The last three decades have seen extensive reflection concerning how science communication should be modelled and understood. In this essay we propose the value of a cultural approach to science communication — one that frames it primarily as a process of meaning-making. We outline the conceptual basis for this view of culture, drawing on cultural theory to suggest that it is valuable to see science communication as one aspect of (popular) culture, as storytelling or narrative, as ritual, and as collective meaning-making. We then explore four possible ways that a cultural approach might
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Sarah DaviesMegan HalpernMaja HorstDavid KirbyBruce Lewenstein
There is a renewed interest amongst science communication practitioners and scholars to explore the potential of storytelling in public communication of science, including to understand how science storytelling functions (or could fail) in different contexts. Drawing from storytelling as the core theme of the 2018 conference of the Public Communication of Science and Technology (PCST) Network, we present a selection of papers, essays and practice insights that offer diverse perspectives. Some contributions focus on the cultural and structural qualities of science stories and its key success
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Marina JoubertLloyd DavisJenni Metcalfe
An independent evaluator and a group of investigators from three AISL projects focused on public engagement with science (PES) collaborated on a paper about research-practice partnerships for PES. This two-page brief summarizes their key points.
This is a survey we developed in 2018 for our exploratory research study of listeners and their parents/guardians of the children's science podcast, Brains On!. The survey includes questions about who listens, when and where children listen, children's listening behaviors, motivations for listening, activities after listening, household information, and demographic questions.
Framing: Broadening participation and achieving equitable outcomes has been a core goal of the science museum field for over two decades. However, how to make progress has proven an intractable problem.
Methods: Focusing on five organizations who officially committed to diversity, equity, access, and inclusion (DEAI) by participating in a national professional development program, the researchers investigate how science museums attempt to enact internally-focused change via a mixed methods case study.
Findings: While these organizations considered a variety of structurally focused change
Cities need to know how their cultural institutions related to each other; yet these institutions themselves struggle to understand what their niche can and should be in a city (Kloosterman, 2014). However the public often implicitly ‘knows’ the role of a particular cultural institution within an urban ecology; increasingly this knowledge is made manifest on a variety of digital apps and social media platforms (Budge, 2020; Moreno-Mendoza et al., 2020). Cultural institutions can learn from visitors and other institutions by utilizing digital apps to view area content offerings and attendance
Counterspaces in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) are often considered “safe spaces” at the margins for groups outside the mainstream of STEM education. The prevailing culture and structural manifestations in STEM have traditionally privileged norms of success that favor competitive, individualistic, and solitary practices—norms associated with White male scientists. This privilege extends to structures that govern learning and mark progress in STEM education that have marginalized groups that do not reflect the gender, race, or ethnicity conventionally associated with
Community voice, alongside academic voice, is essential to the core community engagement principle of reciprocity—the seeking, recognizing, respecting, and incorporating the knowledge, perspectives, and resources that each partner brings to a collaboration. Increasing the extent to which academic conferences honor reciprocity with community members is important for many reasons. For example, community perspectives often enhance knowledge generation and potentially transform scholarship, practice, and outcomes for all stakeholders. However, community presence and participation at academic
Described by Wohlwend, Peppler, Keune and Thompson (2017) as “a range of activities that blend design and technology, including textile crafts, robotics, electronics, digital fabrication, mechanical repair or creation, tinkering with everyday appliances, digital storytelling, arts and crafts—in short, fabricating with new technologies to create almost anything” (p. 445), making can open new possibilities for applied, interdisciplinary learning in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (Martin, 2015), in ways that decenter and democratize access to ideas, and promote the construction
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Jill CastekMichelle Schira HagermanRebecca Woodland
We used a combination of keyword- and human-coding-based strategies to identify and characterize the degree to which four key science communication journals have included research articles focused on the communication of basic science (N = 2,386). These journals included Public Understanding of Science, Science Communication, the Journal of Science Communication, and the International Journal of Science Education, Part B: Communication and Public Engagement. Our intention is to give those interested in basic-science-related communication the ability to speak to the degree to which an evidence
Kid-focused STEM podcasts have grown in popularity over the years, but the ISE field lacks knowledge of the impact and value of this medium as a means for engaging children and families in science learning and discovery. This research summary shares the results of an exploratory study of the popular children's science podcast, Brains On!, in an effort to being to fill this knowledge gap.
The research was guided by three overarching research questions:
Who is the audience for Brains On! and what are their motivations for listening to children’s science podcasts?
How are Brains On
The Brains On! exploratory research study was guided by three overarching research questions:
Who is the audience for Brains On! and what are their motivations for listening to children’s science podcasts?
How are Brains On! listeners using the podcast and engaging with its content?
What kinds of impacts does Brains On! have on its audiences?
These questions were answered through a three-phase mixed-methods research design. Each phase informed the next, providing additional insights into answering the research questions. Phase 1 was a review of a sample of secondary data in the