Collaboration Networks of the Implementation Science Centers for Cancer Control (ISC3): A Social Network Analysis

Background: Multi-center research initiatives offer opportunities to develop and strengthen connections among researchers. These initiatives often have goals of increased scientific collaboration which can be examined using social network analysis.Methods: The National Cancer Institute (NCI)-funded Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control (ISC3) initiative conducted an online social network survey in its first year of funding (2020) to examine early scientific linkages among members (faculty, staff, trainees) and recognize areas for network growth. Members of the seven funded centers and NCI program staff identified collaborations in: planning/conducting research, capacity building, product development, scientific dissemination, practice/policy dissemination.Results: Of the 192 invitees, 182 network members completed the survey (95%). The most prevalent roles were faculty (60%) and research staff (24%). Almost one-quarter (23%) of members reported advanced expertise in implementation science (IS), 42% intermediate, and 35% beginner. Most members were female (69%) and white (79%). Across all collaboration activities, the network had a density of 14%, suggesting high cohesion for its first year. One-third (33%) of collaboration ties were between members from different centers. Degree centralization (0.33) and betweenness centralization (0.07) measures suggest a fairly saturated network (no one or few central member(s) holding all connections). The most prevalent and densely connected collaboration network was for planning/conducting research (1470 ties; 8% density). Practice/policy dissemination had the fewest collaboration ties (284), lowest density (3%), and largest number of non-connected members (n=43). Median degree (number of collaborations) varied across member characteristics and collaboration activities. Members with advanced IS expertise were more connected than intermediate/beginner groups for most activities (e.g., advanced IS members had a median of 24 capacity building collaborations (range: 4-58) vs. intermediate (median 9; range 2-53) and beginner (median 7; range 1-49) members. The number of practice/policy dissemination collaborations were similarly low across IS expertise levels (median degree 3 for advanced, 2 intermediate, 2 beginner). Conclusions: Results provide important directions for interventions within the ISC3 network to increase scientific collaboration and capacity, with a focus on growing cross-center collaborations and increasing engagement of under-represented groups. Findings will be used to capture infrastructure development as part of the initiative’s evaluation.

STS AND THE POSSIBLE FUTURE OF THE SCIENCE MUSEUM: TOWARDS A NEW KUNSTKAMMER

В статье обсуждается репрезентация науки в музеях и центрах науки и техники и очерчивается возможная концепция музея технонауки, который бы восполнял ограничения и умолчания этой реперзентации. В отличие от этих институций музей технонауки посвящен не тому, что ученые знают о природе, а тому, как они получают это знание, как оно существует и применяется, то есть, метанаучным вопросам. Для решения этой задачи новый музей должен опираться на идеи и результаты исследований науки и техники (STS), а также истории и философии науки. Вполне возможно, что сегодня путь разума к совершеннолетию должен проходить не только через научное просвещение, но и через критическое метанаучное просвещение. В первой части статьи описывается общая логика и контекст репрезентации науки и техники в современных музеях и центрах науки и техники. Их основные задачи — способствовать повышению понимания науки обществом и привлекательности профессий научно-технической области. Обычно это достигается за счет акцента на чистой науке в ущерб прикладной: ядром музеев и центров являются экспозиции, представляющие результаты научного познания, систематизированные в научную картину мира. О технике говорится скорее как о непроблематичном «применении» знания или комплексе утилитарных функций: мало внимания уделяется сложному устройству инженерии и создаваемому техникой социальному порядку. Об устройстве самой науки говорится мало, в основном о научном методе. Этот подход подвергается критическому анализу. Помимо прочего критикуется акцент на чистой науке в ущерб прикладной, натурализация и идеализация знания за счет устранения контекстов его производства, существования и применения. В силу двойной невидимости авторства (науки — по отношению к знанию, музея — по отношению к экспозиции) и трансляции знания в режиме безальтернативности и полноты («парадигма Псафона», П. Бурдье) музеи науки функционируют как музеи-храмы (Д. Кэмерон). Приводятся доводы в пользу обращения к обсуждению устройства науки и техники с опорой на результаты исследований науки и техники. Оно предполагает создание музея или экспозиции, которые дополняли бы существующие музеи и центры. Его рабочее название — музей технонауки. Во второй части обсуждается его возможная концепция. Приводятся примеры тематики, раскрываются некоторые принципы организации: двойное видение, пересборка предмета, собственной позиции и аудитории, музей-бриколер, музей-форум. Эти принципы сближают музей технонауки с кунсткамерой в противовес модерным музеям науки. В качестве одного из возможных подходов построения экспозиции обсуждается историзация существующих форм науки и техники. Ориентирами из истории выставок могут служить Les Immatériaux (1985) под кураторством Ж.-Ф. Лиотара и Iconoclash: Beyond the Image Wars in Science, Religion and Art (2002) под кураторством Б. Латура. В заключение концепция музея технонауки резюмируются в своде ценностей: продуктивное незнание, критика, разнообразие, дискуссионность. The article analyzes the representation of science in science and technology museums and centers, and outlines the possible concept of a museum of technoscience that would compensate their limitations and omissions. In contrast, the museum of technoscience is not dedicated to what scientists know about nature, but to how they get this knowledge, how it exists and is applied, that is, to metascientific issues. To meet this challenge, the new museum should be based on the ideas of Science and Technology Studies (STS), and of the History and Philosophy of Science. It is likely that today the path of reason to maturity should pass not only through scientific education, but also through metascientific education, that is, through STS and the History and Philosophy of Science. The first part of the article describes the general logic and context of the representation of science and technology in actual science and technology museums and centers. The main aims of such museums and centers are to contribute to increasing the public understanding of science and the attractiveness of professions in the STEM field. These aims are usually achieved by focusing on pure science at the expense of applied science and engineering. Technology is represented as an unproblematized “application” of knowledge. There is also little talk about the structure of scientific production of knowledge, mainly the scientific method is communicated. This approach is being critically analyzed. Among other issues, the naturalization and idealization of knowledge, double invisibility of authorship (science in relation to knowledge, museum in relation to the exhibition) are criticized. Arguments are given in favor of the desirability of addressing the discussion of the structure of science and technology based on the results of science and technology studies. It involves the creation of a museum or exhibition that would complement existing museums and science centers. Its working name is the museum of technoscience. The second part of the article describes the possible conception of the technoscience museum. Examples of topics are given, some principles of the organization are revealed: double vision, reassembling of the subject, museum position and audience, museum as a bricoleur, museum as a forum. These principles bring the museum of technoscience closer to the kunstkammer in contrast to modern museums of science. The historization of existing forms of science and technology is discussed as one of the possible approaches to the construction of the exposition. Les Immatériaux (1985) by J.-F. Lyotard and Iconoclash: Beyond the Image Wars in Science, Religion and Art (2002) by B. Latour can serve as landmarks from the history of exhibitions. In conclusion, the conception of the museum of technoscience is summarized in a set of values: productive ignorance, criticism, diversity, controversiality.

