Leisure and Pleasure: Science events in unusual locations

International Journal of Science Education

Volumn 34, Issue 18, 2012, Pages 2775-2795

  Bultitude, Karen ^a   Sardo, Ana Margarida ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST OF ENGLAND   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Generic venue; Informal education; Leisure

Indexed keywords

EID: 84870606028     PISSN: 09500693     EISSN: 14645289     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2012.664293     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Allen, S. (2008). Tools, tips, and common issues in evaluation experimental design choices. In A. Friedman (Ed.), Framework for evaluating impacts of informal science education projects: Report from a National Science Foundation Workshop (pp. 31-43). National Science Foundation. Retrieved fromhttp://caise.insci.org/uploads/docs/Eval_Framework.pdf
2. Arcand, K. and Watzke, M. 2010. Bringing the universe to the street. A preliminary look at informal learning implications for a large-scale non-traditional science outreach project. Journal of Science Communication, 9(2), 1-13. Retrieved fromhttp://jcom.sissa.it/archive/09/02/Jcom0902%282010%29A01/Jcom0902%282010%29A01.pdf
3. Banks, J. A., Au, K., Ball, A., Bell, P., Gordon, E., Gutierrez, K. and Zhou, M. 2007. Learning in and out of school in diverse environments, Seattle, WA: The LIFE Center (The Learning in Informal and Formal Environments Center) and the Center for Multicultural Education, University of Washington.
4. Bazeley, P. 2009. Analysing qualitative data: More than 'identifying themes'. Malaysian Journal of Qualitative Research, 2: 6-22.
5. Bell, P., Lewenstein, B., Shouse, A. W. and Feder, M. A. 2009. Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits, Edited by: Bell, P., Lewenstein, B., Shouse, A. W. and Feder, M. A. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press.
6. Bentley, M.E., Boot, M.T., Gittelsohn, J., & Stallings, R.Y. (1994). The use of structured observations in the study of health behaviour. Occasional Paper 27. The Hague, The Netherlands: IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre.
7. Brehaut, J. and Simonsson, E. 2006. Dana centre audience profile: November 2005-July 2006, London: Science Museum.
8. Bull, C., Hoose, J. and Weed, M. 2003. An introduction to leisure studies, London: Pearson Education.
9. Bultitude, K. and Grant, L. 2005. Einstein at Glastonbury: Final report, Bristol: University of the West of England.
10. Cherryman, S. J., King, S., Hawkes, F. R., Dinsdale, R. and Hawkes, D. L. 2008. An exploratory study of public opinions on the use of hydrogen energy in Wales. Public Understanding of Science, 17(3): 397-410. (doi:10.1177/0963662506068053)
11. Dabney, K. P., Tai, R. H., Almarode, J. T., Miller-Friedmann, J. L., Sonnert, G., Sadler, P.M. and Hazari, Z. 2012. Out-of-school time science activities and their association with career interest in STEM. International Journal of Science Education: Part B, 2(1): 63-79. (doi:10.1080/21548455.2011.629455)
12. David, M. and Sutton, C. D. 2004. Social research-the basics, 1, London: Sage.
13. DeWitt, J. (2009). Snapshot interviews. Poster presentation at the ECSITE Annual Conference, Budapest, Hungary, 4-6 June, 2009. Retrieved fromhttp://www.raeng.org.uk/societygov/public_engagement/ingenious/pdf/JED_poster_ECSITE09.pdf
14. EC (European Communities). (2004). Europe needs more scientists: Increasing human resources for science and technology in Europe. Report of the High Level Group on Human Resources for Science and Technology in Europe, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, ISBN 92-894-8458-6.
15. Edginton, C. and Chen, P. 2008. Leisure as transformation, Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing, L.L.C.
16. EUSCEA. 2008. EUSCEA in short, Göteborg: Author.
17. Falk, J. H. 2006. An identity-centered approach to understanding museum learning. Curator, 49(2): 151-166. (doi:10.1111/j.2151-6952.2006.tb00209.x)
18. Falk, J. H. and Dierking, L. D. 2010. The 95 percent solution. American Scientist, 98: 486-493. (doi:10.1511/2010.87.486)
19. Falk, J. H., Donovan, E. and Woods, R. (Eds.). 2001. Free-choice science education: How we learn science outside of school, New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
20. Falk, J. H., Storksdieck, M. and Dierking, L. D. 2007. Investigating public science interest and understanding: Evidence for the importance of free-choice learning. Public Understanding of Science, 16(4): 455-469. (doi:10.1177/0963662506064240)
21. Gauchat, G. 2011. The cultural authority of science: Public trust and acceptance of organized science. Public Understanding of Science, 20(6): 751-770. (doi:10.1177/0963662510365246)
22. Gerber, B. L., Cavallo, A. M.L. and Marek, E. A. 2001. Relationships among informal learning environments, teaching procedures and scientific reasoning ability. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5): 535-549.
