/staff: F = 73.65, p < .001*; mean difference = 0.468
81 I
23. I would enjoy studying science.b
24. Science education will improve
64 N/A
offenders’ lives while they are in jail/prison.
25. A lecture series on science would be
66 I
worthwhile to implement at this jail/prison.
70
Math Education (F < 0.01, p = .948)
Jail inmates/staff: F = 27.83, p < 0.001*; mean difference = 0.503

81

78 I
63 N/A
63 I
68(continued)

737

Nadkarni and Morris
Table 3. (continued)% Agree or strongly agree
Baseline survey constructs and questions

Jail (n = 57)

Prison (n = 247)

Prison inmates/staff: F = 67.99, p < .001*; mean difference = 0.421
26. I am sure that I can learn math.
89 I
52 I
27. I would enjoy studying math.b
28. Math education will improve offenders’68 N/A
lives while they are in jail/prison.
70

85 I
51 I
69 N/A
68

Note: Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to compare data from each location using thefirst factor for each survey construct (results shown after category heading; mean difference
between factor scores, prison relative to jail, for significant results), to compare staff toinmate survey construct factors (results shown below category heading; mean difference
between factor scores, inmates relative to staff, for significant results), and to compare raw
Likert-type scale data between staff and inmates at each institution. Mean percentage scoresfor each question category are in boldface.
aQuestions with reversed polarity; percentages represented are for disagree or strongly
disagree. bSimilar or identical question also appears on lecture surveys.
*p < .05, after correction for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate method.
Significantly greater values in groups (p < .05, after correction for multiple comparisons): I:
inmates; S: staff; N: no difference; N/A: no comparison (no comparable question on Inmate
Baseline Survey).

Table 4. Summary and Comparisons of Pre- and Postlecture Survey Responses
for Science Lectures Given at the Salt Lake County Jail (n = 23 Lectures, 521
Matched Surveys From 395 Unique Participants) and Utah State Prison (n = 12
Lectures, 402 Matched Surveys From 167 Unique Participants).
% Agree or strongly agree
Jail
Lecture survey constructs and questions

Pre

Prison
Post

Pre

Post

Content questions (3 lecture-specific questions per survey, combined for analysis)
58
84* 6789*
1-3aAttitude questions
Jail: V = 16,784, p < .001*; mean difference = 0.014
Prison: V = 2,076, p < .001*; mean difference = 0.069
Identity With Science and Scientists
86* 7990
88
4b. Only highly trained scientists can understandscience.
5b. Scientific work would be too hard for me.
68
70
81
84
(continued)

738

Science Communication 40(6)Table 4. (continued)% Agree or strongly agree
Jail
Lecture survey constructs and questions
Science and Math Connection to Life   6. Science helps me in my daily life.
   7. Knowing math will help me earn a living.
Relationship With the Environment   8. I think of myself as part of nature, not separate
from it.
   9. Environmental protection benefits everyone.
Science Education
10. I would enjoy studying science.
Math Education
11. I would enjoy studying math.
Employment Related to the Environment
12. In general, I would prefer a job where I workwith plants or animals.
13. I would like a job that helps to protect thenatural environment.
Behavioral Intentions Related to Science
Jail: V = 10,158, p < .001*; mean difference = 0.013
Prison: V = 1,944, p = .011*; mean difference = 0.032
How likely are you to . . .
14c. look for information that is related to science(for example, on television or in newspapers)?
15c. look for information that is related to the topic
of today’s lecture?
16c. talk to someone in the prison about issues
related to science?

Prison

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

84
88

88*
88

88
88

94*
90

86

88*

94

95

85

88*

91

93*

81

83*

86

90*

70

70*

65

66

54

63*

67

72*

72

78*

80

83

70

75*

86

89*

61

70*

79

83*

51

60*

83

84*

Note: Wilcoxon signed rank tests were used to compare pre-post data from each location
using factor scores for each survey construct (results shown below category heading; meandifference between factor scores, postlecture survey relative to prelecture survey, forsignificant results; data include first lecture only for each participant) and to compare raw
Likert-type scale data between pre- and postlecture surveys (full data set).
aRecoded from a 5-point Likert-type scale such that responses of 4 (agree) and 5 (strongly
agree) indicate correct answers. bQuestions with reversed polarity; percentages represented
are for disagree or strongly disagree. cBehavioral intention questions; percentages represented
are for likely or very likely.
*p < .05, after correction for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate method.

