Evaluating science communication training

David, Yael Barel-Ben; Baram‐Tsabari, Ayelet

doi:10.4324/9781351069366-9

Cited by 6 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Do programs have defined learning objectives that inform the creation of measurable assessment categories? Although new methods to evaluate science communication training and engagement efforts are being created (e.g., Bogue et al, 2013; Peterman et al, 2017; Robertson Evia et al, 2017; Rodgers et al, 2020; Sevian & Gonsalves, 2008), little is known about how science communication training programs conduct evaluation (Baram-Tsabari & Lewenstein, 2017a; Barel-Ben David & Baram-Tsabari, 2020). Thus, our third research question asks:…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Science Communication Training in North America: Preparing Whom to Do What With What Effect?

Dudo

Besley

Yuan

2020

Science Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study identifies key characteristics of current science communication training programs based in North America. We report findings from semistructured interviews conducted with science communication trainers ( N = 32) that examined programs’ curricula, trainees, and impacts. Findings suggest that the current landscape of science communication training is one where a range of well-intentioned individuals and groups provide guidance to mostly self-selecting scientists. Training typically involves helping scientists find and refine their own message and then expecting these individuals to find their own opportunities to communicate. Programs commonly emphasize technical communication skills more than strategy, rarely conduct robust evaluation, and are not typically designed to enhance inclusivity. Researcher-trainer partnerships can help maximize the reach and positive impacts of these programs.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Science Communication Training in North America: Preparing Whom to Do What With What Effect?

Dudo

Besley

Yuan

2020

Science Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Meaningful evaluation of these programs would also improve reflexivity. As we found in this study, past work identifies a lack of evaluation in science communication training programs overall (Barel-Ben David & Baram-Tsabari, 2019;Besley et al, 2016;Dudo et al, 2021). Co-created approaches to evaluation that move beyond simple metrics to a systemic lens on organizational impact offer promising avenues for authentic assessment of these programs (Dudo et al, 2021;Snyder-Young, 2018).…”

Section: Reflexivitymentioning

confidence: 59%

“…Previous research on science communication training programs suggests they do not center inclusive approaches; although trainers often expressed strong support for broadening participation, programs often lacked clear evidence that they were being intentional in broadening participation in their staff, their participants, or the audiences they sought out (Besley et al, 2016; Canfield and Menezes, 2020; Dudo et al, 2021). Lack of meaningful evaluation (Barel-Ben David & Baram-Tsabari, 2019; Besley et al, 2016) and lack of infrastructure and interaction between programs (Besley et al, 2016; Canfield and Menezes, 2020; Smith, 2019) may also mean programs are bounded by their own norms and capacities. In contrast, science communication training programs embedded within marginalized cultural contexts appear to be more intentional in not only broadening participation but also welcoming and empowering participants (Brown et al, 2020; Márquez and Porras, 2020).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Science communication fellowship programs as gatekeepers

Bennett¹,

Dudo

Besley

2022

Public Underst Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Science communication fellowship programs act as gatekeepers to the skills and opportunities they provide scientists and science communicators. In this role, they may either resist or reproduce inequities present in society at large. We conducted interviews with 25 US-based science communication fellowship directors representing 23 programs to investigate (1) what types of capital these programs provide to fellows and (2) what rules and norms may shape access to these programs. Our results suggest that these programs connect fellows to rich forms of cultural and social capital in the form of experiential learning and mentorships. However, access to these programs is likely shaped by forms of infrastructure, literacy, and community acceptance. Maintaining the status quo in these organizations may not be enough to resist social inequity, and we finish this article with a call for reflexivity and actionable transformation within these programs.

show abstract

“…Third, future studies could incorporate insights from experts’ communication practices into the design of science communication training, a “rapidly developing, but as yet under-conceptualized field” (Baram-Tsabari and Lewenstein, 2017: 286). This direction seems particularly promising, given the worldwide growth of social media and the high regard given to promoting trust in science within this field (Barel-Ben David and Baram-Tsabari, 2020).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The experts’ perspective of “ask-an-expert”: An interview-based study of online nutrition and vaccination outreach

Sharon

Baram‐Tsabari

2020

Public Underst Sci

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social media allow experts to form communities and engage in direct dialogue with publics, which can promote mutual understanding between sciences and publics. However, little is known about experts’ participation in online communities, or effective ways to prepare them for public engagement. Here, we explored these issues with experts who voluntarily engage with publics on social media, to understand their public engagement practices. Stimulated recall interviews were conducted with 20 experts who participate in question-and-answer Facebook groups dedicated to vaccines and nutrition. The findings suggest that experts employ diverse considerations in their outreach, partly to establish epistemic trustworthiness. These can be grouped into three goals and two constraints: countering misinformation, establishing benevolence, and establishing competence while maintaining integrity and clarity. Empathic failure and burnout both emerged as factors that impair establishing benevolence. We discuss implications for community-level science literacy and for preparing scientists for “bounded engagement with publics.”

show abstract

Evaluating science communication training

Cited by 6 publications

References 1 publication

Science Communication Training in North America: Preparing Whom to Do What With What Effect?

Science Communication Training in North America: Preparing Whom to Do What With What Effect?

Science communication fellowship programs as gatekeepers

The experts’ perspective of “ask-an-expert”: An interview-based study of online nutrition and vaccination outreach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About