This essay examines several distinct roles universities play in science communication, with particular reference to professionalisation in the field. It identifies the ways in which universities have facilitated, even driven, that continuing process. But it also notes the potential and actual contradictions between some of the roles of universities, reflecting current developments in higher education across many different contexts.
This is an introduction to four essays in a Commentary that examine contributions of universities to science communication’s development but also challenges in
consolidating those efforts.
This editorial provides an overview of the Journal of Science Communication, volume 16, issue 5. This issue of JCOM explores the question ‘what works in science communication?’ from a variety of angles, as well as focusing on the politically sensitive topic of climate change. In addition, the issue contains a set of commentaries that explore the sometimes conflicting roles of universities in science communication.
Marked by the diversity of initiatives linking science and art and by new presentation formats, the 15th Congress of the Network for Popularisation of Science and Technology in Latin America and the Caribbean (RedPOP) saw heated debates on science, culture, politics and society. Between 21st and 25th August, it brought together in Buenos Aires (Argentina) about 400 participants from 14 countries in order to share new visions, initiatives and research work in science communication. During the event, which included a vast cultural programme, a series of challenges were raised for the future
This article aims to present a critical analysis of the book entitled “Creative Research Communication ― Theory and Practice”, written by Clare Wilkinson and Emma Weitkamp (Manchester University Press, 2016). We aim to present the structure of the book, highlighting its strengths and successes. Although some chapters focus on the UK, the book offers a wide range of examples of practical activities for the communication of research of global interest and provides very useful tips. Ethical issues and the importance of evaluation, of how to do carry out such evaluation and dissemination, are also
This is a book review of "Cosmos and the Rhetoric of Popular Science" by K. Shroeder Sorensen. Shroeder Sorensen analyses in depth the close relationship of the TV-series Cosmos [1980] with the popular culture, in its broadest sense, at the time of its release. The novel application of Fantasy-Theme analysis to the rhetorical vision of the series reveals how it is the product of a very careful and successful design. The book also compares the original series with its 2014 reboot Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey [2014].
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Erik Stengler
resourceresearchMuseum and Science Center Programs
The National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) is one of the world's single largest employers of science communicators, with over 350,000 students and 40,000 staff. Its science communication activities include five museums (Universum, Museo de la Luz, the Geology Museum, Museo de la Medicina Mexicana and Musem of Geophysics), botanical gardens, as well as a wide range of cultural and outreach activities. It has several programmes for training professional science communicators. The science communication staff are spread across the campuses in Mexico City and four other cities, including
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Ana Claudia NepoteElaine Reynoso-Haynes
The evaluation study supports the project Distance Learning Education Programs at the Saint Louis Zoo. To better understand what teachers want and need, and the characteristics of the settings in which their students learn, the Zoo conducted an online survey of the teachers of students with special needs in May 2014. The purpose of this evaluation was to clarify and expand the survey findings to support the design, development, and implementation of the Zoo distance learning curriculum so that it works effectively across a variety of school settings for K12 students with special needs and
The Society for Science and the Public’s Advocate Grant Program provides selected Advocates with funding, resources, and information. Advocates include classroom teachers, school and district administrators, university professors, and informal science educators in community-based programs. The role of the Advocate is to support three or more underserved middle or high school students in the process of advancing from conducting a scientific research or engineering design project to entering a scientific competition. Advocates receive a stipend of $3,000; opportunities to meet and interact with
“The Roads Taken” virtual conference was part of a three-phase research project designed to explore the very long-term impact of STEM youth programs (such as the iconic YouthALIVE program). In this first phase, a virtual conference was held to engage youth program practitioners in the development and testing of a Program Profile prototype, a structured document that helps institutions to characterize their own youth programs in useful ways.
Following the webinars and the completion of the Program Profile by each organization, participants were asked to complete a brief survey (included as
Considering whether to volunteer to be an NSF AISL reviewer? Here’s some information to help you decide if you are a good fit. Each year, the NSF Advancing Informal STEM Learning program looks for peer reviewers. New reviewers often have questions about the commitment to review. This slide deck is to help you understand what reviewers do and the commitments they make considering issues about time commitment, activities, money, etc.
In this case study, we highlight the work of the Bay Area STEM Ecosystem, which aims to increase equity and access to STEM learning opportunities in underserved communities. First, we lay out the problems they are trying to solve and give a high level overview of the Bay Area STEM Ecosystem’s approach to addressing them. Then, based on field observations and interviews, we highlight both the successes and some missed opportunities from the first collaborative program of this Ecosystem. Both the successes of The Bay Area STEM Ecosystem--as well as the partners’ willingness to share and examine