Commentary: Roles, opportunities, and challenges—science museums engaging the public in emerging science and technology
Source abstract
Abstract
Even a cursory reading of the public engagement in science (PES) literature over the past decade reveals that public engagement is becoming part of the “orthodoxy of 21st century science policy” (Stilgoe, Nanodialogues: experiments in public engagement with science, 2007, p 16), Moving forward, there appears to be strong consensus that (1) public engagement is an essential component for shaping sound science policies, research agendas, and governance structures; (2) more opportunities for accessible and successful PES need to be developed and implemented to have meaningful impact; and (3) a broader and more diverse range of publics need to be reached through PES activities. This article explores the role that U.S. science museums and centers could play in creating and delivering PES programming focusing on current science and technology developments and issues, with particular attention to nanoscience and nanotechnology. Also addressed will be some of the factors that support increased PES involvement by museums, some of the challenges museums need to overcome to sustain ongoing PES, and several recommendations to achieve broader PES impact through science museum participation.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Climate Change Communication and Perception · Museums and Cultural Heritage · Conservation Techniques and Studies
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (9)
Show source-provided references
1. Alpert C (2009) Advances in partnerships and conjugates: the fall MRS meeting. In: Presentation at the Materials Research Society’s Materials Education Symposium, Boston
2. Center for the Advancement of Informal Science Education (CAISE) (2009) Many experts, many audiences: public engagement with science and informal science education, A CAISE Inquiry Group Report. Center for the Advancement of Informal Science Education, Washington, DC
3. Flagg B, Knight-Williams V (2008) Summative evaluation of NISE network’s public forum: nanotechnology in health care, Research Report no. 08-021. Multimedia Research, Bellport
4. Martin L, Semper R, Duensing S (2004) Funding and institutional issues related to public understanding of research. In: Chittenden D, Farmelo G, Lewenstein B (eds) Creating connections: museums and the public understanding of current research. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek
5. Mayfield H (2004) What about the audiences? Tailoring PUR programs for museum visitors. In: Chittenden D, Farmelo G, Lewenstein B (eds) Creating connections: museums and the public understanding of current research. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek
6. Mazda X (2004) Dangerous ground? Public engagement with science controversy. In: Chittenden D, Farmelo G, Lewenstein B (eds) Creating connections: museums and the public understanding of current research. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek
7. Meyer M (2009) From ‘cold’ science to ‘hot’ research: the texture of controversy. Centre De Sociologie De L’innovation Mines Paristech, Paris
8. Nanoscale Informal Science Education Network (NISE NET) (2009) NISE network public forums manual: a guide to creating informal public conversations about nanoscience. Products@nisenet.org , St. Paul
9. Stilgoe J (2007) Nanodialogues: experiments in public engagement with science. Demos, London