Suchergebnisse

This book describes current practices in science communication, from citizen science to Twitter storms, and celebrates this diversity through case studies and examples. However, the authors also reflect on how scholars and practitioners can gain better insight into science communication through new analytical methods and perspectives. From science PR to the role of embodiment and materiality, some aspects of science communication have been under-studied. How can we better notice these? Science Communication provides a new synthesis for Science Communication Studies. It uses the historical literature of the field, new empirical data, and interdisciplinary thought to argue that the frames which are typically used to think about science communication often omit important features of how it is imagined and practised. It is essential reading for students, scholars, and practitioners of science education, science and technology studies, museum studies, and media and communication studies

AbstractThe Collingridge dilemma—the problem of reacting to emerging technology either "too early" or "too late"—is one that is readily recognized by developers and promoters of nanotechnologies. One response can be found in the rise of a discourse of "responsible development" in the science and innovation policy landscape. While a number of commentators have discussed the potential of such initiatives, it remains unclear how responsible development is actually being configured "on the ground," in private sector nanotechnology. This paper addresses this question by analyzing empirical engagements in Europe and the United States in order to map industry operationalizations of "responsibility" in these contexts. We show that a number of different articulations of "responsibility" are present, including as a response to public lack of trust and perceived public pressure, and as the management of risk. We close by relating these findings to the theoretical literature on responsibility, other contemporary accounts of the ways in which responsible development can be operationalized, and the possibilities that these articulations of responsibility may open up.

ABSTRACTThis paper presents a model of service process for a family support service at the preventative level as part of a wider debate about child welfare systems in the UK and beyond. The paper places the debate about the shape of preventative family support services within the policy context and uses it to critique various models of service provision, principally the 'child rescue' paradigm. From this, the paper explores the characteristics that constitute a complex, yet preventative, family support service. This model is then illustrated using empirical evidence collected from the evaluation of a voluntary and community sector project in the North West of England that describes the service process and some of its characteristics. The paper argues that the model of family support presented has implications for the type of service process that can effectively put the theory into practice. Finally, questions for further research are defined in relation to the implications that this model poses for professional–user relationships and for the professional forms that can deliver preventative family support.

In this article, we draw from our experiences as UK and US-based 'dialogue event' practitioners and researchers/ evaluators to suggest that these existing evaluative criteria are insufficient to explore the role and value of ISI-based 'dialogue events'. Instead, we suggest that it may be productive to research and evaluate these ISI-based 'dialogue events' as sites of learning. Secondly, however, we show through a discussion of our own research frameworks that understanding these 'dialogue events' as sites of learning does not intuitively provide a framework for understanding what counts as success for these efforts. Instead, research on the role of 'dialogue' within the educational literature – and the connections between 'dialogue' and competing understandings of the nature of science and society – offers a multiplicity of approaches to defining the terms and goals of these events. Finally, we identify two broader implications of researching and evaluating these 'dialogue events' as sites of learning for ISIs and all efforts to increase public engagement with science and technology.