The PPR Inquiry Group seeks to (1) identify and describe the range of ISE projects and activities in which the public is involved in various stages of research; 2) understand and describe the scientific and educational impacts of these projects; 3) make recommendations for conceptualizing and developing future ISE activities that will enhance public participation in research; 4) determine the ways in which current and recommended approaches align with and are supported by NSF-funded projects; and 5) make recommendations targeted toward funders with respect to the types and characteristics of public participation projects to consider in the future.

Many community science projects focus on data collection. In fact, scientific investigations include many processes, steps, or activities in which the public can be involved. These include: Choosing or defining questions for study; Gathering information and resources; developing explanations (hypotheses) about possible answers to questions; designing data collection methodologies (both experimental and observational); collecting data; analyzing data; interpreting data and drawing conclusions; disseminating conclusions; and discussing results and asking new questions. We are interested in projects that expand the typical view of public participation into any or all of these areas.

Some specific questions we’re asking include:

• What are new and innovative ways in which non-scientists are contributing to or doing research?
• What are models for public-scientist interaction around scientific research?
• How do radio, television, museum visits, and other ISE experiences facilitate or push the boundaries of public participation in research?

We would very much like to hear from the field with thoughts, leads, publication references, and/or case studies to inform this inquiry. Later in the process we will be soliciting input from the field on our findings and recommendations. Please help!

Send input to Inquiry Group Leader Rick Bonney at reb5@cornell.edu. Also, post your thoughts on this blog!

CAISE Inquiry Groups are composed of people working in and studying the ISE field. They are organizing around issues and questions of recurring and significant interest, which are identified by the CAISE team in conversation with NSF program officers and colleagues from throughout the field. Participants are also selected through this process.

The process they follow varies, but includes review of work funded by NSF's Informal Science Education Program as well as relevant research literature, when it exists. Each Inquiry Group will be producing papers and other documentation geared both to funders and to practitioners, which will be made available through this website, the CAISE newsletter, and other means. The University of Pittsburgh Center for Learning in Out-of-School Environments (UPCLOSE), a CAISE partner, participates in all of the Inquiry Groups, including providing research support.

Now underway are Inquiry Groups on these topics:

Another group is examining the portfolio of projects funded by NSF's Informal Science Education Program over the last 10 years. These groups, and others now in planning (including one focusing on work across formal and informal education), cast a wide net in considering topics of varied and recurring interest in a field devoted to lifelong engagement with science—from access and inclusion to emerging technology. 

Inquiry Groups are one of the key mechanisms CAISE will be using to distill and synthesize research and experience from across the broad and varied ISE field and make it more readily available both to practitioners and to those who support our work.

We'll be using this blog to provide updates about Inquiry Group work and welcome your experiences and perspectives and suggestions for future inquiries.

Wendy

It was apparent that learning about the impacts of investments in STEM education, and being able to document those impacts convincingly, had become a matter of great interest. The two days were fascinating, and not without some sparks flying. Many of the people at the workshop had worked quietly and thoughtfully for years to “measure the immeasurable” (Minda Borun’s memorable early description of exhibit evaluation). Now they were given a spotlight, in a room full of influential and important colleagues. Hard-won lessons, different perspectives and language, and varying visions for the roles evaluation could play in setting policy and making grants, all had to be expressed and debated.

Amazingly (at least to me), by the afternoon of the second day a consensus had emerged about what it was important to say about the theory and practice of impact evaluation, and how the NSF’s new reporting system could help capture what was being learned from each of the projects supported within the ISE portfolio. NSF had invited eight of the participants—Sue Allen, Patricia B. Campbell, Lynn D. Dierking, Barbara N. Flagg, Cecilia Garibay, Randi Korn, Gary Silverstein, and me—to write a book providing a framework for evaluating the impact of ISE projects. We left the meeting with nearly complete agreement on what we would say, and who would write what.

The next nine months, of course, were filled with e-mails, phone calls, and draft after draft after draft, trying to turn this oral consensus and a three-page table of contents into a coherent and readable book. Dave Ucko and Al DeSena were tireless in encouraging the authors and providing advice and guidance on the task. Dave eventually wrote one of the chapters himself, on the context and origins of the project within NSF. We went through three major revisions, and dozens of incremental ones. Eighteen people, inside and outside NSF, were invited to review and critique the document anonymously, and their analyses included line-by-line critiques. The last draft, version 3.12, went to Al, who cleaned up everything one last time. With a click, you’ll have our work.

It isn’t the first word on evaluation, and will not be the last. But on behalf of all of us who sought to provide a useful guide to documenting the accomplishments of the informal science education, we hope you find it helpful and even enjoyable. Cheers, Alan J. Friedman

NSF’s support has been crucial to development of what’s been called an “invisible infrastructure” that supports science learning in a wide variety of media and environments–from museums, zoos, and nature centers to radio, television, and film, from community groups to the Internet.

Many organizations and individuals have been working with great effect to inspire interest in math, science, and engineering and to lay the groundwork for continued learning. At the same time, research is bringing new insights to the understanding of learning in these informal media and environments. One of the center’s roles will be to help make research findings more available to practitioners, and to bring the insights of practitioners to those in the research community.

The goal: to strengthen the “invisible infrastructure” of informal science education–and to make it more visible.

Welcome!