Nadkarni and Morris

739

Figure 1. Summary of lecture survey data before (pre) and after (post) sciencelectures: Data from (A) the Salt Lake County Jail and (B) the Utah State Prison.

Note: Percentages are given for content questions answered correctly (Questions 1-3, data
pooled), attitude questions answered with agree or strongly agree (Questions 4-13, mean),and behavioral intention questions answered with likely or very likely (Questions 14-16,mean). For each question type, mean response values (and construct scores; see Table 4)
increased significantly from prelecture to postlecture (p < .05, Wilcoxon signed rank tests
with correction for multiple comparisons). For two attitude questions (4 and 5) with reversed
polarity, responses represented are for disagree or strongly disagree. See Table 4 for survey
questions and average responses.

prison (67% to 89%; p < .05; Wilcoxon signed rank tests). Inmates’ attitudes
about science, math, and nature (Attitude construct) became significantly
more positive from pre- to postlecture (p < .05; Wilcoxon signed rank tests;
data from first lecture attended for each participant only). Likewise, individual question scores increased in 7 of 10 questions at the jail and 4 of 10 questions at the prison. In one question at the jail (Question 4: Only highly trained
scientists can understand science), attitude became more negative from pre-to
postlecture. The Behavioral Intention construct also increased from pre- topostlecture (p < .05; Wilcoxon signed rank tests; data from first lectureattended for each participant only). Individual survey questions indicated that
inmates were significantly more likely to seek out science media and weremore likely to talk about science with others after the lecture than before.
Results from the subset of data that included each participant only one time(first lecture only) were nearly identical to the results from the full data set.
When combining data by question type (content knowledge, attitude, or
behavioral intention), mean Likert-type scale scores increased in all three
categories for both the jail and prison data (p < .05, Wilcoxon signed rank
tests; Figure 1). The magnitude of increase in scores from pre- to postlecture
was similar for content knowledge and attitude questions at the jail and prison

740

Science Communication 40(6)whereas scores for behavioral intention questions increased more at the jailthan at the prison.

Discussion
Although incarcerated populations are often characterized as having poor
educational backgrounds, being disinterested in learning, and having few
tools or desires to seek higher education, our results depict incarcerated audiences as being interested in, capable of, and desirous of science education. In
both the jail and the prison, the lecture series produced considerable increases
in science content knowledge (pre- to postlecture increases); increases inpositive attitudes related to science, math, and nature; and an increase in the
self-reported likelihood that inmates would seek out science media and talkabout science with others.
There are four limitations to consider when interpreting these results.
First, the voluntary nature of this program may have influenced the results ofour surveys. Both attendance at the science lectures and completion of preand postlecture surveys were voluntary. This may have selected for attendees
who were more likely to respond positively on surveys. Second, both responsebias and pleasing bias may have influenced our results, given the limited
opportunities for inmates to engage with outside parties and the limited number of programming options available within correctional institutions. Third,
survey questions about employment (e.g., “I would like a job that helps toprotect the natural environment”) are difficult to interpret given that mostinmates are not employed and thus may have a desire for any type of job.
Finally, logistical constraints (e.g., limited access to inmates, high turnoverrates of attendees, and lack of ability to contact inmates after our sciencelectures due to institutional security rules) prevented us from obtaining measures of the durability of changes in science content knowledge and perspectives on science.
Because our survey design was constrained by both logistics (institutionalrules) and participant inclusion (to accommodate a very broad range of literacy and educational background), our survey instruments were not directly
calibrated with measures from other studies of science literacy or attitudes
about science among the general public. However, levels of interest in andattitudes about science in our sample of inmates are remarkably to similar oreven exceeded those of the general public, as reported in three measures ofscience literacy of the U.S. population. First, in a longitudinal study of science
literacy of the general public, Miller (2004) reported that approximately 80%
of respondents rated that the world was better off and had more opportunities
due to science, and that 72% of general public audiences stated that theNadkarni and Morris741

