Understanding Engagement with Science Festivals: Who Are the Engaged?

References

• Adar, B., Moore, D., Dorph, R., & Schunn, C. (2018). Investigating the multidimensionality of engagement: Affective, behaviorial, and cognitive engagement across science activities and contexts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 53, 87–105. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.01.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (2016). Theory of change for public engagement with science. https://www.aaas.org/page/theory-change-public-engagement-science.
   Google Scholar
• American Academy of Arts & Sciences. (2018). Perceptions of science in America. American Academy of Arts & Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• American Academy of Arts & Sciences. (2019). Encountering science in America. American Academy of Arts & Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Bell, J., Besley, J., Cannaday, M., Crowley, K., Grack Nelson, A., Phillips, T., Riedinger, K., & Storksdieck, M. (2019). The role of engagement in STEM learning and science communication: Reflections on interviews from the field. Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education.
   Google Scholar
• Bevan, B., Crowley, K., Risien, J., & Storksdieck, M. (2019). Where informal STEM education and science communication meet: Two studies chart the intersection of ISE and SciComm. Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education.
   Google Scholar
• Bond, N., & Falk, J. (2013). Tourism and identity‐related motivations: Why am I here (and not there)? International Journal of Tourism Research, 15(5), 430–442. doi:10.1002/jtr.1886
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonnette, R. N., Crowley, K., & Schunn, C. D. (2019). Falling in love and staying in love with science: Ongoing informal sciences experiences support fascination for all children. International Journal of Science Education, 41(12), 1626–1643. doi:10.1080/09500693.2019.1623431
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bultitude, K., McDonald, D., & Custead, S. (2011). The rise and rise of science festivals: An international review of organised events to celebrate science. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 1(2), 165–188. doi:10.1080/21548455.2011.588851
   Google Scholar
• Burns, M., & Medvecky, F. (2018). The disengaged in science communication: How not to count audiences and publics. Public Understanding of Science, 27(2), 118–130. doi:10.1177/0963662516678351
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies, S. R., & Horst, M. (2016). Science communication: Culture, identity and citizenship. Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Dawson, E. (2018). Reimagining publics and (non) participation: Exploring exclusion from science communication through the experiences of low-income, minority ethnic groups. Public Understanding of Science, 27(7), 772–786. doi:10.1177/0963662517750072
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dawson, E. (2019). Equity, exclusion and everyday science learning: The experiences of minoritised groups. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• DeWitt, J., Archer, L., & Mau, A. (2016). Dimensions of science capital: Exploring its potential for understanding students’ science participation. International Journal of Science Education, 38(16), 2431–2449. doi:10.1080/09500693.2016.1248520
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dorph, R., Cannady, M. A., & Schunn, C. (2019). What drives visitor engagement in exhibits? The interaction between visitor activation profiles and exhibit features. Curator: The Museum Journal, 1–17. doi:10.1111/cura.12324
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Falk, J. H. (2008). Viewing art museum visitors through the lens of identity. Visual Arts Research, 34(2), 25–34.
   Google Scholar
• Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2016). The museum experience revisited. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Falk, J., & Needham, M. (2011). Measuring the impact of a science center on its community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(1), 1–12. doi:10.1002/tea.20394
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garibay, C., & Teasdale, R. M. (2019). Equity and evaluation in informal STEM education. New Directions for Evaluation, 2019(161), 87–106. doi:10.1002/ev.20352
   Google Scholar
• Grack Nelson, A., Goeke, M., Auster, R., Peterman, K., & Lussenhop, A. (2019). Shared measures for evaluating common outcomes of informal STEM education experiences. In A. C. Fu, A. Kannan, & R. J. Shavelson (Eds.), Evaluation in Informal Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education. Vol. 161. New Directions for Evaluation (pp. 59–86).
   Google Scholar
• Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111–127.
   Google Scholar
• Humphrey, T., & Gutwill, J. P. (2017). Fostering active prolonged engagement: The art of creating APE exhibits. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Irwin, A., Jensen, T. E., & Jones, K. E. (2013). The good, the bad and the perfect: Criticizing engagement practice. Social Studies of Science, 43(1), 118–135. doi:10.1177/0306312712462461
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kato-Nitta, N., Maeda, T., Iwahashi, K., & Tachikawa, M. (2018). Understanding the public, the visitors, and the participants in science communication activities. Public Understanding of Science, 27(7), 819–857. doi:10.1177/0963662517723258
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaufman, L., & Rousseeuw, P. J. (1990). Finding groups in data: An introduction to cluster analysis. Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Kennedy, E. B., Jensen, E. A., & Verbeke, M. (2018). Preaching to the scientifically converted: Evaluating inclusivity in science festival audiences. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 8(1), 14–21. doi:10.1080/21548455.2017.1371356
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, V. Y. (2017). Citizen science as a means for increasing public engagement in science: Presumption or possibility? Science Communication, 39(2), 142–168.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Medvecky, F., & Leach, J. (2017). The ethics of science communication. Journal of Science Communication, 16(04), 1–5.
   Google Scholar
• Mendick, H., Sheldrake, R. (2016). Transforming science engagement: The impact of the British Science Association’s work. https://www.britishscienceassociation.org/Handlers/Download.ashx?IDMF=80072c12-8f82-48ff-b187-691a04b61db0.
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council (NRC). (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits. National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• National Science Foundation (NSF). (2008). Framework for evaluating impacts of informal science education projects. In Report from a National Science Foundation Workshop. The National Science Foundation, Division of Research on Learning in Formal and Informal Settings.
   Google Scholar
• Navid, E. L., & Einsiedel, E. F. (2012). Synthetic biology in the science cafe: What have we learned about public engagement? Journal of Science Communication, 11(04), A02. doi:10.22323/2.11040202
   Google Scholar
• Nielsen, K., Gathings, M. J., & Peterman, K. (2019). New, not different: Data-driven perspectives on science festival audiences. Science Communication, 41(2), 254–264. doi:10.1177/1075547019832312
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pandya, R. E. (2012). A framework for engaging diverse communities in citizen science in the US. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10(6), 314–317. doi:10.1890/120007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pew Research Center. (2018). Are you in the American middle class? Find out with our income calculator. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/09/06/are-you-in-the-american-middle-class.
   Google Scholar
• Phillips, T. B., Ballard, H. L., Lewenstein, B. V., & Bonney, R. (2019). Engagement in science through citizen science: Moving beyond data collection. Science Education, 103(3), 665–690.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rose, K. M., Korzekwa, K., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., & Heisler, L. (2017). Engaging the public at a science festival: Findings from a panel on human gene editing. Science Communication, 39(2), 250–277. doi:10.1177/1075547017697981
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robertson Evia, J., Peterman, K., Cloyd, E., & Besley, J. (2018). Validating a scale that measures scientists’ self-efficacy for public engagement with science. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 8(1), 40–52. doi:10.1080/21548455.2017.1377852
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sinatra, G. M., Heddy, B. C., & Lombardi, D. (2015). The challenges of defining and measuring student engagement in science. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 1–13. doi:10.1080/00461520.2014.1002924
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SPSS. (2001). The SPSS twostep cluster component: A scalable component enabling more efficient customer segmentation. https://www.spss.ch/upload/1122644952_The%20SPSS%20TwoStep%20Cluster%20Component.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• United States Census Bureau. (2018). Income and poverty in the United States: 2017. https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2018/demo/p60-263.html.
   Google Scholar
• Wynne, B. (2006). Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science-hitting the notes, but missing the music? Community Genetics, 9(3), 211–220. 10.1159/000092659.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar