Filter by section: Commentary

Even in the best-resourced science communication institutions, poor quality evaluation methods are routinely employed. This leads to questionable data, specious conclusions and stunted growth in the quality and effectiveness of science communication practice. Good impact evaluation requires upstream planning, clear objectives from practitioners, relevant research skills and a commitment to improving practice based on evaluation evidence.

Evaluations of science communication activities before, during and after their implementation can provide findings that are useful in planning further activities. As some selected examples show, designing such evaluation is complex: they may involve assessment at various points, a mix of quantitative and qualitative methods, and show that impacts differ when seen from different perspectives.

As science museums and centres (SMC) broaden their practices to include the development of scientific citizenship, evaluation needs also to take account of this dimension of their practices. It requires complex methods to understand better the impacts of public participation in activities mediated by SMC, including their impacts on the governance of the SMC themselves.

Children Universities are an emerging approach and acknowledged example of successful science communication for and with children. They represent in fact a scheme to implement science in society and society in science. Since its beginning around 2003 to its development into a global movement, the children university approach has also evolved new questioning, beyond proposing an opportunity for young people to meet the university world. Can Children’s Universities help higher education and research institutions to recognize children as a relevant dialogue group, and at the same time to be more responsive and inclusive concerning disadvantaged groups? Is there an impact on educational policy developments? Can face-to-face encounters lead to a change of mindsets – for both the young participants and the academia? The objective of building a two way dialogue between higher education institutions and young people highlights several difficult issues, in particular when a socially inclusive approach is sought, but at the same time opens up new opportunities for both science, scientific institutions, science communication and the public.

In the last two years SISSA Medialab designed, tested and evaluated two projects aiming at empowering children (in one case) and teenagers (in the other) to act as science journalists in order to promote a personal, critical attitude towards science and technology. The two groups produced a paper magazine and a blog, respectively, in a participatory process, in which adults acted as facilitators and experts on demand, but the youths were the leaders and owners of the products. Special care was taken to ensure inclusiveness, by involving in the project children and teenagers from any social class including those not especially interested in science and technology before participating in the project.

Children’s issues have become a greater priority on political agendas since the UN General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). Each government has agreed to ensure that all those working with and for children understand their duties in relation to upholding children’s rights including the obligation to involve children in decisions that affect them (Article 12). Respecting children’s views is not just a model of good pedagogical practice, but a legally binding obligation. However, there is a limited awareness of Article 12, and how to actualise it. While many people speak about the ‘voice of the child’ or ‘student voice’, these concepts do not capture the full extent of the provision. Lundy (2007) developed a model, which helps duty bearers involve children meaningfully in decision-making. According to this model four separate factors require consideration: Space, Voice, Audience, and Influence. In this paper, we provide an overview of these four factors and a summary of the main implications of the model.

Listening to and empowering children is a main objective of the EU project SIS Catalyst – Children as Change Agents for Science in Society. Within this frame, a training workshop was held with researchers from the University Innsbruck (Austria) who are involved in the children’s University Junge Uni Innsbruck. We analysed the discussions of the scientists about the reasons why they engage in science in society activities, and why they think that children are interested in participating in such activities, and we compared these outcomes with similar discussions carried out by children in the advisory board of the Junge Uni. Scientists and children can reflect on their experiences in the same way and can learn from each other. This mutual learning process can help to develop institutions like a children’s university.

In the editorial of this issue of JCOM, we underline how children are on one hand one of the main target group for science communication, and on the other hand a largely excluded group in the shift from a linear diffusion model to a dialogic model of science communication. In this series of comments, stimulated by the EU - FP7-Science in society project `SiS-Catalyst - 2013 children as change agents for science in society' (a four year programme aimed at crossing the science in society and the social inclusion agendas), we would like to explore methods and approaches that can ensure that, in science communication contexts, children can be listened to, that they are given the chance to express their view, and that they can be empowered in building their own relationship with science, and thus a sense of ownership for scientific knowledge.

This paper brings some reflections on JCOM and, in general on a science communication journal, from the perspective of the developing world. It is highlighted the following top aspects of JCOM: open access; the language, that is, the fact that authors can write in their own languages and the article is translated into English; and the fact that JCOM welcomes contributions from every part of the world. The author considers JCOM a unique journal, which approaches science communication in a rich way and keeping a welcome intellectual diversity.

The science&art research played an important role in the topics covered by JCOM because actually the convergence of languages and themes of art and science increasingly continue to act synergistically in the most diverse knowledge fields.