2004
Volume 50 Number 3
  • ISSN: 1384-6930
  • E-ISSN: 1875-7286

Abstract

Samenvatting

Het evalueren van de effecten en uiteindelijke impact van activiteiten binnen de wetenschapscommunicatie blijft voer voor discussie. In deze paper schetsen wij daarom een theoretisch kader en een nieuwe systematische aanpak voor het meten van de impact in het veld. Deze aanpak brengt nieuwe inzichten samen die de beoogde doelgroepen en de werkzame ingrediënten van wetenschapscommunicatie in kaart kunnen brengen.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/TCW2022.3.006.PEET
2022-10-01
2022-11-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/13846930/50/3/TCW2022.3.006.PEET.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5117/TCW2022.3.006.PEET&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Archer, L., Dawson, E., DeWitt, J., Seakins, A., & Wong, B. (2015). “Science capital”: A conceptual, methodological, and empirical argument for extending bourdieusian notions of capital beyond the arts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(7), 922-948.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bastiaansen, M., Lub, X. D., Mitas, O., Jung, T. H., Ascenção, M. P., Han, D.-I., Moilanen, T., Smit, B., & Strijbosch, W. (2019). Emotions as core building blocks of an experience. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 31(2), 651-668.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bourdieu, P. (1986). Forms of capital. In J.Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). Greenwood.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bourdieu, P. (2005). The social structures of the economy. Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1994). Measuring emotion: the self-assessment manikin and the semantic differential. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 25(1), 49-59.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Burns, M., & Medvecky, F. (2018). The disengaged in science communication: How not to count audiences and publics. Public Understanding of Science, 27(2), 118-130.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Cooke, S. J., Gallagher, A. J., Sopinka, N. M., Nguyen, V. M., Skubel, R. A., Hammerschlag, N., Boon, S., Young, N., & Danylchuk, A. J. (2017). Considerations for effective science communication. Facets, 2(1), 233-248.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. DeWitt, J., Archer, L., & Mau, A. (2016). Dimensions of science capital: Exploring its potential for understanding students’ science participation. International Journal of Science Education, 38(16), 2431-2449.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Dalderup, L. (2000). Wetenschapsvoorlichting en wetenschapsbeleid in Nederland 1950-2000. Gewina: Tijdschrift voor de Geschiedenis der Geneeskunde, Natuurwetenschappen, Wiskunde en Techniek, 23(3), 165-192.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Dijkstra, A. M., de Bakker, L., van Dam, F., & Jensen, E. A. (2020a). Setting the scene. In Van Dam, F., de Bakker, L., Dijkstra, A. M., & Jensen, E. A. (Eds.), Science communication: An introduction. World Scientific.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Dijkstra, A. M., Van Dam, F., & Van der Sanden, M. (2020b). The Netherlands: From the first science information officers to the Dutch Research Agenda. In T.Gascoigne, B.Schiele, J.Leach, M.Riedlinger, B. V., Lewenstein, L.Massarani, & P.Broks (Eds.), Communicating science: A global perspective (pp. 597-615). ANU Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Fischhoff, B. (2019). Evaluating science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(16), 7670-7675.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. Psychology Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Fransman, J. (2018). Charting a course to an emerging field of ‘research engagement studies’: A conceptual meta-synthesis. Research for All, 2(2), 185-229.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Galvin, M., Kennan, A., & Shé, É. N. (2021). A design-led framework for engaged research: Using a design approach to understand and place the public at the core of health and social care. Administration, 69(3), 1-18.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Gharesifard, M., Wehn, U., & van der Zaag, P. (2019). What influences the establishment and functioning of community-based monitoring initiatives of water and environment? A conceptual framework. Journal of Hydrology, 579, 124033.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Hassenforder, E., Pittock, J., Barreteau, O., Daniell, K. A., & Ferrand, N. (2016). The MEPPP framework: A framework for monitoring and evaluating participatory planning processes. Environmental Management, 57(1), 79-96.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Humm, C., & Schrögel, P. (2020). Science for all? Practical recommendations on reaching underserved audiences. Frontiers in Communication, 5, 42.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Humm, C., Schrögel, P., & Leßmöllmann, A. (2020). Feeling left out: Underserved audiences in science communication. Media and Communication, 8(1), 164-176.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Jensen, E. A. (2020). Why impact evaluation matters in science communication: Or, advancing the science of science communication. In P.Weingart, M.Joubert & B.Falade (Eds.), Science communication in South Africa: Reflections on current issues (pp. 213-228). African Minds.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Kappel, K., & Holmen, S. J. (2019). Why science communication, and does it work? A taxonomy of science communication aims and a survey of the empirical evidence. Frontiers in Communication, 4(55), 1-12.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Kieslinger, B., Schäfer, T., Heigl, F., Dörler, D., Richter, A., & Bonn, A. (2017). The challenge of evaluation: An open framework for evaluating citizen science activities. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/enzc9
