Why people attend science festivals: Interests, motivations and self-reported benefits of public engagement with research

Public Understanding of Science

Volumn 23, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 557-573

  Jensen, Eric ^a   Buckley, Nicola ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

public engagement with science; public science events; public understanding of science; science communication; science engagement; science festival

Indexed keywords

ATTITUDE; HUMAN; MOTIVATION; QUESTIONNAIRE; SCIENCE; SELF REPORT; UNITED KINGDOM;

ATTITUDE; ENGLAND; HUMANS; MOTIVATION; QUESTIONNAIRES; SCIENCE; SELF REPORT;

EID: 84902437781     PISSN: 09636625     EISSN: 13616609     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0963662512458624     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. British Science Association (2009a) British Science Festival evaluation2009. Available at (accessed 17 February 2010): http://www.britishscienceassociation.org/NR/rdonlyres/4C205493-93D3-46DD-AC6C-CE9EDD8FA8B3/0/BritishScienceFestivalevaluation2009.pdf.
2. British Science Association (2009b) A history of the British Science Association. Available at (accessed 28 June 2009): http://www.britishscienceassociation.org/web/AboutUs/OurHistory/index.htm.
3. Buckley N,Hordijenko SSuccessful Science Communication: Telling It Like It Is. Bennett DJennings R, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011:312-331.
4. Bultitude K,McDonald D,Custead S.The rise and rise of science festivals: An international review of organised events to celebrate science.International Journal of Science Education: Part B: Communication and Public Engagement. 2011;1 (2): 165-188.
5. BurchellKFranklinSHoldenK (2009) Public Culture as Professional Science: Final Report of ScOPE Project. Available at: www2.lse.ac.uk/BIOS/research/scope/pdf/scope_final_report.pdf.
6. Cambridge Science Festival (2009) Internal evaluation of 2009 Festival. Available at (accessed 17 February 2010): http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/sciencefestival/csf-evaluation-2009.pdf.
7. Dawson E,Jensen E.Towards a 'contextual turn' in visitor research: Evaluating audience segmentation and identity-related motivations.Visitor Studies. 2011;14 (2): 127-140.
8. Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (2008) A vision for Science and Society: A consultation on developing a new strategy for the UK. Available at: http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/corporate/migratedD/ec_group/49-08-S_b.
9. Derrett RFestivals and Event Management: An International Arts and Culture Perspective. Yeoman IRobertson MAli-Knight JDrummond SMcMahon-Beattie U, ed. London: Elsevier; 2004:32-50.
10. White Book on Science Communication Events in Europe. Vienna: European Science Events Association; 2005:.
11. Furuta M,Hayashi T,Hosokawa Y,Kakefu T,Nishihara H.Consumer attitudes to radiation and irradiated potatoes at "radiation fair" in Osaka, Japan.Radiation Physics and Chemistry. 1998;52:67-71.
12. Goffman EEncounters: Two Studies in the Sociology of Interaction. Goffman E, ed. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill; 1961:17-84.
13. GrantL (2004) Evaluation of Cheltenham Festival of Science 2004. Available at (accessed 17 February 2010): http://www.lauragrantassociates.co.uk/Resources/Resources/6/Cheltenham%20festival%20evaluation%202004.pdf.
14. GrantL (2005) Comparative evaluation of science communication activities and their impacts. Chapter 6. PhD thesis, University of Liverpool. Available at: http://www.lauragrantassociates.co.uk/ReportsAndResources.aspx.
15. Holliman R,Jensen EInvestigating Science Communication in the Information Age: Implications for Public Engagement and Popular Media. Holliman RWhitelegg EScanlon ESmidt SThomas J, ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009:35-52.
16. Holliman R,Colllins T,Jensen E,Taylor PISOTOPE: Informing Science Outreach and Public Engagement. Final Report of the NESTA-funded ISOTOPE Project. Milton Keynes: The Open University; 2009:.
17. Third Report on Science and Society. London:; 2000:.