Community Dialogues to Enhance Inclusion and Equity in Public Libraries

Over the past decade, public libraries have shifted from quiet repositories of knowledge to raucous centers of public engagement. Public libraries seek to fill the educational and social gaps left by other informal education organizations (such as museums and science centers) that target specific populations or require paid access for their resources. These gaps are filled by hiring social workers, providing accessible makerspaces, developing English language learner (ELL) programs, facilitating hands-on STEM activities, providing information about community resources and social services, providing summer meals, and much more. But what are the next steps to continue this high level of engagement? By utilizing a Community Dialogue Framework (Dialogues), libraries have engaged with new members of their communities to reach groups not currently benefiting from library services, provided equitable access to new resources, engaged with new partners, and - in the time of COVID - began to address the digital divide in their communities. An examination of forty public libraries’ engagement with and learning from Dialogues was conducted using a qualitative approach and reflexive thematic analysis. An account from a librarian who hosted multiple Dialogues is also presented as a first-person narrative describing their methods and successes using the tool. Benefits and practical considerations for conducting Dialogues are discussed in the results section, followed by limitations and recommendations for further research in this area.

Become a Public Educator

Even though your prime duty is to your research, becoming a public educator can serve both one’s research and the information needs of the public. It also serves your field as a whole. Public education can mean teaching a science appreciation course, giving public lectures, registering with the institution’s speakers bureau, and advising the media on science and technology. Working with local schools, mentoring young people, and helping science centers create exhibits are also productive activities and bring professional benefits. These activities teach valuable communication skills, meet the Broader Impacts Criterion of federal grants, highlight one’s own department and institution, and bring you visibility.

Explaining Research

Explaining Research is the most comprehensive guide to research communication. It offers practical tools and techniques to effectively reach professional and lay audiences important to researchers’ success. These audiences include colleagues, potential collaborators, officers in funding agencies and foundations, donors, institutional leaders, corporate partners, students, legislators, family and friends, journalists, and the public. The book also includes strategies to guide research communication, as well as insights from leading science journalists and research communicators. The book shows how to develop a communication “strategy of synergy”; give compelling talks; build a professional website; create quality posters, images, animations, graphs, charts, videos, e-newsletters, blogs, podcasts, and webinars; write popular articles and books; persuade funding decision makers; produce news releases and other content that attract media coverage; give effective media interviews; serve as a public educator in schools and science centers; and protect against communication traps.

A survey and evaluation of mobile apps in science centers and museums

This paper studies how science centers and museums around the world have used mobile apps with museum guide characteristics and tries to identify the best interface design principles to improve their use as a tool for interaction with the public. For this purpose, we mapped mobile apps from science centers and museums and applied an evaluation tool for each one to identify good practices. This allowed us to produce guidelines for identifying good practices in the development of apps as a way of expanding visitors' experience in these institutions through these devices.

Funding efficiency of science centers and technical innovations

The material in this article is devoted to issues related to the effectiveness of funding research centers and technical innovations. In the modern world, the development of innovation centers that influence the further development of the state and its economic growth is increasingly gaining popularity, so the issue of financing innovative ideas is considered relevant and important at the present time.