Undergraduate biotechnology students' views of science communication

International Journal of Science Education

Volumn 32, Issue 18, 2010, Pages 2451-2474

  Edmondston, Joanne Elisabeth ^a   Dawson, Vaille ^b   Schibeci, Renato ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

^b CURTIN UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^c MURDOCH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Biotechnology education; Civic scientists; Curriculum; Science communication; University

Indexed keywords

EID: 78649339974     PISSN: 09500693     EISSN: 14645289     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09500690903514598     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Aikenhead, G. S. (2001). Science communication: A cross cultural event. In S. M. Stocklmayer, M. G. Gore, & C. Bryant (Eds.), Science communication in theory and practice (pp. 23-46). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
2. Allum, N., Sturgis, P., Tabourazi, D., & Brunton-Smith, I. (2008). Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: A meta-analysis. Public Understanding of Science, 17, 35-54.
3. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2007). Center for Public Engagement with Science & Technology: Overview [Electronic Version]. Retrieved October 12, 2009, from http://www.aaas.org/programs/centers/pe/
4. Australian Council of Deans of Science. (2001). What did you do with your science degree? Melbourne: Centre for the Study of Higher Education, University of Melbourne.
5. Bodmer, W. (1985). The public understanding of science. London: Royal Society.
6. Boulter, D. (1999). Public perception of science and associated general issues for the scientist. Phytochemistry, 50, 1-7.
7. Carroll, S. (2006). Welcome. Australasian Biotechnology, 16(1), 4.
8. Clark, F., & Illman, D. L. (2001). Dimensions of civic science. Science Communication, 23(1), 5-27.
9. Cresswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10. Edmondston, J. (2007). Cultivating the civic scientist: Science communication & tertiary biotechnology education. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Edith Cowan University Australia.
11. Errington, S., Bryant, C., & Gore, M. G. (2001, February 1-3). The evolution of science communication courses: Training scientists to communicate. Paper presented at the 6th international conference on Public Communication and Strategy. Trends in science communication today-Bridging the gap between theory and practice, Cern, Geneva.
12. Eureka Strategic Research. (2005). Public awareness research 2005. Overview. Canberra: Biotechnology Australia. Retrieved October 12, 2009, from http://www.biotechnology.gov.au/index.cfm?event=object.showContent&objectID=D8E567B4-EEF9-74DC-BE8C7F439D9DF702
13. Eureka Strategic Research. (2007). Community attitudes to biotechnology summary report: Eureka Project 4001. Canberra: Biotechnology Australia [Electronic Version]. Retrieved October 12, 2009, from http://www.biotechnology.gov.au/assets/documents/bainternet/Biotechnology summaryreport20070720190245.pdf
14. FASTS. (1999). Biotechnology in Australia. Occasional paper number 1 [Electronic Version]. Retrieved October 12, 2009, from http://www.fasts.org/images/occasional-papers/occ_paper_ one.pdf
15. Friedman, H. H., & Amoo, T. (1999). Rating the rating scales. Journal of Marketing Management, 9(3), 114-123.
16. Gaskell, G., Allum, N., Bauer, B., Durant, J., Allansdottir, A., Bonfadelli, H., et al. (2000). Biotechnology and the European public. Nature Biotechnology, 18, 939-942.
17. Gray, P., & Franco, C. (2003). Australian universities teaching committee review of biotechnology. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia Department of Education, Science and Technology.
18. Gregory, J. (2003). Understanding "science and the public". Journal of Commercial Biotechnology, 10(2), 131.
19. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln YS. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
20. Harrison, D. A., & McLaughlin, M. E. (1993). Cognitive processes in self-report responses: Test of item context effects in work attitude measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 129-140.
21. Hitchcock, G., & Hughes, D. (1995). Research and the teacher. London: Routledge.
22. Holten, G. (1978). The scientific imagination: Case studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23. Hornig Priest, S. H. (2001). Misplaced faith: Communication variables as predictors of encouragement for biotechnology development. Science Communication, 23(2), 97-110.
