The starting point of the Evaluating Evaluation project was our impression that despite the substantial resources that are spent on the summative evaluation of museums and galleries the research has little impact and largely remains ineffectual.
With support from the Wellcome Trust and the Heritage Lottery Fund, we set out to see why this seems to be the case and to explore whether there are ways in which the impact of summative evaluations on knowledge and practice might be enhanced. To this end, we reviewed a substantial number of reports, undertook a range of interviews and held two
The most important consideration in evaluating chemistry outreach efforts is how to best use the evaluation to serve project needs. Evaluation should be about making programs more effective—at communicating ideas, changing attitudes, inspiring action, or reaching wider audiences, for example. A well-conducted evaluation typically contributes to the quality of a project by helping its leaders better define their goals, identify important milestones and indicators of success, and use evidence to support ongoing improvements. At its best, evaluation is an integral part of project design and
The National Research Council’s (NRC) Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology (BCST) and Board on Science Education (BOSE) received funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF) to develop a framework for effective chemistry communication, outreach, and education in informal settings, with the ultimate goal of increasing the effectiveness of such efforts in engaging the public with chemistry. BCST and BOSE are assembling a committee of experts to execute this work. To support their efforts, BCST and BOSE also commissioned this landscape study, which serves as background for the
Many science communication activities identify children as their main target. There are several reasons for this, even if, quite often, they are not expressed explicitly, as if children were a somehow “natural” public for science. On the contrary, we can observe a high level of complexity in the children agenda to engage with science, and in the science institution agendas for targeting children. But this does not seem to be followed but the same level of complexity in devising science engagement activities for children. The profound transformation of the scope and understanding of science
Three possibilities are suggested by the author that aims to improve the quality of Science Communication. These are quicker responses to the contemporary issues, adding more short articles so as to enrich and enlarge information, and focuses on some special issues aiming to discuss one topic from different perspectives. The author also gives two examples of special issues of science communication.
JCOM can enhance its contribution to the science communication community by greater rigour in selection and editing and by opening up to reader comment.
In terms of efficiency, managing the effects of overpublising (the sheer volume of new papers published each week) has become seriously challenging for science communication researchers. This comment analyzes causes and consequences of this situation and proposes to research journals to take into considerations the following elements: a) special attention to headline and abstract, b) more visible and updated keywords and c) a clear structure of content and a shortening of the average number of pages per paper.
JCOM is eleven years old, and this is certainly a reason to celebrate. The journal has been a tribune where we could observe how geographical and institutional frontiers of science communication (SC) have been expanded. As open access publication, JCOM has played a key important role to diffuse and make visible the research results for all. This is relevant for many institutions and researchers in Latin America due to the difficulties for paying to access to the papers published by the international scientific journals. The journal has made a relevant contribution to consolidation of the
Any development issue has mainly two dimensions — ‘interest of few and interest of many’, so is ‘science-communication’ as well, which leads to unwarranted but unavoidable uncertainties. Unless the former learn to sacrifice their ‘illegitimate interests’, the very objective of a development issue will continue to suffer, putting the latter at a risk of sacrificing their ‘legitimate interests’. The role of ‘science-communication’ is vital in today’s world, especially where complex issues of conflicting interests of science, industry, business, politics, and mass media are increasingly coming to
Throughout its existence JCOM has earned a special recognition as a space of confluence for the international community of science communicators, but how should be its immediate future? Here are some ideas inspired by which Italo Calvino’s suggested as the main characteristics for the literature of the 21st century, hoping to have a JCOM light, rapid, accurate, visible, multiple, consistent and comprehensive.
The JCOM I would appreciate reading should address in real time the emerging trends and pressing issues concerning Science in society; it would be targeted not only to researchers in STS et similia, but also to the constantly expanding universe of science communication practitioners; it would make sure to avoid the hidden forms of social exclusion which are dangerously lurking behind all communication activity, including science communication.