Scientific outreach: Toward effective public engagement with biological science

BioScience

Volumn 64, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 333-340

  Varner, Johanna ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF UTAH   (United States)

Author keywords

dialogue; nontraditional public; public engagement in science; science communication; science outreach

Indexed keywords

EID: 84898980496     PISSN: 00063568     EISSN: 15253244     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/biosci/biu021     Document Type: Review

References (55)

1. Adelman LM, Falk JH, James S. 2000. Impact of National Aquarium in Baltimore on visitors' conservation attitudes, behavior, and knowledge. Curator: The Museum Journal 43: 33-61.
2. Agre P, Leshner AI. 2010. Bridging science and society. Science 327: 921.
3. Ajzen I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50: 179-211.
4. Bain PG, Hornsey MJ, Bongiorno R, Jeffries C. 2012. Promoting pro-environmental action in climate change deniers. Nature Climate Change 2: 600-603.
5. Ballantyne R, Packer J. 2005. Promoting environmentally sustainable attitudes and behaviour through free-choice learning experiences: What is the state of the game? Environmental Education Research 11: 281-295.
6. Berkowitz AR, Ford ME, Brewer CA. 2005. A framework for integrating ecological literacy, civics literacy and environmental citizenship in environmental education. Pages 227-266 in Johnson EA, Mappin MJ, eds. Environmental Education and Advocacy: Changing Perspectives of Ecology and Education. Cambridge University Press.
7. Besley JC, Nisbet M. 2011. How scientists view the public, the media and the political process. Public Understanding of Science 22: 644-659.
8. Braus J. 2009. Tools of engagement: How education and other social strategies can engage people in conservation action. Pages 87-104 in Falk JH, Heimlich JE, Foutz S, eds. Free-Choice Learning and the Environment. Altamira Press.
9. Buckland D. 2012. Climate is culture. Nature Climate Change 2: 137-140.
10. Carleton-Hug A, Hug J W. 2010. Challenges and opportunities for evaluating environmental education programs. Evaluation and Program Planning 33: 159-164.
11. Davies SR. 2008. Constructing communication: Talking to scientists about talking to the public. Science Communication 29: 413-434.
12. Dwyer J, Makin S. 1997. Using a program logic model that focuses on performance measurement to develop a program. Canadian Journal of Public Health 88: 421-425. (Pubitemid 28043931)
13. Fischhoff B. 2013. The sciences of science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110: 14033-14039.
14. Fischhoff B, Scheufele DA. 2013. The science of science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110: 14031-14032.
15. Goodwin J, Dahlstrom MF. 2013. Communication strategies for earning trust in climate change debates. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 5: 151-160. doi:10.1002/wcc.262
16. Groffman PM, Stylinski C, Nisbet MC, Duarte CM, Jordan R, Burgin A, Previtali MA, Coloso J. 2010. Restarting the conversation: Challenges at the interface between ecology and society. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 8: 284-291.
17. Handelsman J, et al. 2004. Scientific teaching. Science 304: 521-522. (Pubitemid 38541894)
18. Hatcher JA, Bringle RG. 1997. Reflection: Bridging the gap between service and learning. College Teaching 45: 153-158.
19. Havens K, Vitt P, Masi S. 2012. Citizen science on a local scale: The Plants of Concern program. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 10: 321-323.
20. Heimlich JE, Ardoin NM. 2008. Understanding behavior to understand behavior change: A literature review. Environmental Education Research 14: 215-237.
21. Hitzhusen GE, Tucker ME. 2013. The potential of religion for Earth Stewardship. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11: 368-376.
22. Ho SS, Brossard D, Scheufele DA. 2008. Effects of value predispositions, mass media use, and knowledge on public attitudes toward embryonic stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 20: 171-192.
23. Jensen P. 2011. A statistical picture of popularization activities and their evolutions in France. Public Understanding of Science 20: 26-36.
24. Jensen P, Rouquier J-B, Kreimer P, Croissant Y. 2008. Scientists who engage with society perform better academically. Science and Public Policy 35: 527-541.
25. Kahan DM, Peters E, Wittlin M, Slovic P, Ouellette LL, Braman D, Mandel G. 2012. The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change 2: 732-735.
26. Keeley P. 2008. Science Formative Assessment: 75 Practical Strategies for Linking Assessment, Instruction, and Learning. Corwin Press, NTSA Press.
27. Laursen S, Thiry H, Liston C. 2012. The impact of a university-based school science outreach program on graduate student participants' career paths and professional socialization. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 16: 47-78.
