Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Forschungsfeld Wissenschaftskommunikation pp 165–182Cite as

Wissenschaftsevents zwischen Popularisierung, Engagement und Partizipation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Zusammenfassung

Der Beitrag setzt sich mit dem Forschungsstand zu Formen der Wissenschaftskommunikation auseinander, die sich als Events bzw. genuine Ereignisse klassifizieren lassen. Die Entwicklung von Eventformaten in der Wissenschaftskommunikation wurde in den vergangenen zwei Jahrzehnten stark politisch gefordert und gefördert. Die Forschung zu eventförmiger Wissenschaftskommunikation spiegelt die Entwicklungen der Praxis jedoch nur teilweise wider. Vor allem in der deutschsprachigen Literatur werden nicht-massenmediale Formen von Wissenschaftskommunikation allenfalls als Randphänomen wahrgenommen. International ist die Literaturlage seit einigen Jahren hingegen deutlich ergiebiger. Der Beitrag stützt sich auf diesen Forschungsstand und stellt ihn anhand einer Systematisierung in formatbezogene Ansätze, kritische Ansätze und akteursbezogene Ansätze vor.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Empfohlene Literatur

  • Davies, S. R. (2013). Constructing Communication. Talking to Scientists About Talking to the Public. Science Communication, 29(4), 413–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felt, U. (2000). Why Should the Public “Understand” Science? A Historical Perspective on Aspects of the Public Understanding of Science. In M. Dierkes & C. von Grote (Hrsg.), Between Understanding and Trust. The Public, Science and Technology. (S. 7–38.) Reading: Harwood Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horst, M., & Michael, M. (2011). On the shoulders of idiots: Re-thinking science communication as ‘event’. Science as Culture, 20(3), 283–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiele, B. (2014). Science museums and centres: evolution and contemporary trends. In M. Bucchi & B. Trench (Hrsg.). Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology (S. 40–57). 2. Aufl. Oxfordshire, New York: Routeledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stilgoe, J., Lock, S.J. & Wilsdon, J. (2014). Why should we promote public engagement with science. Public Understanding of Science, 23(1), 4–15.

