Scholars and pundits alike argue that U.S. scientists could do more to reach out to the general public. Yet, to date, there have been few systematic studies that examine how scientists understand the barriers that impede such outreach. Through analysis of 97 semi-structured interviews with academic biologists and physicists at top research universities in the United States, we classify the type and target audiences of scientists’ outreach activities. Finally, we explore the narratives academic scientists have about outreach and its reception in the academy, in particular what they perceive as impediments to these activities. We find that scientists’ outreach activities are stratified by gender and that university and disciplinary rewards as well as scientists’ perceptions of their own skills have an impact on science outreach. Research contributions and recommendations for university policy follow.

No abstract

No abstract

was identical with Zeugma, but D. Kennedy, 'Thapsacus and Zeugma', reopens the discussion with a detailed analysis of the likely route of trade and timber transport from the Levant to Mesopotamia, vividly evoking the laborious progress of the massive cedars of Lebanon, on painfully slow ox-carts, to the river. His favoured identification is Birecik. The maps in this article, unfortunately, are so small and grey as to be almost unreadable, and omit many of the locations mentioned in the text. Another river crossing is the subject of E. Anson's paper, 'Alexander at the Beas', in which he argues against the controversial proposals of Spann and Heckel that Alexander never intended to go further than the Beas, and that there was no 'mutiny' there. For Anson, Alexander's ambition was infinite, bounded only by what he could do in a lifetime. G. Cohen, 'Polis Hellenis', offers a careful analysis of the term, emphasising the cultural connotation of 'Greek', which is more than simply a linguistic term. The fact that there are no poleis Hellenides in Asia Minor indicates that the term does not refer to political structure, but to paideia. Two papers are concerned with the Realien of Alexander's empire. B., 'Why the Devil Wears Prada: the Politics of Display in Military Kit', vividly characterises the clothing, armour and parade dress of the Macedonians, and the importance of the 'look' as part of the apparatus of power. D. Whitehead, 'Alexander the Great and the Mechanici', surveys the engineers and their work for Alexander, in a paper which provides abundant detail for the imagining of Alexander's matériel. Anyone for a reconstruction helepolis to complement Coates and Morrison's trireme? J. Bellemore, 'Valerius Maximus and his Presentation of Alexander the Great', takes us into the interesting field of the reception of Alexander in antiquity. She discusses Valerius Maximus' 24 references to Alexander, and concludes that the author regarded Alexander as a great man despite his faults. I argued in Roisman's Brill's Companion (2003), in an article not mentioned by Bellemore, that this line of interpretation puts the cart before the horse: it was because Alexander was a great man that he was a useful source of exempla. Philosophers use history for their own purposes. Two final papers have nothing to do with Alexander but expand the representation of Antipodean colleagues. A. Pomeroy, 'Tacitus and the Crises of Empire', explores Tacitus and 'periodization'. J.R. Melville-Jones, 'Legitimizing an Emperor: the Solidus of Alexander III', raises hopes, but the coin he examines is not of that Alexander, but of the homonymous Byzantine emperor (A.D. 912-3). The discussion is interesting, but lacks illustrations. These two last papers may get lost in the company they keep, but no historian of Alexander can afford to ignore the rest of the content of this book.

No abstract