Can science communication workshops train scientists for reflexive public engagement?: The ESConet experience

Science Communication

Volumn 31, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 116-126

  Miller, Steve ^a   Fahy, Declan ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b DUBLIN CITY UNIVERSITY   (Ireland)

Author keywords

Communications training; Deficit model; Dialogue; Media skills; Public engagement

Indexed keywords

EID: 70350129016     PISSN: 10755470     EISSN: 15528545     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1075547009339048     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Bauer, M.W., Allum, N., & 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.
2. Collins, H.M., & Pinch, T.J. (1998). The Golem: What you should know about science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
3. European Union. (2002). Science and society: Action plan. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Retrieved May 18, 2008, from http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/pdf/ss_ap_en.pdf.
4. Gold, B. (2001). The Aldo Leopold Leadership Program: Training environmental scientists to be civic scientists. Science Communication, 23, 41-49.
5. House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. (2000). Science and technology: Third report. London: Stationery Office. Retrieved March 22, 2007, from http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199900/ldselect/ldsctech/38/3801.htm.
6. Jackson, R., Barbagallo, F., & Haste, H. (2005). Strengths of public dialogue on science-related issues. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 8, 349-358.
7. Miller, S., Trench, B., Jergovic, B., Koulaidis, V., & Dimopoulos, K. (2008, April). Training for communicating science in dialogue: The ESConet experience. Symposium conducted at FEST 2008, Trieste, Italy.
8. Miller, S., Višnjevac, A., Gohinho, A., Poupardin, E., Fahy, D., & Trench, B. (2008, June). How can dialogue and debate feature in science communication training? Paper presented at the 10th Public Communication of Science and Technology conference, Malmo, Sweden.
9. Pearson, G. (2001). The participation of scientists in public understanding of science activities: The policy and practice of the UK research councils. Public Understanding of Science, 10, 121-137.
10. Peters, H.P., Brossard, D., de Cheveigné, S., Dunwoody, S., Kallfass, M., Miller, S.,et al.(2008). Science-media interface: It's time to reconsider. Science Communication, 30, 266-276.
11. Ruth, A., Lundy, L., Telg, R., & Irani, T. (2005). Trying to relate: Media relations training needs of agricultural scientists. Science Communication, 27, 127-145.
12. Trench, B. (2008). Towards an analytical framework of science communication models. In D. Cheng, M. Claessens, T. Gascoigne, J. Metcalfe, B. Schiele, & S. Shi (Eds.), Communicating science in social contexts: New models, new practices (pp. 119-135). Brussels, Belgium: Springer.
13. Turney, J. (1994). Teaching science communication: Courses, curricula, theory and practice. Public Understanding of Science, 3, 435-443.
14. Winter, E. (2004). Public communication of science and technology: German and European perspectives. Science Communication, 25, 288-293.