If you are not happy with the results below please do another search
Science communicators spend a lot of time planning and delivering their activities. Lately, there has been an increased interest in knowing whether their efforts are worthy and if they have an impact. For this reason, different evaluation methods have been developed to assess the success and effectiveness of science communication.
Online media has become the main source of information for laypeople wishing to inform themselves about science (Su et al., 2015). However, knowledge nowadays is highly specialised and often too difficult to fully understand without lengthy (academic) education (Bromme & Goldman, 2014).
Science communication, which has left the boundaries of formalised classroom settings is increasingly taking place at informal events. This raises the question of how scientists prepare for such dialogue, and how they adapt their communication in line with their anticipation of the audience.
This multiple case study was developed through analyzing two research programs that promote healthy nutrition and physical activity habits for children – one in the US and one in Ecuador- to motivate public engagement and collaboration among researchers and their publics.
In a volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA) world the discussion on complexity is inevitable. However, this interaction is often hampered by a mutual misunderstanding of what the other means by complexity at hand. Diffuse debates on HPV vaccination exemplify this awkwardness in which multi stakeholders and many emotions are both intensely interwoven and fiercely contested.
Online courses offer flexible modes of study, allowing science communication practitioners to learn about research who wouldn’t normally have the opportunity, such as those who are outside the country or lack the time to attend conventional courses. On campus, when integrated into ‘face-to-face’ courses, online modules help students to be better prepared.
One of the biggest challenges of science communication is to bring the laymen, who are not interested in science, and the reseachers, who are not interested in laymen, together. In order to engage researchers in science communication and to engage the public in science, a theater based experiment, which I initiated four years ago, can serve as a successful model platform.
Scientific evidence is important for dealing with Covid-19. But scientific findings are characterized by uncertainty, especially regarding the novelty of Covid-19. Media coverage of the pandemic therefore should also express the uncertainty concerning scientific findings presented.
The fields of plant science and horticulture are vital for a myriad of global issues, including food security, conservation of biodiversity, and human health. However, plant blindness, or the idea that people do not appreciate or understand the importance of plants, poses a real challenge in attracting the next generation of plant scientists and professionals.
Kavli Institute for the physics and mathematics of the universe (Kavli IPMU) hosts an Artists in Residence (AIR) program since 2015. Recently one of their artworks based on his resident was awarded the second prize at the Japan media art festival among over 4000 artworks.
The long version of the history of science communication reaches back to pre-industrial times. Through the 19th century, as the figure of ‘scientist’ takes shape, the role of populariser is integrated into it.
In November 2016, the Office of Strategic Communications of the University of California, Davis created a half-day science communications training for faculty, graduate students, and post-docs, with a focus on storytelling and messaging, for a nominal fee.
Health communicators today employ the tools of social science to determine whether their interventions have been successful. Have their messages reached the right targets and conveyed information appropriately?
During a global pandemic, trusting the scientists sharing health-related information is critical. We use a representative survey (n = 400) to better understand the degree to which Americans want science communicators to share information about scientists’ trustworthiness in the context of COVID-19.
Building on the growing consensus across practices of interdisciplinarity and participatory research that collaboration is best fostered via regular sociality and shared problem solving, From ‘Feed the Birds’ to ‘Do Not Feed the Animals (DNFTA) was designed as an experiment in ‘engaged research’ (Holliman, 2017).
In the last decade, civic hackathons transformed into public events that innovated science policy and science communication. The term “hacking” is mostly related to a computer crime, but this is not what it means in terms of civic hackathons.