March 13th, 2014 | RESEARCH
Even in the best-resourced science communication institutions, poor quality evaluation methods are routinely employed. This leads to questionable data, specious conclusions and stunted growth in the quality and effectiveness of science communication practice. Good impact evaluation requires upstream planning, clear objectives from practitioners, relevant research skills and a commitment to improving practice based on evaluation evidence.
Document
(no document provided)
Team Members
Eric Jensen, Author, University of WarwickCitation
Identifier Type: ISBN
Identifier: 1824-2049
Publication: Journal of Science Communication
Volume: 13
Number: 01
Related URLs
Tags
Audience: Evaluators | Learning Researchers | 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