Evaluative research's dependence on the context of its realization – dependence on the objectives and on the type of activity involved in reaching these objectives – raises questions as to whether, on the one hand, evaluating PCST activities is different from evaluating other activities and, on the other, if there is a relation between the way in which PCST is interpreted and the evaluation of the activity which follows it. The paper aims to address these two questions and to discuss the idea that there does appear to be a connection between the conception and evaluation of a PCST activity : it isn’t the same evaluating a PCST activity whose purpose is transmitting knowledge or another whose purpose is promoting discussion between different social actors about a certain issue. In the first case, we are dealing with top‐down communicative interaction while, in the second, communication is mainly based on dialogue. Also in the first case the results are largely predetermined and in the second the PCST activity will be more open‐ended. Clearly the focus on the specificity of evaluating PCST initiatives doesn't avoid to discuss other general issues concerning evaluation research, with respect to both methodological and epistemological aspects.

">
 [PCST]
PCST Network

Public Communication of Science and Technology

 

Is there any specificity in evaluating PCST initiatives ?

Federico Neresini   University of Padova

Evaluative research's dependence on the context of its realization – dependence on the objectives and on the type of activity involved in reaching these objectives – raises questions as to whether, on the one hand, evaluating PCST activities is different from evaluating other activities and, on the other, if there is a relation between the way in which PCST is interpreted and the evaluation of the activity which follows it. The paper aims to address these two questions and to discuss the idea that there does appear to be a connection between the conception and evaluation of a PCST activity : it isn’t the same evaluating a PCST activity whose purpose is transmitting knowledge or another whose purpose is promoting discussion between different social actors about a certain issue. In the first case, we are dealing with top‐down communicative interaction while, in the second, communication is mainly based on dialogue. Also in the first case the results are largely predetermined and in the second the PCST activity will be more open‐ended. Clearly the focus on the specificity of evaluating PCST initiatives doesn't avoid to discuss other general issues concerning evaluation research, with respect to both methodological and epistemological aspects.

A copy of the full paper has not yet been submitted.

BACK TO TOP