    Google Scholar 

Literatur

  • Andrews, H. & Leopold, T. (2013). Events and the Social Sciences. Oxon, New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandelli, A. & Konijn, E.A. (2012). Science Centers and Public Participation: Methods, Strategies, and Barriers. Science Communication, 35(4), 419–448.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, M. (2009). The Evolution of Public Understanding of Science – Discourse and Comparative Evidence. Science, Technology & Society, 14(2), 221–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, Martin W. (2014). A word from the Editor on the special issue on ‘Public Engagement’. Public Understanding of Science, 23(1), 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, M. & Jensen, P. (2011). The mobilization of scientists for public engagement. Public Understanding of Science, 20(1), 3–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruyas, A.-M. (2013). The Cooperation Project for a new Science Centre in Owerri, Nigeria. In A.-M. Bruyas, A.-M. & M. Riccio (Hrsg.), Science Centres and Science Events: A Science Communication Handbook (S. 65–70). Milan u. a.: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bubela, T.; Nisbet, M. C.; Borchelt, R.; Brunger, F.; Critchley, C.; Einsiedel, E. et al. (2009). Science communication reconsidered. Nature Biotechnology, 27 (6), 514–518.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bucchi, M. (2008). Of deficits, deviations and dialogues. Theories of public communication of science. In M. Bucchi & B. Trench (2008). Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology (S. 57–76). Oxfordshire, New York: Routeledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bultitude, K. (2014). Science festivals: do they succeed in reaching beyond the ‘already engaged’? Journal of Science Communication, 13(04) C01.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns, T.W., O’Connor, D. J. & Stocklmayer, S. M. (2003). Science communication: a contemporary definition. Public Understanding of Science, 2003(12), 183–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, G. (2014). “National Science Festival of Thailand: historical roots, current activities and future plans of the National Science Fair”, Journal of Science Communication, 13(04) C04.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, S. R. (2008). Constituting Public Engagement: Meanings and Genealogies of PEST in Two U.K. Studies. Science Communication, 35(6), 687–707.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, S. R. (2013). Constructing Communication. Talking to Scientists About Talking to the Public. Science Communication, 29(4), 413–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dernbach, B., Kleinert, C. & H. Münder (Hrsg.) (2012). Handbuch Wissenschaftskommunikation. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dudo, A. (2012). Toward a Model of Scientists’ Public Communication Activity: The Case of Biomedical Researchers. Science Communication, 35(4), 476–501.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dudo, A.; Kahlor, L.; AbiGhannam, N.; Lazard, A. & Liang, M.-C. (2014). An analysis of nanoscientists as public communicators. Nature Nanotechnology, 2014(9), 841–844.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durant, J. (2004). The Challenge and the Opportunity of Presenting ‘Unfinished Science, In D. Chittenden, G. Farmelo and B.V. Lewenstein (Hrsg.), Creating Connections: Museums and the Public Understanding of Current Research (S. 47–60). Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenbarth, B. & Weißkopf, M. (2012). Science Slam. Wettbewerb für junge Wissenschaftler. In B. Dernbach, C. Kleinert & H. Münder (Hrsg.), Handbuch Wissenschaftskommunikation (S. 155–164). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falk, J., Dierking, L. (2000). Learning from Museums: Visitor Experiences and the Making of Meaning. Lanham, MD: Altamira Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felt, U. (2000). Why Should the Public “Understand” Science? A Historical Perspective on Aspects of the Public Understanding of Science. In M. Dierkes & C. von Grote (Hrsg.). Between Understanding and Trust. The Public, Science and Technology (S. 7–38). Reading: Harwood Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felt, U., Fochler, M. & Müller, A. (2006). Sozial Robuste Wissenspolitik? Analyse partizipativ orientierter Interaktionen zwischen Wissenschaft, Politik und Öffentlichkeit im österreichischen Kontext. In E. Buchinger & U. Felt (Hrsg.), Technik- und Wissenschaftssoziologie in Österreich: Stand und Perspektiven(S. 103–130). Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felt, U. & Fochler, M. (2008). The bottom-up meanings of the concept of public participation in science and technology. Science and Public Policy, 35(7), 489–499.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felt, U., Igelsböck, J., Schikowitz, A., & Völker, T. (2012). Challenging Participation in Sustainability Research. International Journal of Deliberative Mechanisms in Science, 1(1), 4–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, E. (2011). Editorial Overview. Public Science and Technology Scholars: Engaging Whom? Science And Engineering Ethics, 17(4), 607–620.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, M. (2010). Facts, Ethics and Event. In C. Bruun Jensen & K. Rödje (Hrsg.), Deleuzian Intersections in Science, Technology and Anthropology (S. 57–82). New York: Berghahn Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerhards., J. & Neidhardt, F. (1991). Stukturen und Funktionen moderner Öffentlichkeit. Fragestellungen und Ansätze. In S. Müller-Dohm & K. Neumann-Braun (Hrsg.), Öffentlichkeit – Kultur – Massenkommunikation (S. 31–89). Oldenburg: Beiträge zur Medien- und Kultursoziologie.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerhards, J. & Schäfer, M. (2011). Normative Modelle wissenschaftlicher Öffentlichkeit. Theoretische Systematisierung und Illustration am Fall der Humangenomforschung. In G. Ruhrmann, J. Milde, A. F. Zillich (Hrsg.). Molekulare Medizin und Medien (S. 19–40), Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horst, M. (2008). In search of dialogue: staging science communication in consensus conferences. In D. Cheng, M. Claessens, T. Gascoingne, J. Metcalfe, B. Schiele & S. Shi (Hrsg.), Communicating science in social contexts. New models, new practices (S. 259–274). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horst, M. (2011). Taking our own medicine: On an experiment in science communication. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4), 801–815.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horst, M., & Michael, M. (2011). On the shoulders of idiots: Re-thinking science communication as ‘event’. Science as Culture, 20(3), 283–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, A. (1995). Citizen Science. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, A. (2014). From deficit to democracy (revisited). Public Understanding of Science, 23(1), 71–76.Jasanoff, S. (2014). A Mirror for Science. Public Understanding of Science, 23(1), 21–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, R.A. (2014). Reflecting on Public Engagement and Science Policy. Public Understanding of Science, 23(1), 27–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kawamoto, S., Nakayama, M. & Saijo, M (2013). Using a scientific literacy cluster to determine participant attitudes in scientific events in Japan, and potential applications to improving science communication. Journal of Science Communication, 12(01) A01.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kepplinger, H. M. (1992). Ereignismanagement. Wirklichkeit und Massenmedien. Zürich, Osnabrück: Edition Interfrom.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreimer, P, Levin, L. & Jensen, P. (2011). Popularization by Argentine researchers: the activities and motivations of CONICET scientists. Public Understanding of Science. 20(1), 37–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurath, M. & Giesler, P. (2009). Informing, involving or engaging? Science communication, in the ages of atom-, bio- and nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science. 18 (5), 559–573.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laurent, Technologies of democracy: Experiments and demonstrations. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4), 649–666.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewenstein, B.W. (2011). Experimenting with Engagement. Commentary on: Taking Our Own Medicine: On an Experiment in Science Communication. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4), 817–821.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lezaun, Javier & Linda Soneryd (2007). Consulting citizens: technologies of elicitation and the mobility of publics, Public Understanding of Science 16 (3), 279–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lightman, B. (2013). Mid-Victorian science museums and exhibitions: The industrial amusement and instruction of the people, Endeavour, 37 (2), 82–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maas, A. (2013). How to put a black box in a showcase: History of science museums and recent heritage. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 44(4), 660–668.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald, S. (1996): Authorising Science: Public Understanding of Science in Museums. In A. Irwin, A. & B. Wynne (Hrsg.), Misunderstanding Science? – The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology (S. 152–171). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press..