24. House of Lords. (2000). Science and technology-Third report. London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office [Electronic Version]. Retrieved October 12, 2009, from http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199900/ldselect/ldsctech/38/3801.htm
25. Huck, S. W., & Cormier, W. H. (1996). Reading statistics and research. New York: HarperCollins.
26. Lane, N. F. (1997). An open letter to scientists and engineers: Let's get the word out together about why science matters. Retrieved December, 2006, from http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/media/nlaaultr.htm
27. Lavelle, A. (2006). Federal budget improves future for Australian biotechnology. Australasian Biotechnology, 16(1), 20-21.
28. Lysaght, T., Rosenberger, P. J., & Kerridge, I. (2006). Australian undergraduate biotechnology student attitudes towards the teaching of ethics. International Journal of Science Education, 28(10), 1225-1239.
29. Macquarie University. (2006). Science, engineering and technology study. Sydney: Macquarie University.
30. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97.
31. Millward Brown. (2001). Biotechnology public awareness survey. Canberra: Biotechnology Australia [Electronic Version]. Retrieved October 12, 2009, from http://www.biopoliticaltimes.org/ownloads/200107_Biotechnology_Australia.pdf
32. Millward Brown. (2003). Biotechnology public awareness survey. Canberra: Biotechnology Australia [Electronic Version]. Retrieved October 12, 2009, from http://adl.brs.gov.au/brsShop/data/ryan09july.pdf
33. National Science Foundation/Department of Commerce. (2002). Converging technologies for improving human performance: Nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
34. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2005). OECD science, technology and industry scoreboard 2005 [Electronic Version]. Retrieved October 12, 2009, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/59/52/35465901.pdf
35. Oppenheim, A. N. (2001). Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement. London: Continuum.
36. Priest, S. H. (2000). US public opinion divided over biotechnology. Nature Biotechnology, 18, 939-942.
37. QSR International. (2002). Using NVivo in qualitative research: Software manual-Edition 3.Melbourne, Vic.: QSR International.
38. Royal Society. (2005). Connecting science: What we know and what we don't know about science in society. London: Royal Society.
39. Royal Society. (2006). Survey of factors affecting science communication by scientists and engineers [Electronic Version]. Retrieved October 12, 2009, from http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3180&printer=1.
40. SAS Institute Inc. (1997). StatView (Version 5). Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.
41. Shortland, M., & Gregory, J. (1991). Communicating science: A handbook. New York: Longman.
42. Smith, J.E. (2001). Public perception of biotechnology. In C. Ratledge & B. Kristiansen (Eds.),Basic biotechnology-Second Edition (pp. 3-16). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
43. Stake, R. E. (2000). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (Vol. 2, pp. 435-454). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
44. Stern, J. E., & Elliot, D. (1997). The ethics of scientific research: A guidebook for course development. Buffalo, NY: University Press of New England.
45. Stocklmayer, S. M., Gore, M. G., & Bryant, C. (2001). Introduction and overview. In S. M. Stocklmayer, M. G. Gore, & C. Bryant (Eds.), Science communication in theory and practice (Vol. 14, pp. ix-xv). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
46. Triese, D., & Weigold, M. F. (2002). Advancing science communication. Science Communication, 23(3), 310-322.
47. Wellcome Trust/MORI. (2000). The role of scientists in public debate. London: Wellcome Trust [Electronic Version]. Retrieved October 12, 2009, from http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/stellent/groups/corporatesite/@msh_peda/documents/web_document/wtd003425.pdf
48. Whitmarsh, L., & Kean S. (2005). Connecting science: What we know and what we don't know about science in society. London: British Association for the Advancement of Science [Electronic Version]. Retrieved October 12, 2009, http://www.britishscienceassociation.org/NR/rdonlyres/CE852B1D-7699-43A1-91C4-382DB5877D45/0/ConnectingScience_review.pdf
49. Yann Campbell Hoare Wheeler. (1999). Public attitudes to biotechnology. Canberra: Biotechnology Australia [Electronic Version]. Retrieved October 12, 2009, from http://www.biotechnology.gov.au/index.cfm?event=object.showContent&objectID=FC7F7DBE-BCD6-81AC-135CD90389558AFC
50. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.