23. Grand, A. 2009. "Engaging through dialogue: International experiences of café scientifique". In Practising science communication in the information age: Theorising professional practices, Edited by: Holliman, R., Thomas, J., Smidt, S., Scanlon, E. and Whitelegg, E. 209-226. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
24. Ipsos MORI. 2011. Public attitudes to science-Main report May 2011, London: Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
25. Johnson, B. and Burnet, F. 2000, October. A route to better understanding. Science Public Affairs,: 16-17. Retrieved fromhttp://www.britishscienceassociation.org/NR/rdonlyres/1D4260EF-3970-4C6C-9279-649C9006FD82/0/October_2000.PDF
26. Johnson, B., Burnet, F. and Pichler, J. 2003. Science on the buses: Report to the European commission, Bristol: University of the West of England.
27. Koolstra, C. M. 2008. An example of a science communication evaluation study: Discovery07, a Dutch science party. Journal of Science Communication, 7(2) 1-9. Retrieved fromhttp://jcom.sissa.it/archive/07/02/Jcom0702%282008%29A03/Jcom0702%282008%29A03.pdf
28. MacDonald, S. (2004). Exhibitions and the public understanding of science paradox [online]. The Pantaneto Forum (13). ISSN 1741-1572. Retrieved fromhttp://www.pantaneto.co.uk/issue13/front13.htm
29. McCallie, E., Bell, L., Lohwater, T., Falk, J.H., Lehr, J.L., Lewenstein, B.V.,... Wiehe, B. (2009). Many experts, many audiences: Public engagement with science and informal science education. A CAISE Inquiry Group Report. Washington: Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education (CAISE).
30. Naylor, S. and Keogh, B. 1999. Science on the underground: An initial evaluation. Public Understanding of Science, 8(2): 105-122. (doi:10.1088/0963-6625/8/2/303)
31. Osborne, J. 2000. "Science for citizenship". In Good practice in science teaching: What research has to say, Edited by: Monk, M. and Osborne, J. 225-240. London: Open University Press.
32. Osborne, J. and Dillon, J. 2007. Research on learning in informal contexts: Advancing the field?. International Journal of Science Education, 29(12): 1441-1445. (doi:10.1080/09500690701491122)
33. Packer, J. 2006. Learning for fun: The unique contribution of educational leisure experiences. Curator, 49(3): 329-344. (doi:10.1111/j.2151-6952.2006.tb00227.x)
34. Powell, M. and Kleinman, D. L. 2008. Building citizen capacities for participation in nanotechnology decision-making: The democratic virtues of the consensus conference model. Public Understanding of Science, 17(3): 329-348. (doi:10.1177/0963662506068000)
35. RCUK/DIUS. (2008). Public attitudes to science. A survey. Retrieved fromhttp://www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/scisoc/pas08.pdf
36. Rennie, L. 2011. Science communication and engagement beyond schooling. International Journal of Science Education: Part B, 1(1): 13-14. (doi:10.1080/21548455.2011.552283)
37. Ritchie, J. and Spencer, L. 1994. "Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research". In Analysing qualitative data, Edited by: Bryman, A. and Burgess, R. G. London: Routledge.
38. Rowe, G. and Frewer, L. J. 2000. Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology and Human Values, 25(1): 3-29. (doi:10.1177/016224390002500101)
39. Schibeci, R. and Harwood, J. 2007. Stimulating authentic community involvement in biotechnology policy in Australia. Public Understanding of Science, 16(2): 245-255.
40. Schugurensky, D. (2000). The forms of informal learning: Towards a conceptualization of the field. WALL Working Paper No.19. Toronto: Centre for the Study of Education and Work, OISE/UT.
41. Sosniak, L. (2001). The 9% challenge: Education in school and society. Teachers College Record, 103, 15. Retrieved fromhttp://www.tcrecord.org/library/abstract.asp?contentid=10756
42. Stocklmayer, S. and Bryant, C. 2012. Science and the public-what should people know?. International Journal of Science Education: Part B, 2(1): 81-101. (doi:10.1080/09500693.2010.543186)
43. Tlili, A. 2008. The organisational identity of science centres. Culture and Organization, 14(4): 309-323. (doi:10.1080/14759550802489581)
44. Tong, A., Sainsbury, P. and Craig, J. 2007. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ), a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal of Quality in Health Care, 19(6): 349-357. (doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzm042)
45. Warburton, D. (2011). Evaluation of sciencewise-ERC-final report. Shared Practice. Retrieved fromhttp://www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk/cms/assets/Uploads/Publications/Sciencewise-Evaluation-Report-FINAL.pdf
46. Ward, V., Howdle, P. and Hamer, S. 2008. You & your body: A case study of bioscience communication at the University of Leeds. Science Communication, 30(2): 177-208. (doi:10.1177/1075547008324385)
47. Wilkinson, C., Dawson, E. and Bultitude, K. 2012. 'Younger people have like more of an imagination, no offence': Participant perspectives on public engagement. International Journal of Science Education: Part B, 2(1): 43-61. (doi:10.1080/21548455.2011.628503)