Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Jensen, Eric; Buckley, Nicola (2014)
Publisher: Sage Publications Ltd.
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: Q1, HM
As a form of public engagement, science festivals have rapidly expanded in size and number over recent years. However, as with other domains of informal public engagement that are not linked to policy outcomes, existing research does not fully address science festivals’ impacts and popularity.This study adduces evidence from surveys and focus groups to elucidate the perspectives of visitors at a large UK science festival. Results show that visitors value the opportunities science festivals afford to interact with scientific researchers and to encounter different types of science engagement aimed at adults, children and families. The most significant self-reported impact of attending a science festival was the development of increased interest and curiosity about new areas of scientific knowledge within a socially stimulating and enjoyable setting.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • British Science Association. (2009a). British Science Festival Evaluation 2009. Retrieved 17 February, 2010, from http://www.britishscienceassociation.org/NR/rdonlyres/4C205493- 93D3-46DD-AC6C-CE9EDD8FA8B3/0/BritishScienceFestivalevaluation2009.pdf
    • British Science Association. (2009b). A History of the British Science Association. Retrieved 28 June, 2009, from http://www.britishscienceassociation.org/web/AboutUs/OurHistory/index.htm
    • Buckley, N., & Hordijenko, S. (2011). Science Festivals. In D. Bennett & R. Jennings (Eds.), Successful Science Communication (pp. 312-331). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    • Burchell, K., Franklin, S., & Holden, K. (2009). Public Culture as Professional Science: final report of ScOPE project. Retrieved from www2.lse.ac.uk/BIOS/research/scope/pdf/scope_final_report.pdf
    • Cambridge Science Festival. (2009). Internal Evaluation of 2009 Festival. Retrieved 17 February, 2010, from http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/sciencefestival/csf-evaluation-2009.pdf
    • Davies, S. (2009). Learning to engage; engaging to learn: the purposes of informal science-public dialogue. In R.Holliman, E. Whitelegg, E. Scanlon, S. Smidt & J. Thomas (Eds.) Investigating science communication in the information age (pp. 72-85). Oxford: Oxford University Press
    • Dawson, E., & Jensen, E. (2011). Towards a 'contextual turn' in visitor research: Evaluating audience segmentation and identity-related motivations. Visitor Studies, 14(2), 127-140.
    • Derrett, R. (2004). Festivals, events and the destination. In I. Yeoman, M.Robertson, J. Ali-Knight, S. Drummond & U. McMahon-Beattie (Eds.), Festivals and event management: An international arts and culture perspective (pp. 32-50). London: Elsevier.
    • EUSCEA. (2005). White Book on Science Communication Events in Europe. Vienna.
    • Goffman, E. (1961). Fun in games, in E. Goffman (ed.) Encounters: two studies in the sociology of interaction, Indianapolis, Bob Merril.
    • Grant, L. (2004). Evaluation of Cheltenham Festival of Science. Retrieved 17 February, 2010, from http://www.lauragrantassociates.co.uk/Resources/Resources/6/Cheltenham%20festival%20e valuation%202004.pdf
    • Holliman, R., Colllins, T., Jensen, E., & Taylor, P. (2009). ISOTOPE: Informing Science Outreach and Public Engagement. Final Report of the NESTA-funded project. Milton Keynes: The Open University.
    • Holliman, R., & Jensen, E. (2009). (In)authentic science and (im)partial publics: (Re)constructing the science outreach and public engagement agenda. In R. Holliman, E. Whitelegg, E. Scanlon, S. Smidt & J. Thomas (Eds.), Investigating science communication in the information age: Implications for public engagement and popular media (pp. 35-52). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    • Holliman, R., Collins, T., Jensen, E. and Taylor, P. (2009). Isotope: Informing Science Outreach and Public Engagement. Final Report of the Nesta-funded Isotope Project. Milton Keynes, The Open University. ISBN: N978-1-84873-414-2.
    • House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. (2000). Third Report on Science and Society. London.
    • Irwin, A. (2008). Risk, science and public communication: third order thinking about scientific culture. In M. Bucchi & B. Trench (Eds.), Public Communication of Science and Technology Handbook (pp. 199-212). London: Routledge.
