Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
communication_of_science [2007-10-12 10:46] theunkarelsecommunication_of_science [2007-10-12 12:42] (current) theunkarelse
Line 1: Line 1:
-=== PCST: Public Communication of Science and Technology ===+=== New Media and PCST: Public Communication of Science and Technology ===
  
 Notes from the __Sharing Knowledge__ conference organized by the __Da Vinchi Institute__ in Amsterdam.\\ Notes from the __Sharing Knowledge__ conference organized by the __Da Vinchi Institute__ in Amsterdam.\\
  
 +== Some of this may be useful for our research into an ARG for groworld, what attracts people, what problems are associated with informative games, etc. ==
  
- 
- 
-=== Communication of Science and New Media === 
  
  
Line 148: Line 146:
   * encourages self regulated learning.   * encourages self regulated learning.
   * is a safe and private environment.   * is a safe and private environment.
-  * challenges you to go beyong impasses and problems.+  * challenges you to go beyond impasses and problems.
  
  
Line 155: Line 153:
   * Games can be shallow entertainment, but they can also give very meaningful experiences to people.   * Games can be shallow entertainment, but they can also give very meaningful experiences to people.
   * Games are excellent at keeping the attention of individuals.   * Games are excellent at keeping the attention of individuals.
-  * deliberate and sustained practice is the most imporant factor in learning, not just talent.+  * deliberate and sustained practice is the most important factor in learning, not just talent.
   * future games will respond to the learner state more closely to give the optimal challenge level by monitoring physical behavior:   * future games will respond to the learner state more closely to give the optimal challenge level by monitoring physical behavior:
     * hart rate and other physiological measures.     * hart rate and other physiological measures.
Line 164: Line 162:
  
  
 +==== > Transaction approach to Interactive Learning. ====
 +
 +Lecture by Jaqueline Broerse.\\
 +----
 +**Science communication and public health.**
 +
 +== Two Models: ==
 +
 +|        ^ model        ^ methods                             ^ influences ^ 
 +^ old    | transmission | top down dissemination of knowledge | public     |
 +^ new    | transaction  | consultation / dialog / discussion  | scientists |
 +
 +In the transaction model scientists and general public meet on equal terms and share their knowledge.
 +
 +This leads to a win /win situation:
 +  - More contextualized science.
 +  - More societal legitimacy of science.
 +  - More implementation of research.
 +
 +Anticipated problems:
 +  * small impact on policy and science.
 +  * little public interest.
 +  * results are not representative in any general sense.
 +  * expensive.
 +  * how to deal with science-illiteracy among non-scientific participants.
 +
 +
 +== Design Research for Interactive Learning. ==
 +
 +Broerse has developed processes for interactive learning with various patient groups for eight years.\\
 +Working with:
 +  * diabetics.
 +  * people with burns.
 +  * congenital heart defects.
 +  * mentally disabled.
 +  * //and several others//
 +
 +=== Ingredients. ===
 +
 +To achieve a good dialog between physicians and patients:\\
 +  * mutual respect.
 +  * active involvement throughout the project, there was a mentally disabled person involved from day 1 in all meetings for that project.
 +  * attention for diversity and plurality, many age-groups, and social groups involved.
 +  * integration of different kinds of knowledge, not a debate, because then people still tend to stick to their positions.
 +  * design the process as flexible as possible.
 +  * facilitators are key-persons for keeping things going.
 +  * don't start the dialog to early or the experts will dominate the process.
 +  * Visualization is a powerful tool for communicating between different groups.
 +
 +=== Results learned: ===
 +
 +  * Patients are able to set research priorities:
 +    * can prioritize topics (itching as top issue for people with burns)
 +    * have attention for long term value of research.
 +    * can bring new topics to research.
 +  * This process clears up differences in priorities for researchers and patients.
 +  * it remains difficult to address power differences between doctors and patients, but:
 +    * increasing the number of patients helps.
 +    * preparing patients for this helps.
 +  * the facilitator is crucial.
 +  * there are always issues with enthusiasm and mistrust.
 +  * the dialog is seen as very gratifying for all parties.
 +  * the use of peers increases impact of research results (like patient organizations)
 +  * tackling scientific illiteracy by giving lessons, just makes patients more shy to share their part of the story.
 +  * the dialog doesn't continue when the project ends.
 +  * the medical system is not organized to work well with this new approach:
 +    * scientists have to make a paradigm shift.
 +    * lack of sense of urgency.
 +    * fears of delay.
 +    * financing dominated by scientists themselves.
 +    * patients are not present in panels and boards.
 +    * appraisal procedures are based on scientific data only.
 +    * treating other types of knowledge such as a patients daily experience as equal to scientific knowledge can be felt as a threat to their authority by scientists.
 +    * patients are not 'naive' anymore but are well informed proto-professionals, which gives them a certain mindset similar to the scientists. The real 'naive' patients that you want, are hard to find.
 +
 +===Conclusion. ===
  
 +== How do the anticipated results pan-out? ==
  
 +| ^ anticipated problems              ^ results                                        ^ 
 +^ |small impact on policy and science | a large impact due to involving patient groups |
 +^ |little public interest             | a much closer network with the general public  |
 +^ |results are not representative     | more implementation of research                |
 +^ |expensive                          | same                                           |
 +^ |science-illiteracy problem         | needs good moderation                          |
  
  
  • communication_of_science.1192185977.txt.gz
  • Last modified: 2007-10-12 10:46
  • by theunkarelse