18. Ipsos MORI (2011) Public attitudes to science 2011. Available at: http://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/sri-pas-2011-main-report.pdf.
19. Irwin APublic Communication of Science and Technology Handbook. Bucchi MTrench B, ed. London: Routledge; 2008:199-212.
20. Irwin AInvestigating Science Communication in the Information Age: Implications for Public Engagement and Popular Media. Holliman RWhitelegg EScanlon ESmidt SThomas J, ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009:3-17.
21. Jensen E.The Dao of human cloning: Hope, fear and hype in the UK press and popular films.Public Understanding of Science. 2008;17 (2): 123-143.
22. Jensen E.Evaluate impact of communication.Nature. 2011;469:162.
23. Jensen E,Buckley NThe Role of University Student Volunteers in Festival-based Public Engagement. Bristol: National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement; 2011:.
24. Jensen E,Holliman RInvestigating Science Communication in the Information Age: Implications for Public Engagement and Popular Media. Holliman RWhitelegg EScanlon ESmidt SThomas J, ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009:55-71.
25. Jensen E,Wagoner B.A cyclical model of social change.Culture & Psychology. 2009;15 (2): 217-228.
26. Jensen E,Wagoner BCulture and Social Change: Transforming Society through the Power of Ideas. Wagoner BJensen EOldmeadow J, ed. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishers; 2012:323-338.
27. Kitzinger J.The methodology of focus groups: The importance of interaction between research participants.Sociology of Health and Illness. 1994;16 (1): 103-121.
28. Kitzinger J,Barbour RDeveloping Focus Group Research: Politics, Theory and Practice. Barbour RKitzinger J, ed. London: SAGE; 1999:1-20.
29. MacNaghten P,Kearnes MB,Wynne B.Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: What role for the social sciences?.Science Communication. 2005;27 (2): 268-291.
30. NashNHasteH (2007) Report on the BA Festival 2007. Available at (accessed 17 February 2010): http://www.britishscienceassociation.org/NR/rdonlyres/9FC80E46-32C8-4151-9CBA-6F239C0B7B62/0/Eventevaluation.pdf.
31. What is Public Engagement?. Bristol: NCCPE; 2011:.
32. Office of Science and Technology (2004) UK Science Festivals: PEST or Not? Available at (accessed 17 February 2010): http://www.britishscienceassociation.org/NR/rdonlyres/1B7E3D24-6178-4747-AD3F-ED4324D9BA5E/0/OSTreport.pdf.
33. Oxfordshire Science Festival (2009) Evaluation report. Available at (accessed17 February 2010): http://www.oxfordshiresciencefestival.co.uk/docs/OSF_2009_EvaluationReport.pdf.
34. Public Attitudes to Science 2008. Swindon: RCUK; 2008:.
35. Concordat on Engaging the Public with Science. RCUK; 2010:.
36. Rowe G,Frewer L.A typology of public engagement mechanisms.Science, Technology and Human Values. 2005;30 (2): 251-290.
37. Science Festival Alliance (2012) A First Look at Science Festivals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Museum. Available at (accessed 18 July 2012): http://sciencefestivals.org/news/140.html.
38. Stilgoe J,Irwin A,Jones KThe Received Wisdom: Opening Up Expert Advice. London: DEMOS; 2006:.
39. Strauss A,Corbin JBasics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 1998:.
40. Technopolis Group (2008) Evaluation of the ESRC Festival of Social Science 2008. Available at (accessed 17 February 2010): http://www.esrc.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/Images/942_FSS08%20Final%20Report_080717_tcm6-28202.pdf.
41. Wagoner BInnovating Genesis: Microgenesis and the Constructive Mind in Action. Abbey EDiriwatcher R, ed. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishers; 2008:39-61.
42. Wagoner B,Jensen E.Science learning at the zoo: Evaluating children's developing understanding of animals and their habitats.Psychology & Society. 2010;3 (1): 65-76.
43. Wellcome Trust (2010) Communicating your research: Festivals. Available at (accessed 17 February 2010): http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/Education-resources/Communicating-your-research/Public-engagement-opportunities/Festivals/index.htm.