September 29th, 2015 | RESEARCH
King et al. [2015] argue that âemphasis on impact is obfuscating the valuable role of evaluationâ in informal science learning and public engagement (p. 1). The article touches on a number of important issues pertaining to the role of evaluation, informal learning, science communication and public engagement practice. In this critical response essay, I highlight the articleâs tendency to construct a straw man version of âimpact evaluationâ that is impossible to achieve, while exaggerating the value of simple forms of feedback-based evaluation exemplified in the article. I also identify a problematic tendency, evident in the article, to view the role of âimpact evaluationâ in advocacy terms rather than as a means of improving practice. I go through the evaluation example presented in the article to highlight alternative, impact-oriented evaluation strategies, which would have addressed the targeted outcomes more appropriately than the methods used by King et al. [2015]. I conclude that impact evaluation can be much more widely deployed to deliver essential practical insights for informal learning and public engagement practitioners.
Document
(no document provided)
Team Members
Eric Jensen, Author, University of WarwickCitation
Publication: Journal of Science Communication
Volume: 14
Number: 3
Related URLs
Tags
Audience: Evaluators | Museum | ISE Professionals | Scientists
Discipline: General STEM
Resource Type: Peer-reviewed article | Research Products
Environment Type: Exhibitions | Informal | Formal Connections | Media and Technology | Professional Development | Conferences | Networks | Public Programs