    [Google Scholar]
  23. KNAW (2018). Maatschappelijke impact in kaart. KNAW. https://storage.knaw.nl/2022-08/20181102-advies-maatschappelijke-impact-in-kaart.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  24. KVAB (2018). Onderscheidingen wetenschapscommunicatie van de Academie. KVAB. https://www.kvab.be/sites/default/rest/blobs/1974/owc%20reglement%20annex%202019.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Lohwater, T., & Storksdieck, M. (2017). Science communication at scientific institutions. In K.Hall Jamieson, D. M.Kahan, & D.Scheufele (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the science of science communication (pp. 179-186). Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. A. (1974). An approach to environmental psychology. MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Meijers, M. (2016). Waarom langdurig milieuvriendelijk gedrag niet altijd vanzelfsprekend is. Tijdschrift voor Communicatiewetenschap, 44(4), 298-315.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Mulder, H. A. J., Longnecker, N., & Davis, L. S. (2008). The state of science communication programs at universities around the world. Science Communication, 30(2), 277-287.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Neresini, F., & Pellegrini, G. (2014). Assessing the impact of science communication. In M.Bucchi & B.Trench (Eds.), Routledge handbook of public communication of science and technology (2nd ed.) (pp. 231-244). Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Nisbet, M. C., & Scheufele, D. A. (2009). What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany, 96(10), 1767-1778.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. NWO (2019). Kennis- en innovatieconvenant 2020-2023. https://www.nwo.nl/sites/nwo/files/documents/Kennis%20en%20innovatieconvenant%202020-2023.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Pellegrini, G. (2021). Evaluating science communication. Concepts and tools for realistic assessment. In M.Bucchi & B.Trench (Eds.), Routledge handbook of public communication of science and technology (3rd ed.) (pp. 305-322). Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Pessoa, L. (2008). On the relationship between emotion and cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9(2), 148-158.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Reed, M. S., Duncan, S., Manners, P., Pound, D., Armitage, L., Frewer, L., Thorley, C., & Frost, B. (2018). A common standard for the evaluation of public engagement with research. Research for All, 2(1), 143-162.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Schrögel, P., Humm, C., Leßmöllmann, A., Kremer, B., Adler, J., & Weißkopf, M. (2018). Nicht erreichte Zielgruppen in der Wissenschaftskommunikation: Literatur-Review zu Exklusionsfaktoren und Analyse von Fallbeispielen. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-66846-1
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Spaapen, J., & Van Droogen, L. (2011) Introducing ‘productive interactions’ in social impact assessment. Research Evaluation, 20(3), 211-218. https://doi.org/10.3152/095820211X12941371876742
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Spicer, S. (2017). The nuts and bolts of evaluating science communication activities. Seminars in Cell & Developmental Biology, 70, 17-25.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Tyng, C. M., Amin, H. U., Saad, M. N., & Malik, A. S. (2017). The influences of emotion on learning and memory. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1454.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Van Ruler, B. (2019). Agile communication evaluation and measurement. Journal of Communication Management, 23(3), 265-280.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Verkade, A. (2017). Beoordelingsinstrument wetenschapscommunicatie. Rathenau Instituut. https://www.rathenau.nl/sites/default/files/Beoordelingsinstrument%20wetenschapscommunicatie%20-%20Rathenau%20Instituut.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  41. VSNU, NFU, KNAW, NWO, & ZonMW (2019). Ruimte voor ieders talent. Position paper erkennen en waarderen. https://www.universiteitenvannederland.nl/files/documenten/Domeinen/Onderzoek/Position%20paper%20Ruimte%20voor%20ieders%20talent.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Wissenschaft im Dialog (2020). Goals of science communication: An analysis of the strategic goals set by relevant actors within German institutional science communication. https://www.wissenschaft-im-dialog.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Projekte/Impact_Unit/Dokumente/201215_ImpactUnit_GoalsOfScienceCommunication_ExecutiveSummary.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Watermeyer, R., & Lewis, J. (2015). Public engagement in higher education: The state of the art. In J.Case & J.Huisman, (Eds.), Investigating higher education: A critical review of research contributions (pp. 42-60). Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Wehn, U., Gharesifard, M., Ceccaroni, L., Joyce, H., Ajates, R., Woods, S., Bilbao, A., Parkinson, S., Gold, M., & Wheatland, J. (2021). Impact assessment of citizen science: State of the art and guiding principles for a consolidated approach. Sustainability Science, 16, 1683-1699.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/TCW2022.3.006.PEET
Loading
/content/journals/10.5117/TCW2022.3.006.PEET
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error