benefits of science are much or slightly greater than the harms of science. A
second nationwide survey in 2014 (Pew Research Center, 2015b) of 2,000
members of the general public indicated that 79% of adults think that sciencehas made life easier for most people and that a majority are positive about
scientists’ impact on the quality of life. Similarly, more indicated that sciencehas had a positive (62%) rather than negative (31%) impact on the quality ofthe environment today. The responses from inmates’ surveys closest to theseassessments indicated a comparable level of positivity: 72% to 86% of inmatesviewed science and math as being an important part of their lives (Table 1).
Many inmates saw themselves as interested in (78% to 92%) and capableof (68% to 82%) science, and that they would “sign up for a university presentation if it were available” (78% to 90%). On institution-wide baseline
surveys, the mean percentage of positive responses for questions based oninterest and connection to science, math, and nature ranged from 75% to88%. Inmates were enthusiastic about science and math education (80%
to 92% positive responses) and employment related to the environment (64%to 78% positive responses). Inmates were also fairly likely to seek out science
media and talk with others about science (66% to 71%).
Science/math/nature positivity was higher among jail inmates compared
to prison inmates. This result is important because it may reflect one of theeffects of the duration of incarceration. Prison sentences are generally greaterthan a year, whereas the length of incarceration in jails is much shorter. At theSalt Lake County Jail, for example, the average length of stay is 20 days and
55% of inmates are released from jail within 3 days (Salt Lake County
Auditor, 2001). The effects of jail and prison incarceration on inmates differ
in other ways that may lead to differences in perspectives, such as a focus
outward (on release and outside support community) versus inward (on personal security and self-reliance) for jail and prison inmates, respectively(Gibbs, 1975).
We found that jail and prison staff also had generally positive attitudes:
Mean percentage of positive responses for Identity With Science and Scientists,
Science and Math Connection to Life, and Relationship With the Environment
questions ranged from 64% to 82%. When using staff as a proxy for the general U.S. population (these groups have similar demographics and educationlevels; U.S. Census Bureau, 2010, 2016), we found that inmates had morepositive scores in all five survey constructs at both institutions.
Our demographic analysis of inmates indicated that men, as compared to
women, at the prison had more positive identity with and connection to science, more positive views of math education, and greater interest in employment related to the environment. These results are similar to those from otherstudies, which have shown that women generally have less interest in science

742

Science Communication 40(6)and technology (National Science Board, 2014; Pew Research Center,2015a), less favorable attitudes toward science (Hayes & Tariq, 2000), andconstitute a larger percentage of “science pessimists” than men (Nisbet &Markowitz, 2014). Studies of student populations have also shown strong
gender-stereotyped patterns of science-related attitudes and engagement,
including lower levels of optimism and confidence about science among girls(reviewed in Osborne, Simon, & Collins, 2003) that is associated with lower
participation by girls in physics (e.g., Gill & Bell, 2013) and other secondary
science courses (e.g., Mack & Walsh, 2013). Interestingly, we found no gender differences in survey constructs at the jail.
We found few differences based on ethnic background, though minorities
at the prison were more positive view of math education (Math Education
construct). Education level had a strong effect on attitude and behavioral
intentions related to science, math, nature, and science and math education.
Generally, more positive scores for these questions were associated withhigher levels of education. These results are consistent with previous studies
that have shown strong associations between science positivity and interestand the levels of both formal and science-/math-specific education (National
Science Board, 2014; Nisbet & Markowitz, 2014).
Our results are derived from a large sample of inmates in Utah, fromwhich we suggest that interactive science lectures and additional ISE
approaches may be of use for incarcerated population. Our results also provide support for the implementation of more science education within prisonsand jails, which is consistent with recent reports on the impacts of corrections
education in general (Davis et al., 2013; Vacca, 2004). Inmates benefit
through increased access to science information and direct exposure to theways scientists think and act that would otherwise seem or be unreachable.
Because only a few prisons offer anything beyond basic education (GED,
vocational certificates, high school, and with a very few exceptions, higher
education, mostly in the social sciences), informal lectures given by scientists
appear to foster the four strands of informal science learning (see above) byproviding advanced science content knowledge as well as increasing understanding of the processes and participants in science. Benefits for the corrections community include (1) occupying inmates with topics other thandissatisfaction with their condition, (2) providing awareness of job skills
needed in the STEM workforce after release, and (3) improving the image ofprisons in the larger community.
Although we did not formally assess benefits for scientists of this practice,
we gained anecdotal information (from brief voluntary anonymous online
surveys of presenters) that such benefits can include the following: (1)directly engaging and raising scientific awareness and appreciation in a novel

