Why Science Communication, and Does It Work? A Taxonomy of Science Communication Aims and a Survey of the Empirical Evidence

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Standard

Why Science Communication, and Does It Work? A Taxonomy of Science Communication Aims and a Survey of the Empirical Evidence. / Holmen, Sebastian Jon; Kappel, Klemens.

In: Frontiers in Communications, 2019.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Harvard

Holmen, SJ & Kappel, K 2019, 'Why Science Communication, and Does It Work? A Taxonomy of Science Communication Aims and a Survey of the Empirical Evidence', Frontiers in Communications. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2019.00055

APA

Holmen, S. J., & Kappel, K. (2019). Why Science Communication, and Does It Work? A Taxonomy of Science Communication Aims and a Survey of the Empirical Evidence. Frontiers in Communications. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2019.00055

Vancouver

Holmen SJ, Kappel K. Why Science Communication, and Does It Work? A Taxonomy of Science Communication Aims and a Survey of the Empirical Evidence. Frontiers in Communications. 2019. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2019.00055

Author

Holmen, Sebastian Jon ; Kappel, Klemens. / Why Science Communication, and Does It Work? A Taxonomy of Science Communication Aims and a Survey of the Empirical Evidence. In: Frontiers in Communications. 2019.

Bibtex

@article{42f30c0834d841efab26ac7eca16e2c5,
title = "Why Science Communication, and Does It Work? A Taxonomy of Science Communication Aims and a Survey of the Empirical Evidence",
abstract = "In this paper, we offer a novel conceptual framework of some of the most important aims for science communication efforts found in the contemporary literature on science communication. We identify several distinct aims present in the literature such as generating public epistemic and moral trust, generating social acceptance, and enhancing democratic legitimacy, and we discuss some of the relations between the different aims. Finally, we examine whether and, if so, to what extent these different aims can be said to have been successfully reached in practice and find that the empirical literature regarding the evaluation of science communications efforts is scarce. We conclude by suggesting that science communicators be attentive to formulating their communicative aim(s) in more precise terms, as well as conduct systematic studies of the effectiveness of their communicative efforts.",
author = "Holmen, {Sebastian Jon} and Klemens Kappel",
year = "2019",
doi = "10.3389/fcomm.2019.00055",
language = "English",
journal = "Frontiers in Communications",
issn = "1050-9046",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Why Science Communication, and Does It Work? A Taxonomy of Science Communication Aims and a Survey of the Empirical Evidence

AU - Holmen, Sebastian Jon

AU - Kappel, Klemens

PY - 2019

Y1 - 2019

N2 - In this paper, we offer a novel conceptual framework of some of the most important aims for science communication efforts found in the contemporary literature on science communication. We identify several distinct aims present in the literature such as generating public epistemic and moral trust, generating social acceptance, and enhancing democratic legitimacy, and we discuss some of the relations between the different aims. Finally, we examine whether and, if so, to what extent these different aims can be said to have been successfully reached in practice and find that the empirical literature regarding the evaluation of science communications efforts is scarce. We conclude by suggesting that science communicators be attentive to formulating their communicative aim(s) in more precise terms, as well as conduct systematic studies of the effectiveness of their communicative efforts.

AB - In this paper, we offer a novel conceptual framework of some of the most important aims for science communication efforts found in the contemporary literature on science communication. We identify several distinct aims present in the literature such as generating public epistemic and moral trust, generating social acceptance, and enhancing democratic legitimacy, and we discuss some of the relations between the different aims. Finally, we examine whether and, if so, to what extent these different aims can be said to have been successfully reached in practice and find that the empirical literature regarding the evaluation of science communications efforts is scarce. We conclude by suggesting that science communicators be attentive to formulating their communicative aim(s) in more precise terms, as well as conduct systematic studies of the effectiveness of their communicative efforts.

U2 - 10.3389/fcomm.2019.00055

DO - 10.3389/fcomm.2019.00055

M3 - Journal article

JO - Frontiers in Communications

JF - Frontiers in Communications

SN - 1050-9046

ER -

ID: 229560784