Evaluating public communication of science and technology

Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 237-251

  Neresini, Federico ^a   Pellegrini, Giuseppe ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PADOVA   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 65749117637     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203928240-23     Document Type: Chapter

References (56)

1. Gammon, B. and Burch, A. (2006) ‘A guide for successfully evaluating science engagement events’, in Turney, J. (ed.) Engaging Science. Thoughts, Deeds, Analysis and Action, London: Wellcome Trust, 80-5.
2. Rowe, G., Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J. and Pidgeon, N. (2005) ‘Difficulties in evaluating public engagement initiatives: reflections on an evaluation of the UK GM Nation? public debate about transgenic crops’, Public Understanding of Science, 14: 331-52.
3. Storksdieck, M. and Falk, J. H. (2004) ‘Evaluating public understanding of research projects and initiatives’, in Chittenden, D., Farmelo, G. and Lewenstein, B. (eds) Creating Connections, Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, 87-108.
4. Barbagallo, F. and Nelson, J. (2005) ‘Report: UK GM dialogue’, Science Communication, 26: 318-25.
5. Barnes, M. (1999) Building a Deliberative Democracy: An Evaluation of Two Citizens’ Juries, London:Institute for Public Policy Research.
6. Bateson, G. (1972) Steps to an Ecology of Mind, New York: Ballantine Books.
7. Bauer, M. W. and Gaskell, G. (2001) Qualitative Researching with Text, Image and Sounds. A Practical Handbook, London: Sage.
8. Bauer, M. W., Allum, N. and Miller, S. (2007) ‘What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda’, Public Understanding of Science, 16: 79-95.
9. Boudon, R. (1977) Effets pervers et ordre social, Paris: PUF.
10. Boudon, R. (1995) Le juste et le vrai. Études sur l’objectivité des valeurs et de la connaissance, Paris: Fayard.
11. Bucchi, M. (2004) ‘Can genetics help us rethink communication? Public communication of science as a “double helix”', New Genetics and Society, 23: 269-83.
12. Eng, T. R., Gustafson, D. H., Henderson, J., Jimison, H. and Patrick, K. (1999) ‘Introduction of evaluation of interactive health communication applications’, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 16: 10-14.
13. Falk, J. H. and Dierking, L. D. (2000) Learning from Museums, Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
14. Fletcher, J. K. (1999) Disappearing Acts. Gender, Power and Relational Practice at Work, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
15. Gammon, B. and Burch, A. (2006) ‘A guide for successfully evaluating science engagement events’, in Turney, J. (ed.) Engaging Science. Thoughts, Deeds, Analysis and Action, London: Wellcome Trust, 80-5.
16. Garnett, R. (2002) The Impact of Science Centers/Museums on their Surrounding Communities: Summary Report, Canberra, Australia: Questacon, www.astc.org/resource/case/Impact_Study02.pdf
17. Gascoigne, T. and Metcalfe, J. (2001) ‘The evaluation of national programs of science awareness’, Science Communication, 23: 66-76.
18. Gaskell, G. (eds) (2000) Qualitative Researching with Text, Image and Sound: A Practical Handbook, London: Sage.
19. Grant, M. (2003) AEBC Meeting, 11-12 December, Eden Project, Cornwall, London: Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission.
20. Graphic Science UWE (2003) Stavanger Bus Campaign Evaluation, Bristol: University of the West of England, www.uwe.ac.uk
21. Graphic Science UWE (2004) Robot Thought Evaluation Report, Bristol: University of the West of England, www. uwe.ac.uk
22. Grove-White, R., Macnaghten, P. and Wynne, B. (2000) Wising Up: The Public and New Technologies, Lancaster: Centre for the Study of Environmental Change, Lancaster University.
23. Guba, E. and Lincoln, Y. (1989) Fourth Generation Evaluation, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
24. Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J., Rowe, G., Pidgeon, N., Poortinga, W. and O’Riordan, T. (2006) ‘On evaluating the GM Nation? public debate about the commercialisation of transgenic crops in Britain’, New Genetics and Society, 25: 265-88.
25. Irwin, A. (2006) ‘Public deliberation and governance: engaging with science and technology in contemporary Europe’, Minerva, 44: 167-84.
26. Jensen, K. B. (2002) The Qualitative Research Process. A Handbook of Media and Communication Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Methodologies, London: Routledge.
27. Joss, S. and Durant, J. (1995) Public Participation in Science: The Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe, London: Science Museum.
28. Joubert, M. (2007) ‘Evaluating science communication projects’, www.scidev.net/ms/sci_comm
