Applied Filters
- Article
- Integrative SciencesRemove filter
- Science and SocietyRemove filter
- Science CommunicationRemove filter
Journal Title
Publication Date
Author
Access Type
1 - 4of4
Save this search
Please login to be able to save your searches and receive alerts for new content matching your search criteria.
Filters
Search Name | Searched On |
---|---|
[Paper Type: Article] AND [Subject Areas: Integrative Sciences] AND [Subject Areas:... (4) | 27 Sep 2024 |
You do not have any saved searches
- OPEN ACCESSThere have been strong calls for scientists to share their discoveries with society. Some scientists have heeded these calls through social media platforms such as Twitter. Here, we ask whether Twitter allows scientists to promote their findings primarily to other scientists (“inreach”), or whether it can help them reach broader, non-scientific audiences (“outreach”). We analyzed the Twitter followers of more than 100 faculty members in ecology and evolutionary biology and found that their followers are, on average, predominantly (∼55%) other scientists. However, beyond a threshold of ∼1000 followers, the range of follower types became more diverse and included research and educational organizations, media, members of the public with no stated association with science, and a small number of decision-makers. This varied audience was, in turn, followed by more people, resulting in an exponential increase in the social media reach of tweeting academic scientists. Tweeting, therefore, has the potential to disseminate scientific information widely after initial efforts to gain followers. These results should encourage scientists to invest in building a social media presence for scientific outreach.
- OPEN ACCESS
- Mark Groulx,
- Amanda Winegardner,
- Marie Claire Brisbois,
- Lee Ann Fishback,
- Rachelle Linde,
- Kristin Levy, and
- Annie Booth
Community science involves the co-creation of scientific pursuits, learning, and outcomes and is presented as a transformative practice for community engagement and environmental governance. Emphasizing critical reflection, this study adopts Mezirow’s conception of transformative learning to theorize the transformative capacity of community science. Findings from interviews with participants in a community science program reveal critical reflection, although instances acknowledging attitudes and beliefs without challenging personal assumptions were more common. Program elements most likely to prompt participants to identify beliefs, values, and assumptions include data collection and interaction in team dynamics, whereas data collection in a novel environment was most likely to prompt participants to challenge their beliefs, values, and assumptions. A review of 71 climate change focused programs further demonstrates the extent that program designs support transformative learning. Key features of the community science landscape like the broad inclusion of stated learning objectives offer a constructive starting point for deepening transformative capacity, while the dominance of contributory program designs stands as a likely roadblock. Overall, this study contributes by applying a developed field to theorize transformation in relation to community science and by highlighting where facilitators should focus program design efforts to better promote transformation toward environmental sustainability. - OPEN ACCESSAn exponentially growing body of international research engages with plastic pollution using different ideas on the right ways to frame, research, and intervene in the problem. The premise of this study is that all scientists work with understandings of what is right and wrong and why that is (models of justice) in their research, even when it is not explicitly stated, reflected upon, or a conscious part of the discussion. We surveyed 755 published articles on marine debris and plastic chemical additives and found that all evoked at least one model of justice, and often more. The most routinely used models included: developmental justice, distributive justice, and procedural justice. More rarely, we found appeals to environment-first justice and Indigenous sovereignty. While occasionally these multiple models worked synergistically, more often they conflicted. Our findings ground a call for fellow researchers to use a more intentional and systematic approach to evoking models of justice in our work. Our goal is to offer descriptions and insights about models of justice that are already being deployed to increase the sophistication of the ethical and normative orientations of our research and our fields, both in plastic pollution sciences and beyond.
- OPEN ACCESSResearchers in the environmental studies and sciences play a critical role in influencing real-world decision-making and policies. However, interference during research and sharing of results has been documented in Canada and around the world. Further, research has shown that workers from marginalized social identitie(s) experience discrimination in the workplace. Whether interference in research is related to social identity has never been examined. Using a mixed-methods design, we surveyed 741 environmental researchers in Canada to understand the relationship between social identity (gender, disability status, 2SLGBTQI+ status, race, and perception of racial identity) and reported experiences of interference. Results found that researchers with marginalized identities experienced worse outcomes across 11 of the 25 quantitative measures. For example, most marginalized groups experienced significantly greater fear of misrepresentation by media and (or) fear of negative career consequences due to public commentary, and racialized and disabled persons reported greater external interference in their work (e.g., from management and workplace policy). Given these findings, we express concern that the experience of interference in research can (1) threaten the personal well-being of marginalized researchers, (2) limit the representativeness of information disseminated, thererby impacting environmental decision-making and policy, and (3) contribute to inequities in representativeness of marginalized researchers in environmental sciences in Canada.