    • Irwin, A. (2009). Moving forwards or in circles? Science communication and scientific governance in an age of innovation. In R. Holliman, E. Whitelegg, E. Scanlon, S. Smidt & J. Thomas (Eds.), Investigating science communication in the information age: Implications for public engagement and popular media. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    • Jensen, E. (2008). The Dao of human cloning: Hope, fear and hype in the UK press and popular films. Public Understanding of Science, 17(2), 123-143.
    • Jensen, E. (2011). Evaluate impact of communication. Nature, 469, 162.
    • Jensen, E., & Buckley, N. (2011). The Role of University Student Volunteers in Festival-based Public Engagement. Bristol: National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement.
    • Jensen, E., & Holliman, R. (2009). Investigating science communication to inform science outreach and public engagement. In R. Holliman, E. Whitelegg, E. Scanlon, S. Smidt & J. Thomas (Eds.), Investigating science communication in the information age: Implications for public engagement and popular media (pp. 55-71). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    • Jensen, E., & Wagoner, B. (2009). A cyclical model of social change. Culture & Psychology, 15(2), 217-228.
    • Jensen, E. & Wagoner, B. (2012). 'Conclusion: Cycles of social change'. In B. Wagoner, E. Jensen and J. Oldmeadow (Eds.), Culture and Social Change: Transforming society through the power of ideas. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishers.
    • Kitzinger, J. (1994). The methodology of focus groups: the importance of interaction between research participants, Sociology of Health and Illness, 16(1), pp.103-121.
    • Kitzinger, J. and Barbour, R. (1999). Introduction: the challenge and promise of focus groups, in R. Barbour, J. Kitzinger (eds.) Developing focus group research: Politics, theory and practice, London, Sage.
    • MacNaghten, P., Kearnes, M. B., & Wynne, B. (2005). Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: What role for the social sciences? Science Communication, 27(2), 268-291.
    • MORI, I. (2011). Public Attitudes to Science 2011. Retrieved from http://www.ipsosmori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/sri-pas-2011-main-report.pdf
    • Nash, N., & Haste, H. (2007). Report on the BA Festival 2007. Retrieved 17 February, 2010 from http://www.britishscienceassociation.org/NR/rdonlyres/9FC80E46-32C8-4151-9CBA6F239C0B7B62/0/Eventevaluation.pdf
    • National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement. (2011). What is Public Engagement? Bristol: NCCPE.
    • Office of Science and Technology. (2004). UK Science Festivals: PEST or not? Retrieved 17 February, 2010, from http://www.britishscienceassociation.org/NR/rdonlyres/1B7E3D24- 6178-4747-AD3F-ED4324D9BA5E/0/OSTreport.pdf
    • Oxfordshire Science Festival. (2009). Evaluation Report. Retrieved 17 February, 2010, from http://www.oxfordshiresciencefestival.co.uk/docs/OSF_2009_EvaluationReport.pdf
    • Research Councils UK. (2008). Public Attitudes to Science 2008. Swindon: RCUK.
    • Research Councils UK. (2010). Concordat on Engaging the Public with Science.
    • Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. (2000). Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation. Science, Technology and Human Values, 25(1), 3-29.
    • Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. (2005). A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology and Human Values, 30(2), 251-290.
    • Science Festival Alliance. (2012). A first look at science festivals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Museum. Retrieved 18 July, 2012, from http://sciencefestivals.org/news/140.html.
    • Stilgoe, J., Irwin, A., & Jones, K. (2006). The received wisdom: Opening up expert advice. London: DEMOS.
    • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
    • Technopolis Group. (2008). Evaluation of the ESRC Festival of Social Science 2008. Retrieved 17 February, 2010, from http://www.esrc.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/Images/942_FSS08%20Final%20Report_080717_t cm6-28202.pdf
    • Wagoner, B. (2008). Developing 'development' in theory and method. In E. Abbey & R. Diriwatcher (Eds.), Innovating genesis: Microgenesis and the constructive mind in action (pp. 39-61). Charlotte, North Carolina: Information Age Publishers.
    • Wagoner, B., & Jensen, E. (2010). Science learning at the zoo: Evaluating children's developing understanding of animals and their habitats. Psychology & Society, 3(1), 65-76.
    • Wellcome Trust. (2010). Communicating your research: Festivals. Retrieved 17 February, 2010, from http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/Education-resources/Communicating-yourresearch/Public-engagement-opportunities/Festivals/index.htm
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Funded by projects

  • WT

Cite this article