Nadkarni and Morris743

and non-traditional, (2) potentially gaining new scientific insights from adiverse audience with unique perspectives, (3) fulfilling Broader Impacts for
National Science Foundation grant requirements in powerful and visible
ways, and (4) potentially recruiting new students to scientific study—someoffenders expressed a keen desire to pursue such work after release. Future
work should focus on this area.
Our approach—the delivery of live ISE lectures by scientists—is distinct
from the growing number of higher education programs in correctional institutions, which involve faculty teaching programs with a unified curriculum ina given discipline, assessing content knowledge with tests, and awarding academic credit. These tend to involve far more logistical work and cost more toinmates or to an institution than our program, with funds needing to be raised
to offset tuition. Participation in college-level classes and/or vocational programs is based on the inmate receiving approval from prison administration,
passing entrance exams, and having money to pay all or part of the tuition.
Formal correctional science education also has a higher profile and is less“nimble” than informal science lectures, as topics from our different scientists were not constrained by needing to follow a preset curriculum (Chappell,2004). Our informal science lecture series required only a memorandum of
understanding (reviewed and renewed annually) between the correctional
institutions and the University of Utah, as well as IRB permissions.
A growing number of corrections administrators and policy makers now
recognize that education improves inmates’ chances of not returning toprison. Inmates who participate in correctional education programs had 43%
lower odds of recidivating than those who do not, which translates to a reduction in the risk of recidivating of 13% (Davis et al., 2013). Education also
improves inmates’ chances of obtaining employment after release: Thosewith education had odds that were 13% higher than the odds for those who
did not participate in correctional education (Davis et al., 2013).
Providing correctional education can be cost-effective when it comes toreducing recidivism. The 2013 RAND study (Davis et al., 2013) estimatedthat the direct costs of providing correctional education are cost-effective
compared with the direct costs of reincarceration. Because the analysis
accounts only for direct costs and not for such things as the financial andemotional costs to crime victims and costs to the criminal justice system as awhole, this is a conservative estimate of the broader effect correctional education could yield. The cost of our program was very low: the salary of apart-time program manager (recruited scientists, worked with presenters todevelop lecture content, arranged security clearances, administered IRB protocols, and analyzed evaluations), modest stipends for lecturers, transportation between the university and the corrections institutions, and services of a744

Science Communication 40(6)professional external evaluator. Our program of two science lectures permonth cost approximately US$43,000 per year for 12 lectures each in the Salt
Lake County Jail and Utah State Prison, which is equivalent to US$45/
inmate/year or US$4/inmate/month. Costs for the correctional institutions
were minor, as the lectures “piggybacked” on existing security regimes andofficers placed posters as part of their regular rounds.
The RAND analysis (Davis et al., 2013) also highlighted a continuing
need to understand the processes behind effective corrections educations programs, such as curriculum, quantity, frequency, and quality to inform policy
and funding decisions. We recognize that our evaluation approach assessedshort-term changes in content knowledge, attitudes, and behavioral intentions
and that longitudinal studies will be needed to assess the longer term effects
of science lectures. Science learning researchers must invest in well-designed
evaluations of correctional education programs with rigorous research
designs to examine questions related to potential selection bias and program
quantity and frequency and to also measure more proximal outcomes, such aschanges in motivation, literacy gains, developing skills needed by local
employers, and attaining academic degrees and industry-recognized certificates to help states making strategic decisions on whether and how to recalibrate programs to adjust to changes in funding.
The situation that we have documented with the baseline and lecture surveys of incarcerated populations’ reception of informal science presentations
leads to the conclusion that men and women in jails and prisons present anappropriate audience for science information and contact with scientists, andmay represent a potential but overlooked source of contribution to the scientific enterprise. Although being successful at participating in and learningfrom science lectures is only a first step to higher education or the STEM
workforce, bringing together people of diverse backgrounds and ways ofknowing is of benefit to global science. Even if ISE activities do not motivate
this population to choose to be direct participants in science, positive exposure of inmates and corrections staff may result in a more informed citizenry
and help bridge the presently large gap in trust between the scientific community and a segment of the public that rarely benefits from science communication and education.
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge the collaboration of the Utah Department of Corrections, the Salt
Lake County Sheriff’s Office, and the University of Utah College of Science. We
thank Emily Gaines Crockett, Matthew Whittaker, Stacy Eddings, Program Directors
Craig Burr and Victor Kersey, Sheriff Jim Winder, Chief Pamela Lofgreen, Captain
Matt Dumont, Sgt. Terry Wall, Sgt. Shon Lance, and Lt. Jennifer Stansfield for theirsupport. James Ruff and Fred Adler gave useful advice on analysis.

