Identifying the Essential Elements of Effective Science Communication: What do the experts say?

International Journal of Science Education, Part B: Communication and Public Engagement

Volumn 2, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 23-41

  Bray, Belinda ^a   France, Bev ^a   Gilbert, John K ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND   (New Zealand)

^b UNIVERSITY OF READING   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Audience empowerment; Educating science communicators; Interactive communication

Indexed keywords

EID: 85007101641     PISSN: 21548455     EISSN: 21548463     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/21548455.2011.611627     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Abd-El-Khalick, F., and Lederman, N. G., 2000. Improving science teachers' conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22 (7): 665–701.
2. Bauer, M. W., 2008. “ Paradigm change for science communication: Commercial science needs a critical public ”. In Communicating science in social contexts, Edited by: Cheng, D., Claessens, M., Gascoigne, T., Metcalfe, J., Schiele, B., and Shi, S., 7–25. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
3. Bubela, T., Nisbet, M. C., Borchelt, R., Brunger, F., Critchley, C., Einsiedel, E., and … Caulfield, T., 2009. Science communication reconsidered. Nature Biotechnology, 27 (6): 514–518.
4. Craig, R. T., 1999. Communication theory as a field. Communication Theory, 9 (2): 119–161.
5. Dalkey, N. C., and Helmer, O., 1962. An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts, Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation.
6. Entman, R. M., 1993. Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43 (4): 51–58.
7. Goffman, E., 1974. Frame analysis: An essay on the organisation of experience, New York, NY: Harper and Row.
8. Gross, A. G., 1994. The roles of rhetoric in the public understanding of science. Public Understanding of Science, 3 (1): 3–23.
9. Mulder, H. A.J., Longnecker, N., and Davis, L. S., 2008. The state of science communication programs at universities around the world. Science Communication, 30 (2): 277–287.
10. Murry, J. W., and Hammons, J. O., 1995. Delphi—a versatile methodology for conducting qualitative research. Review of Higher Education, 18 (4): 423–436.
11. Nisbet, M. C., and Scheufele, D. A., 2009. What's next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany, 96 (10): 1767–1778.
12. Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., and Duschl, R., 2003. What ‘ideas-about-science’ should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40 (7): 692–720.
13. Osmond, D. L., Nadkarni, N. M., Driscoll, C. T., Andrews, E., Gold, A. J., Allred, S. R.B., and … Groffman, P.M., 2010. The role of interface organizations in science communication and understanding. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 8 (6): 306–313.
14. van der Sanden, M. C.A., and Meijman, F. J., 2008. Dialogue guides awareness and understanding of science: An essay on different goals of dialogue leading to different science communication approaches. Public Understanding of Science, 17 (1): 89–103.
15. Scheufele, D. A., 1999. Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49 (1): 103–122.
16. Shannon, C. E., and Weaver, W., 1949. The mathematical theory of information, Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.