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayhew, M. & Hall, M. (2012). Science Communication in a Café Scientifique for High School Teens. Science Communication, 34(4), 546–554.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michael, M. (2002) Comprehension, Apprehension, Prehension: Heterogeneity and the Public Understanding of Science. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 27 (3),357–378.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michael, M. (2012). What are we Busy doing? Engaging the Idiot. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 35(5), 528–554.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohr, A. (2011). Publics in the Making: Mediating Different Methods of Engagement and the Publics These Construct. Commentary on: ‘‘Technologies of Democracy: Experiments and Demonstrations’’, Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4), 667–672.

    Google Scholar 

  • Münder, H. (2012). Voneinander lernen. Das Netzwerk der europäischen Science Festivals (Eusea). In B. Dernbach, C. Kleinert & H. Münder (Hrsg.), Handbuch Wissenschaftskommunikation (S. 93–98). Wiesbaden: Springer VS..

    Google Scholar 

  • Navid, E. & Einsiedel, E. (2012). Synthetic biology in the Science Café: what have we learned about public engagement? Journal of Science Communication, 11(04) A02.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neresini, F. & Bucchi, M. (2011). Which indicators for the new public engagement activities? An exploratory study of European research institutions. Public Understanding of Science. 20(1), 64–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Persson, P. (2000). Science centers are thriving and going strong! Public Understanding of Science, 9(4), 449–460.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poliakoff, E. & Webb, T.L. (2007). What Factors Predict Scientists’ Intentions to Participate in Public Engagement of Science Activities? Science Communication, 29(2), 242–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, M. & Colin, M. (2008). Meaningful Citizen Engagement in Science and Technology. What Would it Really Take? Science Communication, 30(1), 126–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardt, C. (2008). Was bewirken Kinderuniversitäten? Ziele, Erwartungen und Effekte am Beispiel der Kinder-Uni Braunschweig-Wolfsburg. Publikationen zur Hochschul-PR, Bd. 3. Braunschweig.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riesch, H., Potter, C. & Davies, L. (2013). Combining citizen science and public engagement: the Open Air Laboratories Programme, Journal of Science Communication, 12(3) A03.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riise, J. & Alfonsi, L. (2014). From liquid nitrogen to public engagement and city planning: the changing role of science events. Journal of Science Communication, 13(04) C03.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiele, B. (2008). Science museums and science centres. In M. Bucchi & B. Trench (Hrsg.), Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology (S. 27–40). Oxfordshire, New York: Routeledge..