Nadkarni and Morris

745

Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by National
Science Foundation grants (DRL-1204448 and DRL-1514494 to NMN), private
donations, and in-kind support from program partners. The funders had no role instudy design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of themanuscript.

ORCID iD
Jeremy S. Morris

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8647-4420

References
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social
behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bauer, M. W., & Jensen, P. (2011). The mobilization of scientists for public engagement. Public Understanding of Science, 20, 3-11.
Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal StatisticalSociety: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 57, 289-300.
Carson, E. A. (2015). Prisoners in 2014. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics,
U.S. Department of Justice.
Carson, E. A., & Golinelli, D. (2013). Prisoners in 2012: Trends in admissions
and releases, 1991–2012. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S.
Department of Justice.
Chappell, C. (2004). Post-secondary correctional education and recidivism: A metaanalysis of research conducted 1990-1999. Journal of Correctional Education,
55, 148-169.
Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering. (2013). Broadening
participation in America’s STEM workforce: 2011-2012 Biennial report toCongress. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
Davis, L. M., Bozick, R., Steele, J. L., Saunders, J., & Miles, J. N. (2013). Evaluating
the effectiveness of correctional education: A meta-analysis of programs
that provide education to incarcerated adults. Santa Monica, CA: RAND
Corporation.
de Leeuw, A., Valois, P., Aizen, I., & Schmidt, P. (2015). Using the theory ofplanned behavior to identify key beliefs underlying pro-environmental behavior
in high-school students: Implications for educational interventions. Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology, 42, 128-138.

746

Science Communication 40(6)Dunlap, R., & Van Liere, K. (1978). The “new environmental paradigm”: A proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results. Journal of Environmental
Education, 9, 10-19.
Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). Measuring
endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal ofSocial Issues, 56, 425-442.
Durose, M. R., Cooper, A. D., & Snyder, H. N. (2014). Recidivism of prisoners
released in 30 states in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010. Washington, DC:
Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.
Eisinga, R., Grotenhuis, M., & Pelzer, B. (2013). The reliability of a two-item scale:
Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown? International Journal of Public Health,58, 637-642. doi:10.1007/s00038-012-0416-3
Fennema, E., & Sherman, J. A. (1976). Fennema-Sherman Mathematics Attitudes
Scale: Instruments designed to measure attitudes toward the learning of mathematics by females and males. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,
7, 324-326.
Gallagher, B. E. (2013). Science and sustainability programs in prisons: Assessing
the effects of participation on inmates (Master’s thesis). The Evergreen State
College, Olympia, WA. Retrieved fromhttp://archives.evergreen.edu/masterstheses/Accession86-10MES/Gallagher_B2013.pdf
Gibbs, J. J. (1975). Jailing and stress. In H. Toch (Ed.), Men in crisis: Human breakdowns in prison (pp. 144-162). Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Gill, T., & Bell, J. F. (2013). What factors determine the uptake of A-level physics?
International Journal of Science Education, 35, 753-772.
Guterl, F. (2014). Diversity in science: Why it is essential for excellence. Scientific
American, 311. Retrieved fromhttps://www.scientificamerican.com/article/
diversity-in-science-why-it-is-essential-for-excellence/
Harlow, C. W. (2003). Education and correctional populations (Bureau of Justice
Statistics special report). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Hayes, B. C., & Tariq, V. N. (2000). Gender differences in scientific knowledge andattitudes toward science: A comparative study of four Anglo-American nations.
Public Understanding of Science, 9, 433-447.
Holdren, J. P. (2008). Science and technology for sustainable well-being. Science,
319, 424-434.
Institute of Education Sciences. (2013). Common guidelines for research and development. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education and National Science
Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13126/nsf13126.
pdf
Karpowitz, D. (2005). Prison, college, and the paradox of punishment. Studies in Law,
Politics, and Society, 37, 305-331.
Kirk, D. S. (2015). A natural experiment of the consequences of concentrating former
prisoners in the same neighborhoods. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 112, 6943-6948.
Leshner, A. I. (2007). Outreach training needed. Science, 315, 161.

