Science communication is an increasingly important field of activity, research and policy. It should not be assumed however, that science communication practices provide equitable and empowering opportunities for everyone. Social exclusion, inclusion and equity are key challenges for practitioners, researchers, policy makers and funders involved with science communication. In this commentary I reflect on the limitations of the ‘barriers approach to understanding social inclusion and exclusion from science communication and argue instead that a more complex perspective is needed. I conclude
Social inclusion is an emerging preoccupation in the science communication field. The political value of science communication (e.g. in terms of empowerment) and the necessity to address all audiences has always been considered, but in recent times the participation agenda has enriched the rationale and methodologies of the communication of science: social inclusion is not only an issue of access to knowledge, but also of governance and co-production.
Evaluations of science communication activities before, during and after their implementation can provide findings that are useful in planning further activities. As some selected examples show, designing such evaluation is complex: they may involve assessment at various points, a mix of quantitative and qualitative methods, and show that impacts differ when seen from different perspectives.
An evaluation toolkit developed as part of the EU-funded PLACES project was applied in 26 case studies across Europe. Results show, among other things, the contribution of science communication initiatives to public curiosity, professional networking and perception of cities where these initiatives are stronger.
Children’s issues have become a greater priority on political agendas since the UN General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). Each government has agreed to ensure that all those working with and for children understand their duties in relation to upholding children’s rights including the obligation to involve children in decisions that affect them (Article 12). Respecting children’s views is not just a model of good pedagogical practice, but a legally binding obligation. However, there is a limited awareness of Article 12, and how to actualise it. While many
SciGirls' (Season'Three) is a multimedia project that presents videos and games designed to engage and educate millions of children about citizen science. Multimedia Research, an independent evaluation group, implemented a summative evaluation that assessed a model of citizen science engagement and education that examined the contribution of SciGirls multimedia to preteen girls' experience of citizen science.
This poster was presented at the 2016 Advancing Informal STEM Learning (AISL) PI Meeting held in Bethesda, MD on February 29-March 2. How can we come to terms with the complex social impact of new cutting-edge fields like synthetic biology, robotics, genetics and
machine learning? In order to manage these transformative changes, people not only need to understand science and technology, but also to actively participate in shaping a world where our ability to control the building blocks of life and cognition is vastly expanded. The Transmedia Museum will use the interactive, engaging nature of
In the editorial of this issue of JCOM, we underline how children are on one hand one of the main target group for science communication, and on the other hand a largely excluded group in the shift from a linear diffusion model to a dialogic model of science communication. In this series of comments, stimulated by the EU - FP7-Science in society project `SiS-Catalyst - 2013 children as change agents for science in society' (a four year programme aimed at crossing the science in society and the social inclusion agendas), we would like to explore methods and approaches that can ensure that, in
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Matteo MerzagoraTricia Alegra Jenkins
The science & art research played an important role in the topics covered by JCOM because actually the convergence of languages and themes of art and science increasingly continue to act synergistically in the most diverse knowledge fields.
In the last decade, social studies of nanotechnology have been characterized by a specific focus on the role of communication and cultural representations. Scholars have documented a proliferation of the forms through which this research area has been represented, communicated and debated within different social contexts. This Jcom section concentrates on the proliferation of cultural spaces where nanotechnologies are articulated and shaped in society. The intent is that of showing how these different cultural spaces — with their specific features and implications — raise multiple issues and
Different stakeholders in research-practice partnerships often come from various institutions with distinct vocabulary, communication structures, and professional practices. To ensure that partnerships are mutually beneficial and equitable for educators and researchers alike, partners Jean Ryoo, Michelle Choi, and Emily McLeod from the California Tinkering Afterschool Network co-developed this resource for building equitable research-practice partnerships. This resource describes what equitable collaborations look like and offers guiding questions for group members to ask themselves in order
Science communication processes are complex and uncertain. Designing and managing these processes using a step-by-step approach, allows those with science communication responsibility to manoeuvre between moral or normative issues, practical experiences, empirical data and theoretical foundations. The tool described in this study is an evidence-based questionnaire, tested in practice for feasibility. The key element of this decision aid is a challenge to the science communication practitioners to reflect on their attitudes, knowledge, reasoning and decision-making in a step-by-step manner to
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Maarten C.A. van der SandenFrans J. Meijman