Reframing social exclusion from science communication: Moving away from 'barriers' towards a more complex perspective

Journal of Science Communication

Volumn 13, Issue 2, 2014, Pages

  Dawson, Emily ^a  

^a KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84899809831     PISSN: None     EISSN: 18242049     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.22323/2.13020302     Document Type: Note

References (21)

1. R. Atkinson, K. Siddall and C. Mason (2014), Experiments in Engagement: Engaging with young people from disadvantaged backgrounds, Wellcome Trust, London, U.K. .
2. P. Bell, B. Lewenstein, A.W. Shouse and M.A. Feder (2009), Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits, The National Academies Press, Washington D.C., U.S.A. .
3. A. Charlton, M. Potter, S. Mcginigal, E. Romanou, Z. Slade and B. Hewitson (2010), Barriers to participation: Analysis to inform the development of the 2010/11 Taking Part Survey, London, U.K. .
4. E. Dawson (2012), Non-participation in public engagement with science: A study of four socio-economically disadvantaged, minority ethnic groups, King's College London, London, U.K. .
5. E. Dawson (2013), "Developing inclusive informal science education practice: Useful concepts from research", Enterprising Science Research Briefs Series, King's College London, London, U.K. .
6. J. Falk, M. Storksdieck and L. Dierking (2007), "Investigating public science interest and understanding: Evidence for the importance of free-choice learning", Pub. Underst. Sci. 16(4): 455-469.
7. M. Fenichel and H.A. Schweingruber (2010), Surrounded by science: Learning science in informal environments, The National Academies Press, Washington D.C., U.S.A. .
8. S. Hidi and K.A. Renninger (2006), "The four-phase model of interest development", Educ. Psychol. 41(2): 111-127.
9. Ipsos MORI (2003), The impact of free entry to museums, London, U.K. .
10. Ipsos MORI (2011), Public attitudes to science 2011, Department for Business Innovation and Skills, London, U.K. .
11. A. Irwin and B. Wynne (1996), "Introduction", in A. Irwin and B. Wynne eds., Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., pp. 1-18.
12. O. Lee (1999), "Equity Implications Based on the Conceptions of Science Achievement in Major Reform Documents", Rev. Educ. Res. 69(1): 83-115.
13. O. Lee and C.A. Buxton (2010), Diversity and equity in science education: Research, policy, and practice, Teachers College Press, New York, U.S.A. .
14. R. Levitas (1998), The inclusive society?, Palgrave, Basingstoke and New York.
15. R. Levitas (2004), "Let's hear it for Humpty: social exclusion, the third way and cultural capital", Cultural Trends 13(2): 41-56
16. B. Lynch (2011), Whose cake is it anyway? A collaborative investigation into engagement and participation in 12 museums and galleries in the U.K., Paul Hamlyn Foundation, London, U.K. .
17. N. Marres (2007), "The issues deserve more credit", Soci. Stud. Sci. 37(5): 759-780.
18. S. Romain and A. Edbury (2014), National Science and Engineering Week: Targetting under-represented groups, British Science Association, London, U.K. .
19. J. Turney (1998), To know science is to love it? Observations from public understanding of science research, COPUS, London, U.K. .
20. A. Uitto, K. Juuti, J. Lavonen and V. Meisalo (2006), "Students' interest in biology and their out-of-school experiences", J. Biol. Educ. 40(3): 124-129.
21. T.J. Yosso (2005), "Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth", Race Ethnicity and Education 8(1): 69-91.