This paper argues that for citizens to be engaged with science they need to be able to share analytical techniques as well as the results of analyses. The category of "brand" which condenses the instrumental with the symbolic is both powerful in its uses and familiar to laypeople. The paper shows briefly how the categories of penicillin, biotechnology and applied science can be analysed in this way. It suggests that historians apply such an approach to the historiography of such new categories as synthetic biology and that this might be useful to curators of such topics in museums.
The academic interest in 'science and technology communication' has evolved from different societal domains and fields of application, giving rise to different scholarly traditions. This contribution introduces current issues and agendas in a field that has its origin at the interface of (agricultural) innovation studies, rural development sociology and the communication sciences. The paper starts with a brief sketch of the history of the field. When compared to earlier approaches, current thinking about 'communication, innovation and development' pays greater attention to limitations in the
Much of science communication is peer-to-peer communication in collaborative networks for innovation from the fuzzy front-end of innovation until the marketing back-end. Scientists and engineers at meetings tables talking about new developments. Or scientists and engineers in collaboration with industry and policy makers, discussing various scenarios for implementation of e.g. health care services. However, this focus on science communication 'within the action' of uncertain development of science and technology and its attached academic domains such as innovation studies, high-tech marketing
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Maarten van der Sanden
resourceresearchProfessional Development, Conferences, and Networks
This is a conference review on PCST 2016 Istanbul. PCST 2016 Conference, with the theme of "Science Communication in Digital Age", was held in Turkey Istanbul on April 26, attracting more than 400 science communication experts and scholars from 52 countries and regions. This conference featured vast topics and rich contents, covering 6 conference reports, 52 sub-forums, 133 oral reports and 52 poster papers focusing on science communication changes, scientists participation, public object, ethics and art, tendency and policy under the background of the digital age.
Written in response to a previous article by Weingart and Guenther [2016] in JCOM, this letter aims to open up some critical issues concerning the ‘new ecology of communication’. It is argued that this evolving ecology needs to be openly explored without looking back to a previous idyll of ‘un-tainted’ science.
In response to Weingart and Guenther [2016], this essay explores the issue of trust in science communication by situating it in a wider communications culture and a longer historical period. It argues that the popular scientific culture is a necessary context not only for professional science, but also for the innovation economy. Given that the neutrality of science is a myth, and that science communication is much like any other form of communication, we should not be surprised if, in an innovation economy, science communication has come to resemble public relations, both for science and for
This issue sees the publication of several papers that contribute to our understanding of the challenges faced by researchers in communicating about their research, adding richness to our understanding of practices and policies in Zimbabwe as well as amongst non-Anglophone speakers working in Australia. The potential of incorporating documentary filmmaking tools and techniques into open science projects raises interesting questions about subjectivity, data and the collaboration skills needed for today's scientists.
This fact sheet from the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) provides statistics and talking points related to incorporating STEM into public library programming.
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS)
Tomorrow’s inventors and scientists are today’s curious young children—as long as those children are given ample chances to explore and are guided by adults equipped to support them. STEM Starts Early is the culmination of a deep inquiry supported by the National Science Foundation that aims to better understand the challenges to and opportunities in STEM learning as documented in a review of early childhood education research, policy, and practice and encourages collaboration between pivotal sectors to implement and sustain needed changes. The report features research by the FrameWorks
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Elisabeth McClureLisa GuernseyDouglas ClementsSusan Nall BalesJennifer NicholsNat Kendall-TaylorMichael Levine
This evaluator reflection was provided to stimulate conversation at the June 20-21, 2013 CAISE Evaluation Convening. It reflects on the nature of learning and challenges assumptions of outcomes from engaging in informal learning experiences.
This funder reflection was provided to stimulate conversation at the June 20-21, 2013 CAISE Evaluation Convening. It describes the importance of evaluation to funders, and provides some prompts and questions for thinking about evaluation with relation to funding.
This leadership reflection was provided to stimulate conversation at the June 20-21, 2013 CAISE Evaluation Convening. It provides an organizational leadership perspective on evaluation.