Vijf grote uitdagingen in de wetenschapscommunicatie

References

1. Adams, R. C., Challenger, A., Bratton, L., Boivin, J., Bott, L., Powell, G., Williams, A., Chambers, C. D., & Sumner, P.(2019). Claims of causality in health news: A randomised trial. BMC Medicine, 17(1), 91.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Buhse, S., Rahn, A. C., Bock, M., & Mühlhauser, I.(2018). Causal interpretation of correlational studies – Analysis of medical news on the website of the official journal for German physicians. PLOS ONE, 13(5), e0196833.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Cagan, R.(2013). The San Francisco declaration on research assessment. Disease Models & Mechanisms, 6(4), 869-870.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Costa, E. & Villa, R.(2020). Science communication education in Europe. CARTO. https://questproject.eu/where-are-science-communication-courses-in-europe
   [Google Scholar]
5. Engelshoven, I. van. (2019). Nieuwsgierig en betrokken. De waarde van wetenschap. Ministerie van Algemene Zaken.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Entradas, M., Bauer, M. W., O’Muircheartaigh, C., Marcinkowski, F., Okamura, A., Pellegrini, G., Besley, J., Massarani, L., Russo, P., Dudo, A., Saracino, B., Silva, C., Kano, K., Amorim, L., Bucchi, M., Suerdem, A., Oyama, T., & Li, Y.-Y.(2020). Public communication by research institutes compared across countries and sciences: Building capacity for engagement or competing for visibility?PLOS ONE, 15(7), e0235191.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Gerber, A., Metcalfe, J., Broks, P., Lorke, J., Gabriel, M., & Lorenz, L.(2020). Science communication research: An empirical field analysis [Government report]. German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Guenther, L., & Joubert, M.(2017). Science communication as a field of research: Identifying trends, challenges and gaps by analysing research papers. Journal of Science Communication, 16(02), A02.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Heyl, A., Joubert, M., & Guenther, L.(2020). Churnalism and hype in science communication: Comparing university press releases and journalistic articles in South Africa. Communicatio, 46(2), 126-145.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Hooykaas, M. J. D., Schilthuizen, M., Aten, C., Hemelaar, E. M., Albers, C. J., & Smeets, I.(2019). Identification skills in biodiversity professionals and laypeople: A gap in species literacy. Biological Conservation, 238, 108202.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Jensen, E.(2014). The problems with science communication evaluation. Journal of Science Communication, 13(1), C04.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Jensen, P., Rouquier, J.-B., Kreimer, P., & Croissant, Y.(2008). Scientists who engage with society perform better academically. Science and Public Policy, 35(7), 527-541.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Kleinhans, M., Verbeek, P.-P., & Putten, M. van der. (2012). Tussen onderzoek en samenleving: Aanbevelingen voor optimale wetenschapscommunicatie. https://knaw.nl/nl/actueel/publicaties/tussen-onderzoek-en-samenleving
    [Google Scholar]
14. Landelijk Orgaan Wetenschappelijke Integriteit. (2019). LOWI Advies 2019, nr. 22. Landelijk Orgaan Wetenschappelijke Integriteit. https://lowi.nl/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/LOWI-advies_2019-22.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
15. Lendering, J.(2012). De klad in de klassieken,. Athenaeum.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Martinez-Conde, S.(2016). Has contemporary academia outgrown the Carl Sagan effect?Journal of Neuroscience, 36(7), 2077-2082.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Mooney, C. C.(2010). Do scientists understand the public?American Academy of Arts and Sciences Cambridge, MA.
    [Google Scholar]
18. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Communicating science effectively: A research agenda. National Academies Press.
    [Google Scholar]
19. NeFCA. (2019). Science communication as boundary space for negotiation. NeFCA.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Nelles, J., & Vorley, T.(2010). From policy to practice: Engaging and embedding the third mission in contemporary universities. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 30(7/8), 341-353.
    [Google Scholar]
21. NWO. (2020). Ruim 1 miljoen euro voor nieuwe impuls wetenschapscommunicatie. NWO.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Schat, J., Bossema, F. G., Numans, M. E., Smeets, I., & Burger, P.(2018). Overdreven gezondheidsnieuws. Relatie tussen overdrijving in academische persberichten en in nieuwsmedia. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde, 162(5).
    [Google Scholar]
23. Scheufele, D. A., Krause, N. M., Freiling, I., & Brossard, D.(2020). How not to lose the COVID-19 communication war. Issues in Science and Technology. https://issues.org/covid-19-communication-war
    [Google Scholar]
24. Simis, M. J., Madden, H., Cacciatore, M. A., & Yeo, S. K.(2016). The lure of rationality: Why does the deficit model persist in science communication?Public Understanding of Science, 25(4), 400-414.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Smeets, I.(2016). Enige beschouwingen over de waarde der wetenschapscommunicatie [Oratie, Universiteit Leiden, Leiden]. www.ionica.nl/oratie-universiteit-leiden
    [Google Scholar]
26. Sumner, P., Vivian-Griffiths, S., Boivin, J., Williams, A., Venetis, C. A., Davies, A., Ogden, J., Whelan, L., Hughes, B., Dalton, B., Boy, F., & Chambers, C. D.(2014). The association between exaggeration in health related science news and academic press releases: Retrospective observational study. BMJ, 349, g7015.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Van Dam, F., de Bakker, L., Dijkstra, A. M., & Jensen, E. A. (Red.) (2020). Science communication: An introduction. World Scientific. https://doi.org/10.1142/11541
    [Google Scholar]
28. Van Gerven, D., Land-Zandstra, A., & Damsma, W.(2018). Authenticity matters: Children look beyond appearances in their appreciation of museum objects. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 8(4), 325-339.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Verkade, A.(2017). Beoordelingsinstrument wetenschapscommunicatie. Rathenau Instituut.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Vogler, D., & Schäfer, M. S.(2020). Growing influence of university pr on science news coverage? A longitudinal automated content analysis of university media releases and newspaper coverage in Switzerland, 2003-2017. International Journal of Communication, 14, 22.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Wynne, B.(1996). Misunderstood misunderstandings: Social identities and public uptake of science. In A.Irwin & B.Wynne (Red.), Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology (pp. 19-46). Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Zarkadakis, G.(2010). FameLab: A talent competition for young scientists. Science Communication, 32(2), 281-287.
    [Google Scholar]