Which indicators for the new public engagement activities? An exploratory study of European research institutions

Public Understanding of Science

Volumn 20, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 64-79

  Neresini, Federico ^a   Bucchi, Massimiano ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PADOVA   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TRENTO   (Italy)

Author keywords

evaluation; indicators; public engagement; science communication

Indexed keywords

EID: 79551647720     PISSN: 09636625     EISSN: 13616609     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0963662510388363     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Argyris, C. and Schon, D.A. (1996) Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method, and Practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
2. Ashby, W.R. (1952) Design for a Brain. London: Chapman & Hall.
3. Bateson, G. (1972) Steps to an Ecology of Mind. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company.
4. Bucchi, M. (1996) When Scientists Turn to the Public: Alternative Routes in Science Communication, Public Understanding of Science 5(4): 375-94.
5. Bucchi, M. (1998) Science and the Media: Alternative Routes in Scientific Communication. London and New York: Routledge.
6. Bucchi, M. (2008) Of Deficits, Deviations and Dialogues: Theories of Public Communication of Science, in M. Bucchi and B. Trench (eds) Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology, pp. 57-76. London: Routledge.
7. Bucchi, M. (2009) Beyond Technocracy: Citizens, Politics, Technoscience. New York: Springer.
8. Davies, S.R. (2008) Constructing Communication: Talking to Scientists about Talking to the Public, Science Communication 29(4): 413-34.
9. Edwards, C. (2004) Evaluating European Public Awareness of Science Initiatives: A Review of the Literature, Science Communication 25(3): 260-71.
10. European Charter for Researchers (2005) Brussels: European Commission. URL: http://ec.europa.eu/eracareers/pdf/am509774CEE_EN_E4.pdf.
11. Gascoigne, T. and Metcalfe, J. (1997) Incentives and Impediments to Scientists Communicating through the Media, Science Communication 18(3): 265-82.
12. Gascoigne, T. and Metcalfe, J. (2001) Report: The Evaluation of National Programs of Science Awareness, Science Communication 23(1): 66-76.
13. Irwin, A. (2006) Public Deliberation and Governance: Engaging with Science and Technology in Contemporary Europe, Minerva 44(2): 167-84.
14. Jensen, P., Roquier, J.B., Kreimer, P. and Croissant, Y. (2008) Scientists Who Engage with Society Perform Better Academically, Science and Public Policy 35(7): 527-41.
15. Lévy-Leblond, J.M. (1992) About Misunderstandings about Misunderstandings, Public Understanding of Science 1(1): 17-21.
16. Martín-Sempere, M.J., Garzón-García, B. and Rey-Rocha, J. (2008) Scientists' Motivation to Communicate Science and Technology to the Public: Surveying Participants at the Madrid Science Fair, Public Understanding of Science 17(3): 349-67.
17. Michael, M. (1992) Lay Discourses of Science: Science-in-General, Science-in-Particular, and Self, Science, Technology & Human Values 17(3): 313-33.
18. Miller, S. (2001) Public Understanding of Science at the Crossroads, Public Understanding of Science 10(1): 115-20.
19. Neresini, F. and Pellegrini, G. (2008) Evaluating Public Communication of Science and Technology, in M. Bucchi and B. Trench (eds) Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology, pp. 237-51. London: Routledge.
20. Neresini, F., Dimopoulos, K., Kallfass, M. and Peters, H.P. (2009) Exploring a Black Box: Cross-national Study of Visit Effects on Visitors to Large Physics Research Centers in Europe, Science Communication 30(4): 506-33.
21. Pearson, G. (2001) The Participation of Scientists in Public Understanding of Science Activities: The Policy and Practice of the U.K. Research Councils, Public Understanding of Science 10(1): 121-37.
22. Peters, H.P.et al.(2008) Science Communication: Interactions with the Mass Media, Science 321(5886): 204-5.
23. Peterson, A., Anderson, A., Allan, S. and Wilkinson, C. (2009) Opening the Black Box: Scientists' Views on the Role of the News Media in the Nanotechnology Debate, Public Understanding of Science 18(5): 512-30.
24. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press (2009) Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media, URL: http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/528.pdf.
25. Poliakoff, E. and Webb, T.L. (2007) What Factors Predict Scientists' Intentions to Participate in Public Engagement of Science Activities?, Science Communication 29(2): 242-63.
26. Rowe, G. and Frewer, L. (2004) Evaluating Public Participation Exercises: A Research Agenda, Science, Technology & Human Values 29(4): 512-56.
27. 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(3): 331-52.
28. Rowe, G., Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J., Poortinga, W. and Pidgeon, N. (2008) Analysis of a Normative Framework for Evaluating Public Engagement Exercises: Reliability, Validity and Limitations, Public Understanding of Science 17(4): 419-41.
29. Royal Society (1985) The Public Understanding of Science. London: Royal Society.
30. Royal Society (2006) Factors Affecting Science Communication: A Survey of Scientists and Engineers. URL: http://www.2.royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=3180.
31. Turney, J. (ed.) (2006) Engaging Science: Thoughts, Deeds, Analysis and Actions. London: Wellcome Trust.
32. Wolfendale Committee (1995) Final Report. London: Office of Science and Technology. URL: http://www.dti.gov.uk/ost/ostbusiness/puset/report.htm.
33. Wynne, B.et al.(2007) Taking Knowledge Society Seriously. Report of the Expert Group on Science and Governance. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
34. Young, N. and Matthews, R. (2007) Experts' Understanding of the Public: Knowledge Control in a Risk Controversy, Public Understanding of Science 16(1): 123-44.