29. Kotler, N. and Kotler, P. (1998) Museum Strategy and Marketing. Designing Missions, Building Audiences, Generating Revenues and Resource, San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
30. Mayer, I., de Vries J. and Guerts, J. (1995) ‘An evaluation of the effects of participation in a consensus conference’, in Joss, S. and Durant, J. (eds), Public Participation in Science: The Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe, London: Science Museum, 201-23.
31. Maturana, H. and Varela, F. (1980) Autopoiesis and Cognition. The Realization of Living, Dordrecht:Riedel.
32. Michael, M. (2002) ‘Comprehension, apprehension, prehension: heterogeneity and the public understanding of science’, Science, Technology and Human Values, 27: 357-78.
33. National Cancer Institute (1989) Making Health Communication Programs Work, NIH Publication No. 89-1493, Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, US Department of Health and Human Services.
34. Pawson, R. and Tilley, N. (1997) Realistic Evaluation, London: Sage.
35. Patton, M. Q. (1986) Utilization-focused Evaluation, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
36. PDSB (2003) GM Nation? The Findings of the Public Debate. Final Report of the GM Public Debate Steering Board, London: Clarity.
37. Persson, P. E. (2000) ‘Science centers are thriving and going strong’, Public Understanding of Science, 9: 449-60.
38. Pidgeon, N. F., Poortinga, W., Rowe, G., Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J. and O’Riordan, T. (2005) ‘Using surveys in public participation processes for risk decision making: the case of the 2003 British GM Nation? public debate’, Risk Analysis, 25: 467-79.
39. Piscitelli, B. and Anderson, D. (2000) ‘Young children’s learning in museums settings’, Visitor Studies, 3: 3-10.
40. PSP (2006) Formative Evaluation of the LHC Communication Project, London: People Science and Policy, www.peoplescienceandpolicy.com/projects/hadron_collider.php
41. Reynolds, L. and Szerszynski, B. (2006) Representing GM Nation? in Proceedings of the Participatory Approaches in Science and Technology (PATH) Conference, 4-7 June 2006, Edinburgh, UK, Aberdeen: Macaulay Institute, www.macaulay.ac.uk/PATHconference
42. Rossi, P. H., Freeman, H. E. and Lipsey, M. W. (1999) Evaluation. A Systematic Approach, 6th edn, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
43. Rowe, G. and Frewer, L. J. (2004) ‘Evaluating public-participation exercises: a research agenda’, Science Technology and Human Values, 29: 512-57.
44. Rowe, G., Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J. and Pidgeon, N. (2005) ‘Difficulties in evaluating public engagement initiatives: reflections on an evaluation of the UK GM Nation? public debate about transgenic crops’, Public Understanding of Science, 14: 331-52.
45. Sachs, P. (1993) ‘Shadows in the soup: conceptions of work and nature of evidence’, Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Human Cognition, 15: 125-32.
46. Schiele, B. and Koster, E. (eds) (1998) La revolution de la muséologie des sciences: vers le musée du XXIe siècle?, Lyon, France: Presses universitaires de Lyon.
47. Scriven, M. (1991) Evaluation Thesaurus, 4th edn, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
48. Shaw, I. (1999) Qualitative Evaluation, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
49. Silverman, D. (2004) Qualitative Research. Theory, Method and Practice, 2nd edn, London: Sage.
50. Storksdieck, M. and Falk, J. H. (2004) ‘Evaluating public understanding of research projects and initiatives’, in Chittenden, D., Farmelo, G. and Lewenstein, B. (eds) Creating Connections, Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, 87-108.
51. Strauss, A. L. and Corbin, J. M. (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 2nd edn, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
52. Von Foerster, H. (1981) Observing Systems: Selected Papers of Heinz von Foerster, Seaside, CA:Intersystems Publications.
53. Von Schomberg, R. (1995) Contested Technology. Ethics, Risks and Public Debate, Tilburg: International Centre for Human and Public Affairs.
54. Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. H. and Jackson, D. D. (1967) Pragmatics of Human Communication. A Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies and Paradoxes, New York: Norton and Co.
55. Weiss, C. H. (1990) ‘New directions for program evaluation’, in Alkin, M. C., Patton, M. Q. and Weiss, C. H. (eds) Debates on Evaluation, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
56. Weiss, C. H. (2001) ‘Theory-based evaluation: theories of change for poverty reduction programs’, in Feinstein, O. and Picciotto, R. (eds) Evaluation and Poverty Reduction, Washington, DC: World Bank.