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiele, B. (2014). Science museums and centres: evolution and contemporary trends. In M. Bucchi & B. Trench (Hrsg.). Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology (S. 40–57). 2. Aufl. Oxfordshire, New York: Routeledge..

    Google Scholar 

  • Schreiber, P. (2012). Kinderuniversitäten in der Welt – ein Vergleich. In B. Dernbach, C. Kleinert & H. Münder (Hrsg.), Handbuch Wissenschaftskommunikation (S. 107–116). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seifert, M. (2009). So spannend kann Wissenschaft sein. Mit dem Erfolgsmodell Kinder-Uni erwerben sich Hochschulen und Hochschullehrer viele Sympathien. In A. Archut, C. Fasel, F. Miller & E. Streier (Hrsg.), Handbuch Wissenschaft kommunizieren. Öffentlichkeitsarbeit, Transfer und Marketing für Forschung und Lehre (E 14). Stuttgart: Raabe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seifert, M. (2012). 10 Jahre Kinder-Uni: Ein innovatives Format überschreitet die Universität und gewinnt internationale Dimensionen. In B. Dernbach, C. Kleinert & H. Münder (Hrsg.). Handbuch Wissenschaftskommunikation (S. 177–184). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Specht, I., Phelan, S., & Lewalter, D. (2015). Conflicting Information in Science Museums: An Exploratory Study. The Inclusive Museum, 8(2), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stilgoe, J. (2009). Citizen Scientists: reconnecting science with civil society. London: Demos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stilgoe, J., Lock, S.J. & Wilsdon, J. (2014). Why should we promote public engagement with science. Public Understanding of Science, 23(1), 4-15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trench, B. & Bucchi, M. (2014). Science communication research: themes and challenges. In M. Bucchi & B. Trench (Hrsg.), Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology (S. 1–14). 2. Aufl. Oxfordshire, New York: Routeledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Sanden, M. C. & Meijman, F. J. (2008). Dialogue guides awareness and understanding of science: an essay on different goals of dialogue leading to different science communication approaches. Public Understanding of Science, 17(1), 89–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilke, T. (2013). Die Urania-Gesellschaft und die Popularisierung naturwissenschaftlicher Erkenntnisse am Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts. Medien und Zeit, 2013(4), 5–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter, E. (2012). Von der Kommunikation über Wissenschaft zur wissenschaftlichen Bildung. In B. Dernbach, C. Kleinert & H. Münder (Hrsg.). Handbuch Wissenschaftskommunikation (S. 27–32). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.Wynne, B. (2006). Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science – hitting the notes, but missing the music? Public Health Genomi. 9(3), 211–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wynne, B. (2014). Further Disorientation in the Hall of Mirrors. Public Understanding of Science, 23(1), 60-70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yaneva, A., Rabesandratana T.M. & Greiner, B. (2009). Staging scientific controversies: a gallery test on science museums’ interactivity. Public Understanding of Science 18(1), 79–90.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Friedrichshafen, Deutschland

    Birte Fähnrich

Authors
  1. Birte Fähnrich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Birte Fähnrich .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Universität Zürich IPMZ, Zürich, Switzerland

    Heinz Bonfadelli

  2. FWB, Deutsche Universität für Weiterbildung, Berlin, Germany

    Birte Fähnrich

  3. Institut für Medienforschung, Universität Rostock, Rostock, Germany

    Corinna Lüthje

  4. IFG Umwelt, Universität Koblenz-Landau, Landau, Germany

    Jutta Milde

  5. Zeppelin Universität, Friedrichshafen, Baden-Württemberg, Germany

    Markus Rhomberg

  6. Universität Zürich Inst. für Publizistikwiss., Zürich, Switzerland

    Mike S. Schäfer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Fähnrich, B. (2017). Wissenschaftsevents zwischen Popularisierung, Engagement und Partizipation. In: Bonfadelli, H., Fähnrich, B., Lüthje, C., Milde, J., Rhomberg, M., Schäfer, M. (eds) Forschungsfeld Wissenschaftskommunikation. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-12898-2_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-12898-2_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-12897-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-12898-2

  • eBook Packages: Social Science and Law (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation