This summary brief captures highlights from the second year of the NSF-funded WaterMarks project. The technical evaluation report for this same project period can be found on the main project page. The purpose of this document is to communicate key updates (as observed by the evaluation team) in a less technical way with the many different audiences who have an interest in keeping up with WaterMarks.
This is the evaluation report for the second year of the NSF-funded WaterMarks project. It reflects a current summary of available evidence about the intended outcomes of program activities to date, as well as commentary on how the project is using (or could use) this information moving forward.
This summary brief captures highlights from the evaluation report for the first year of the NSF-funded WaterMarks project (also available on this page). The purpose of this document is to communicate key updates from evaluation in a less technical way with the many different audiences who have an interest in keeping up with WaterMarks.
This is the evaluation report for the first year of the NSF-funded WaterMarks project. It reflects an initial summary of available evidence about the intended outcomes of program activities to date, as well as commentary on how the project is using (or could use) this information moving forward. This report contains descriptions of embedded measures (i.e. anonymized drawings and reflections captured on a thematic postcard) included in community walks and analyses of secondary data (i.e., interviews conducted by other members of hte project team), as well as reflections emerging from the
This short (approximately 2-3 hours), self-paced non-credit learning module is designed for those new to conducting research in communities impacted by energy development. You will learn about the concept of “research fatigue” and become more prepared for fieldwork by learning what to expect when you visit energy-impacted communities.
Access is free for students, researchers and those living in or serving communities impacted by energy development.
Participants who complete the online course can a digital badge called Understanding Research Fatigue. Earners of this certification will
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Suzi TaylorJulia Hobson HaggertyKristin SmithRuchie Pathak
This workbook / planning guide was designed as an outreach tool to support students and early-career researchers who are studying the social impacts of energy development and wish to better understand and mitigate “research fatigue,” a state in which citizens of a community who are already experiencing massive change may be exhausted by additional attention from researchers, the media and others outside the community.
The workbook can be used as a stand-alone resource or as a complement to the Understanding Research Fatigue online module (https://eu.courses.montana.edu/CourseStatus.awp
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Suzi TaylorJulia Hobson HaggertyJeffrey JacquetGene TheodoriKathryn Bills Walsh
Summative evaluation of one of four pieces of the Marcellus Matters: EASE project. This study examined the effectiveness of a series of environmental planning workshops geared toward local community members in counties across Pennsylvania.
This paper describes evidence suggesting that science curiosity counteracts politically biased information processing. This finding is in tension with two bodies of research. The first casts doubt on the existence of “curiosity” as a measurable disposition. The other suggests that individual differences in cognition related to science comprehension - of which science curiosity, if it exists, would presumably be one - do not mitigate politically biased information processing but instead aggravate it. The paper describes the scale-development strategy employed to overcome the problems associated
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Dan KahanAsheley LandrumKatie CarpenterLaura HelftKathleen Hall Jamieson
Do we have to drag in the thought of Michel Foucault to show the political (and not neutral), partial and local (and not universal and non-historic), active (and not merely transmissive) face of science communication? Do we need the work of the controversial French intellectual to dispute the anxious search – almost a quest like that for the Holy Grail – for the “best practices” in the dissemination of scientific culture? If we read over the pages that Foucault dedicated to words and things, to the archaeology and genealogy of knowledge, to biopolitics, we have few doubts. Two elements, on the
Peer review is the evaluation method that has characterized the scientific growth of the last four centuries, the first four of what is called modern science, indeed. It is matter of scientific communication inside scientific community, a subject too poorly studied in comparison with its critical importance for a scientific study of science (science of science). Peer review has been used for scientific paper evaluation before publication (editorial peer review) and for research proposal evaluation before financial support (grants peer review). Both cases present similar pros and cons, so I
In recent weeks, Britain’s Better Regulation Task Force report on scientific research regulation asked the Government to evaluate the risks associated with the development of Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies. The Government was also asked to prove its implementation of a specific policy to protect human, animal and environmental safety, were it to be threatened by the development of this emerging field of knowledge. These requests may sound rather alarming. However, objectively speaking, the precautionary attitude of the Better Regulation Task Force does not differ greatly from that of the U
AAAS describes public engagement with science as intentional, meaningful interactions that provide opportunities for mutual learning between scientists and members of the public. Through the Alan I. Leshner Leadership Institute for Public Engagement with Science, AAAS empowers scientists and engineers to practice high-impact public engagement by fostering leaders who advocate for critical dialogue between scientists and the public and lead change to enable their communities, institutions, and others to support public engagement. This report, with additional work on understanding mechanisms for