As part of its overall strategy to enhance learning in informal environments, the Advancing Informal STEM Learning (AISL) program funds innovative research, approaches, and resources for use in a variety of settings. The proposed project broadens the utility of Public Participation in Scientific Research (PPSR) approaches, which include citizen science, to support new angles in informal learning. It also extends previous work on interactive data visualizations in museums to encompass an element of active contribution to scientific data. To achieve these goals, this project will develop and research U!Scientist (pronounced `You, Scientist!')--a novel approach to using citizen science and learning research-based technology to engage museum visitors in learning about the process of science, shaping attitudes towards science, and science identity development. Through the U!Scientist multi-touch tabletop exhibit, visitors will: (1) interact with scientific data, (2) provide interpretations of data for direct use by scientists, (3) make statements based on evidence, and (4) visualize how their data classifications contribute to globe-spanning research projects. Visitors will also get to experience the process of science, gaining efficacy and confidence through these carefully designed interactions. This project brings together Zooniverse, experts in interactive design and learning based on large data visualizations in museums, and leaders in visitor experience and learning in science museums. Over fifty thousand museum visitors are expected to interact annually with U!Scientist through this effort. This impact will be multiplied by packaging the open-source platform so that others can easily instantiate U!Scientist at their institution.
The U!Scientist exhibit development process will follow rapid iterations of design, implementation, and revision driven by evaluation of experiences with museum visitors. It will involve close collaboration between specialists in computer science, human-computer interaction and educational design, informal science learning experts, and museum practitioners. The summative evaluation will be based on shadowing observations, U!Scientist and Zooniverse.org logfiles (i.e., automated collection of user behavior metrics), and surveys. Three key questions will be addressed through this effort: Q1) Will visitors participate in PPSR activities (via the U!Scientist touch table exhibit) on the museum floor, despite all the distractions and other learning opportunities competing for their attention? If so, who engages, for how long, and in what group configurations? Q2) If visitors do participate, will they re-engage with the content after the museum visit (i.e., continue on to Zooniverse.org)? Q3) Does engaging in PPSR via the touch table exhibit--with or without continued engagement in Zooniverse.org after the museum visit--lead to learning gains, improved understanding of the nature of science, improved attitudes towards science, and/or science identity development?
Computational social science represents an interdisciplinary approach to the study of reality based on advanced computer tools. From economics to political science, from journalism to sociology, digital approaches and techniques for the analysis and management of large quantities of data have now been adopted in several disciplines. The papers in this JCOM commentary focus on the use of such approaches and techniques in the research on science communication. As the papers point out, the most significant advantages of a computational approach in this sector include the chance to open up a range
The future challenges within science communication lie in a 'grey area' where the frontiers between production and sharing of knowledge are blurred. An area in which we can satisfy at the same time and within the same activity the autonomous interests of researchers and those of other stakeholders, including lay publics. Settings are emerging, where we can provide real contribution to scientific research and at the same time facilitate the publics in their process of hacking scientific knowledge to serve autonomously defined and often unpredictable functions. Some are linked to research
While science communication has become increasingly professionalised, philosophers have been far less active in, and reflective about, how we talk to the public. In thinking about the relationship between the ‘public intellectual’ and science communication, however, philosophy has some important contributions to make, despite the differences of content and disciplinary approach. What, then, can both these professions learn from each other about how to engage with the public - and the risks that this might involve?