This timeline was constructed by participants during the Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education (CAISE ISE Summit) meeting in March 3-5, 2010 to document histories, capture events, and share memories about the field of informal science education. Postings were shepherded into four main strands: key events, policy, infrastructure, and learning. Along the bottom, participants marked when they entered the field.
This poster was presented at the 2010 Association of Science-Technology Centers Annual Conference. The Saint Louis Science Center is a partner in Washington University's Cognitive, Computational, and Systems Neuroscience interdisciplinary graduate program funded by the NSF-IGERT (Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship) flagship training program for PhD scientists and engineers.
During the preparation of the 2010 Science & Engineering Indicators, there arose a concern about measures of public knowledge of science, and how well they capture public knowledge for Chapter Seven of the Indicators. A workshop at NSF in October 2010 concluded that the process of measuring and reporting public knowledge of science should start with the question of what knowledge a person in the public needs, whether for civic engagement with science and science policy, or for making individual decisions about one’s life or health, or for feeding one’s curiosity about science. This starting
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
John BesleyMeg BlanchardMark BrownElaine Howard EcklundMargaret GlassTom GuterbockA. Eamonn KellyBruce LewensteinChris ToumeyDebbie RexrodeColin Townsend
Luckily enough, more democracy is always called for. Even in countries that can truly be described as democratic. And democracy (which is a constant reference in these pages) is increasingly related to knowledge, be it about whether growing GMOs, starting nuclear energy production or allowing the choice of a child’s gender through IVF techniques. The need to make democratic decisions on controversial issues, which increasingly imply scientific and technological knowledge, comes from the bottom, as citizens voice – sometimes even vehemently – the desire to express themselves.
A workshop on science journalism organised at SISSA of Trieste, Italy a few weeks ago outlined scenarios that should serve as a source for debate among professionals and scholars to grasp how information activities regarding science, medicine and technology will evolve in the next few years. It is a time of great uncertainty, yet a common path to venture through can be made out: the new science journalism should meditate on a different concept of science, an in-depth conceptualisation of different audiences, alternative narrations and its role in the democratisation of knowledge within a
Eduard Kaeser has written an interesting and critical book that is concerned with the connections between science and everyday life. The conception of ‘pop science’ is introduced to characterize developments in science popularisation that are spectacular, superficial and potentially harmful to science-society relationships. The book is of special interest to the science communication community, since it may initiate discussion about the purposes of communicating science, and also about legitimate and illegitimate strategies and means of doing so.
As part of its continuing effort to maximize efficiency by assessing the effectiveness of its efforts, NASA’s Office of Education contracted with Abt Associates in July 2009 to evaluate the Informal Education Program. The goals of the evaluation are twofold: (1) to gain insight into its investment in informal education; and (2) to clarify existing distinctions between its informal education and outreach efforts. The evaluation findings provide descriptive information about all the projects in the NASA’s education portfolio affiliated with Outcome 3 (Informal Education) and selected Outcome 2
This paper explores the possibilities and challenges simulations pose for informal science education, focusing on three crucial opportunities: (1) Diversity of contexts, goals, and methods, (2) "Outside the box," and (3) Interest-driven, individualized learning. The paper provides an overview of games and games research, followed by an examination of informal learning environments and learning across contexts.
Digital media have transformed the social practices of science communication. They have extended the number of channels that scientists, media professionals, other stakeholders and citizens use to communicate scientific information. Social media provide opportunities to communicate in more immediate and informal ways, while digital technologies have the potential to make the various processes of research more visible in the public sphere. Some digital media also offer, on occasion, opportunities for interaction and engagement. Similarly, ideas about public engagement are shifting and extending
Several publications have sought to define the field of science communication and review current issues and recent research. But the status of science communication is uncertain in disciplinary terms. This commentary considers two dimensions of the status of discipline as they apply to science communication – the clarity with which the field is defined and the level of development of theories to guide formal studies. It argues that further theoretical development is needed to support science communication’s full emergence as a discipline.
This is an introduction to the essays from the Jcom commentary devoted to the statute and the future of research in science communication. The authors have a long experience in international research in this domain. In the past few years, they have all been committed to the production of collective works which are now the most important references for science communication research programmes in the next few years. What topics should science communication research focus on and why? What is its general purpose? What is its real degree of autonomy from other similar fields of study? In other
Guglielmo Maglio is Manager of Exhibitions at the science centre “Città della Scienza” of Naples. With “Città della Scienza” he took part in the creation of “Decide”, which he appreciates for its ability to create an informal atmosphere favouring discussion. As concerns the involvement of scientists and policy-makers in the debate, though desirable, it sometimes may influence negatively the spontaneity of the debate among non-experts. In the participants, the main differences can be ascribed to personal experience, rather than to other factors such as age, nationality or social groups. Though