28. Lehr JL, McCallie E, Davies SR, Caron BR, Gammon B, Duensing S. 2007. The value of "dialogue events" as sites of learning: An exploration of research and evaluation frameworks. International Journal of Science Education 29: 1467-1487.
29. Maibach E[W], Roser-Renouf C, Leiserowitz A[A]. 2009. Global Warming's Six Americas 2009: An Audience Segmentation Analysis. George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication.
30. Margoluis R, Stem C, Salafsky N, Brown M. 2009. Design alternatives for evaluating the impact of conservation projects. New Directions for Evaluation 2009: 85-96.
31. Meyer JL, Frumhoff PC, Hamburg S P, de la Rosa C. 2010. Above the din but in the fray: Environmental scientists as effective advocates. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 8: 299-305.
32. Michael J. 2006. Where's the evidence that active learning works? Advances in Physiology Education 30: 159-167. (Pubitemid 44749374)
33. Monroe MC. 2011. Engaging the public in environmental decisions: Strategies for environmental education and communication. Pages 741-749 in Gökçekus H, Türker U, LaMoreaux J W, eds. Survival and Sustainability: Environmental Concerns in the 21st Century. Springer.
34. Morris JK, Jacobson SK, Flamm RO. 2007. Lessons from an evaluation of a boater outreach program for manatee protection. Environmental Management 40: 596-602. (Pubitemid 47459813)
35. Myers OE Jr, Saunders CD, Bexell SM. 2009. Fostering empathy with wildlife: Factors affecting free-choice learning for conservation concern and behavior. Pages 39-56 in Falk JH, Heimlich JE, Foutz S, eds. Free-Choice Learning and the Environment. Altamira Press.
36. Myers TA, Maibach EW, Roser-Renouf C, Akerlof K, Leiserowitz AA. 2013. The relationship between personal experience and belief in the reality of global warming. Nature Climate Change 3: 343-347.
37. Nadkarni NM. 2004. Not preaching to the choir: Communicating the importance of forest conservation to nontraditional audiences. Conservation Biology 18: 602-606. (Pubitemid 38689077)
38. Nisbet MC, Scheufele DA. 2009. What's next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany 96: 1767-1778.
39. [NSB] National Science Board. 2012. Science and technology: Public attitudes and understanding. Pages 7-1-7-51 in Science and Engineering Indicators 2010. National Science Foundation. (31 January 2014; www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/c7/c7h.htm)
40. Osmond DL, et al. 2010. The role of interface organizations in science communication and understanding. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 8: 306-313.
41. Pace ML, et al. 2010. Communicating with the public: Opportunities and rewards for individual ecologists. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 8: 292-298.
42. Pandya RE. 2012. A framework for engaging diverse communities in citizen science in the US. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 10: 314-317.
43. Pearson G, Pringle SM, Thomas JN. 1997. Scientists and the public understanding of science. Public Understanding of Science 6: 279-289. (Pubitemid 127461131)
44. Peters H P. 2013. Gap between science and media revisited: Scientists as public communicators. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110 (suppl. 3): 14102-14109.
45. Phipps M. 2010. Research trends and findings from a decade (1997-2007) of research on informal science education and free-choice science learning. Visitor Studies 13: 3-22.
46. Poliakoff E, Webb TL. 2007. What factors predict scientists' intentions to participate in public engagement of science activities? Science Communication 29: 242-263.
47. Reynolds J. 2009. When communicating with diverse audiences, use Velcro to make science stick. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 90: 297-304.
48. Rowe G, Frewer LJ. 2005. A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology, and Human Values 30: 251-290. (Pubitemid 40465733)
49. Royal Society. 2006. Science Communication: Survey of Factors Affecting Science Communication by Scientists and Engineers. Royal Society.
50. Salguero-Gomez R, Whiteside MD, Talbot JM, Laurance WF. 2009. After "eco" comes "service". Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7: 277-278.
51. Scheufele DA. 2013. Communicating science in social settings. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110 (suppl. 3): 14040-14047.
52. Schultz P W, Zelezny L. 2003. Reframing environmental messages to be congruent with American values. Human Ecology Review 10: 126-136. (Pubitemid 38065873)
53. Snow CE. 2010. Academic language and the challenge of reading for learning about science. Science 328: 450-452
54. Webb AB, Fetsch CR, Israel E, Roman CM, Encarnación CH, Zacks JM, Thoroughman KA, Herzog ED. 2012. Training scientists in a science center improves science communication to the public. Advances in Physiology Education 36: 72-76.
55. Wiggins GP, McTighe JA. 2005. Understanding by Design, 2nd ed. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.