King et al. [2015] argue that ‘emphasis on impact is obfuscating the valuable role of evaluation’ in informal science learning and public engagement (p. 1). The article touches on a number of important...
Access to high quality evaluation results is essential for science communicators to identify negative patterns of audience response and improve outcomes. However, there are many good reasons why robust evaluation linked is not routinely conducted and linked to science...
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...
Most read
What is the “science of science communication”?
Challenges of communicating science: perspectives from the Philippines
Storytelling: the soul of science communication
The necessary "GMO" denialism and scientific consensus
Typologies of the popular science web video
Science communication and the issue of trust
The potential of comics in science communication
The power of storytelling and video: a visual rhetoric for science communication
Visits by country
![]() | 17.3 % |
![]() | 12.9 % |
![]() | 8.6 % |
![]() | 7.6 % |
![]() | 7.0 % |
![]() | 6.6 % |
![]() | 3.2 % |
![]() | 3.1 % |
![]() | 1.9 % |
![]() | 1.9 % |
![]() | 1.9 % |
![]() | 1.9 % |
![]() | 1.6 % |
![]() | 1.6 % |
![]() | 1.3 % |
![]() | 21.7 % |