The drive for impact from research projects presents a dilemma for science communication researchers and practitioners — should public engagement be regarded only as a mechanism for providing evidence of the impact of research or as itself a form of impact? This editorial describes the curation of five commentaries resulting from the recent international conference
‘Science in Public: Research, Practice, Impact’. The commentaries reveal the issues science communicators may face in implementing public engagement with science that has an impact; from planning and co-producing projects with
NSF’s CRPA program, now archived, provided grants to researchers that enabled them to partner with organizations to conduct media-based and other outreach to increase public engagement in and understanding of science. This project, undertaken by Vox Television with Michele Korf and Associates (MKA), assessed the results of these grants to identify successful practices and lessons learned, and aggregate findings to productively inform and support current and future efforts of this kind. The key objectives of the work have been to identify approaches that broaden reach, increase the
This paper discusses the value and place of evaluation amidst increasing demands for impact. We note that most informal learning institutions do not have the funds, staff or expertise to conduct impact assessments requiring, as they do, the implementation of rigorous research methodologies. However, many museums and science centres do have the experience and capacity to design and conduct site-specific evaluation protocols that result in valuable and useful insights to inform ongoing and future practice. To illustrate our argument, we discuss the evaluation findings from a museum-led teacher
This paper discusses the value and place of evaluation amidst increasing demands for impact. We note that most informal learning institutions do not have the funds, staff or expertise to conduct impact assessments requiring, as they do, the implementation of rigorous research methodologies. However, many museums and science centres do have the experience and capacity to design and conduct site-specific evaluation protocols that result in valuable and useful insights to inform ongoing and future practice. To illustrate our argument, we discuss the evaluation findings from a museum-led teacher
The 2nd annual conference of the ad hoc group Science Communication was dedicated to research on risk and uncertainty as important challenges for the present practice of science communication. The review firstly offers a short portrait of the ad hoc group Science Communicaiton as a newly established network of communication scholars and secondly reconstructs the course of the highliy spirited debate during the conference in Jena.
After the first paradigm shift from the deficit model to two-way communication, the field of science communication is in need of a second paradigm shift. This second shift sees communication as an inherently distributed element in the socio-technical system of science and technology development. Science communication is understood both from a systems perspective and its consecutive parts, in order to get a grip on the complex and dynamic reality of science, technology development and innovation in which scientists, industrial and governmental partners and the lay public collaborate. This essay
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Maarten C.A. van der SandenSteven Flipse
resourceresearchProfessional Development, Conferences, and Networks
This study re-examines the survey responses of embryonic stem cell research prepared for UK Department of Health (DH) in 2006. Aided by the novel method of semantic network analysis, the main purpose of the reanalysis is to “re-present” the overlooked layer of public opinion with respect to embryonic stem cell research, and to reflect on the under-represented public opinion. This critical review attempts to shed light on potential concerns of the UK public in the face of emerging life science policy. The article argues that a new way to encourage people’s articulation and engagement in science
This guide offers an introduction to collaborations between museums and youth-serving community organizations. While this guide is designed specifically for museums and community organizations, much of the content contained in this document can be applied to all kinds and levels of partnerships. This guide includes an overview of why to collaborate, levels of partnerships, how to start a partnership, and a variety of resources to sustain and deepen your collaborative relationships. Sprinkled throughout this document is advice from experienced collaborators as well as examples of different ways
Improving STEM education in and out of schools depends on the collaborative efforts of educators, policy makers, education researchers, and community leaders. One promising strategy for structuring such collaborations is research-practice partnerships (RPPs) that bring researchers and educators together for sustained joint work around a key problem of practice of mutual concern. In June 2014, the Research + Practice (R+P) Collaboratory held two workshops focused on building capacity for research-practice partnerships in conjunction with the 11th International Conference of the Learning
Different stakeholders in research-practice partnerships often come from various institutions with distinct vocabulary, communication structures, and professional practices. To ensure that partnerships are mutually beneficial and equitable for educators and researchers alike, partners Jean Ryoo, Michelle Choi, and Emily McLeod from the California Tinkering Afterschool Network co-developed this resource for building equitable research-practice partnerships. This resource describes what equitable collaborations look like and offers guiding questions for group members to ask themselves in order
The American Society for Microbiology (ASM) contracted Randi Korn & Associates, Inc. (RK&A) to evaluate participants’ experiences in the “Telling Your Science as a Story” pilot workshops, which seek to empower ASM members, who are scientists, to develop more effective science communication skills through hands-on activities, reflection, and discussion. The purpose of the evaluation was to provide ASM with useful information about participants’ experiences in the pilot workshops to inform future development of ASM’s science communication programming.
How did we approach this study?
RK&A
The Complex Adaptive Systems as a Model for Network Evaluations (CASNET) study was a four-year research project investigating evaluation capacity building (ECB) within a network using a complexity theory lens. The study used a case study approach to examine and understand evaluation capacity building within the Nanoscale Informal Science Education Network (NISE Net). NISE Net is a national community of researchers and informal science educators dedicated to fostering public awareness, engagement, and understanding of nanoscale science, engineering, and technology. Instituted in 2005 through NSF funding (DRL-0532536 and 0940143), NISE Net has continuously expanded and is currently comprised of close to 600 science museum and university partners. The intent of the CASNET project was to provide insights on (1) the implications of complexity theory for promoting widespread and systemic use of evaluation within a network, and (2) complex system conditions that foster or impede ECB within a network, i.e., in this case, within the NISE Net.