There are many public-awareness-of-science initiatives (PASIs), representing a major investment of resources. This review will consider how far these initiatives have succeeded. How much evaluation is taking place, and what patterns of success does it reveal? Work with the European Network of Science Communication Teachers (ENSCOT) enabled a review of reports for initiatives in European Union countries. Initial findings are that many PASIs are not formally written up and fewer are evaluated against their aims. The evidence also suggests differences between countries. This review considers how evaluation could improve future initiatives in Europe and beyond.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Boddington, A. 1997a. Cracked: A study of impact. Buckingham, UK: Evaluation Associates.
2.
Boddington, A. 1997b. The people decide: Evaluation Associates. Buckingham, UK: Evaluation Associates.
3.
Boddington, A. 1998. An evaluation of the K-Zone pilot. Buckingham, UK: Evaluation Associates.
4.
Boddington, A., and T. Coe. 1996. So did it work? London: COPUS.
5.
Duffy, R., K. W. Junker, and F. Barbagallo. 2001. Science communication in Irish government policy. Dublin: ENSCOT.
6.
Evaluation Associates. 1995. An evaluation of SET95: The National Week of Science, Engineering and Technology. London: COPUS.
7.
Evaluation Associates. 1996. An evaluation of SET96: The National Week of Science, Engineering and Technology. London: COPUS.
8.
Evans, G., and J. Durant. 1995. The relationship between knowledge and attitudes in the public understanding of science in Britain. Public Understanding of Science4: 57-74.
9.
Gascoigne, T., and J. Metcalfe. 2001. Why do governments spend money on national programs of science awareness? Paper presented at the sixth International Conference on Public Understanding of Science and Technology, February 1-3, Geneva.
10.
Miller, S. 2001. Public understanding of science at the crossroads. Public Understanding of Science10: 115-120.
11.
Moses, V., L. Akesson, G. Bautista, S. Benner, R. Braun, J. Cáceres, B. Curran, R. Custers, R. Dempsey, O. Doblhoff-Dier, P. Frey, D. Hammelev, J. Howell Pato, P. Lemaux, L. Lemkow, S. Lundin, P. Osseweijer, A. Quintanilha, G. Sakellaris, L. Santi, S. Somersalo, S. Uccelli, A. Van Gysel, and J. Watson. 2002. Biotechnology, educating the European public—final report. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.
12.
Pardo, R., and F. Calvo. 2002. Attitudes toward science among the European public: A methodological analysis. Public Understanding of Science11: 155-195.
13.
Pazzagli, M. 2001. Final report of The Da Vinci-Darwin-Linnaeus Initiative: A new renaissance for science in Europe. Florence, Italy: European Commission.
14.
Pazzagli, M., S. Gelmini, P. Pinzani, P. Bergsten, O. Nosova, and A. K. Campbell. 2002. The Da Vinci-Darwin-Linnaeus Initiative: Toward a new renaissance for science in Europe. In Bioluminescence and Chemiluminescence: Progress and Current Applications, edited by P. E. Stanley and L. J. Kricka, 183-187. London: World Scientific.
15.
Thomas, J. 2002. Raising public awareness of science. London: ENSCOT.