Nadkarni and Morris

747

Mack, J., & Walsh, B. (2013). Mathematics and science combinations NSW HSC
2001-2011 by gender. Sydney, New South Wales, Australia: University ofSydney, School of Mathematics and Statistics.
MacKenzie, D. L. (2006). What works in corrections: Reducing the criminal activities of offenders and delinquents. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Miller, J. D. (2004). Public understanding of, and attitudes toward, scientific research:
What we know and what we need to know. Public Understanding of Science, 13,273-294.
Miller, J. D. (2013). The American people and science policy: The role of public attitudes in the policy process. New York, NY: Elsevier.
Minton, T. D., & Zeng, Z. (2015). Jail inmates at midyear 2014. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Justice.
Moore, R. W., & Foy, R. L. H. (1997). The Scientific Attitude Inventory: A revision(SAI II). Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 327-336.
Nadkarni, N. M., Hasbach, P. H., Thys, T., Crockett, E. G., & Schnacker, L. (2017).
Impacts of nature imagery on people in severely nature-deprived environments.
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 15, 395-403.
National Academy of Sciences. (2011). Expanding underrepresented minority participation: America’s Science and technology talent at the crossroads. Washington,
DC: National Academies Press.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. (2015). NASA education implementation plan. Washington, DC: Author.
National Research Council. (2009). Learning science in informal environments:
People, places, and pursuits. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Science Board. (2014). Science and Engineering Indicators 2014. Arlington,
VA: National Science Foundation.
National Science Foundation. (2015). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering. Arlington, VA: National Center for Science andEngineering Statistics.
Nisbet, M., & Markowitz, E. M. (2014). Understanding public opinion in debates overbiomedical research: Looking beyond political partisanship to focus on beliefs
about science and society. PloS one, 9(2), e88473.
Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review ofthe literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education,
25, 1049-1079.
Pew Research Center. (2015a). Americans, politics and science issues. Washington,
DC: Author.
Pew Research Center. (2015b). Public and scientists’ views on science and society.
Washington, DC: Author.
Phillips, K. (2014). How diversity makes us smarter. Scientific American.
Retrieved from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-diversitymakes-us-smarter/

748

Science Communication 40(6)Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 82, 33-40.
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2012). Engage to excel:
Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science,technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: Executive Officeof the President.
R Development Core Team. (2016). R: A language and environment for statisticalcomputing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved
from http://www.R-project.org/
Salt Lake County Auditor. (2001). A performance audit of the Salt Lake county jail.
Retrieved from http://slco.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=2147506874
Ulrich, C., & Nadkarni, N. M. (2009). Sustainability research and practices in enforced
residential institutions: Collaborations of ecologists and prisoners. Environment,
Development and Sustainability, 11, 815-832.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Profile of general population and housing characteristics. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2016). Educational attainment in the United States: 2015.
Washington, DC: Author.
Vacca, J. S. (2004). Educated prisoners are less likely to return to prison. Journal of
Correctional Education, 55, 297-305.

Author Biographies
Nalini M. Nadkarni is a professor of biology at the University of Utah. She is a forest
ecologist and science communicator who has brought science lectures, conservation
projects, and nature imagery to incarcerated adults and youth since 2004. Her public
engagement work is supported by the National Science Foundation, the National
Geographic Society, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and corrections institutions in Utah.
Jeremy S. Morris is an assistant professor of biology at Wofford College. His
research focuses on evolutionary anatomy in mammals. He is Project Coordinator for
the Initiative to Bring Science Programs to the Incarcerated, a program that brings
science and conservation projects to incarcerated populations. He also serves as a
Science Communications Fellow at the Natural History Museum of Utah and as a fellow in the STEM Ambassador Program.