As redes sociais para comunicação e educação científica: Realidade ou invenção?
Palavras-chave:
Comunicação científica, Instagram, Facebook, Ciência e Sociedade, Cegueira BotânicaResumo
É possível alcançar uma divulgação científica de qualidade? Se sim, quais são seus objetivos? Como os ambientes digitais impactam a realização desses objetivos? Quais são as limitações da divulgação científica na rede? Uma colaboração entre o Jardim Botânico e o Herbário da Universidade de Bolonha e um divulgador científico buscou responder a essas questões por meio de um projeto comunicativo que produziu nove vídeos curtos e verticais para Instagram e Facebook. A análise dos resultados destacou o sucesso em termos de aceitação e engajamento na rede, embora seja muito difícil tirar conclusões sobre o alcance real desse sucesso e suas possíveis implicações no aprendizado e no comportamento das pessoas.
Referências
Achurra, A. (2022). Plant blindness: A focus on its biological basis. Frontiers in Education, 7, Article 963448. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.963448
Ausubel, D. (2016). Educazione e processi cognitivi. Feltrinelli. (Original work published 1968)
Balding, M., & Williams, K. J. (2016). Plant blindness and the implications for plant conservation. Conservation Biology, 30(6), 1192–1199. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12738
Bensaude, V. B. (2014). The politics of buzzwords at the interface of technoscience, market and society: The case of ‘public engagement in science.’ Public Understanding of Science, 23(3), 238–253.
Bou-Vinals, A., & Prock, S. (2013). Children’s involvement in science communication. Journal of Science Communication, 12(3), C05. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.12030304
Brondi, S., & Sarrica, M. (2016). Italian parliamentary debates on energy sustainability: How argumentative ‘short-circuits’ affect public engagement. Public Understanding of Science, 25(6), 737–753. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515580067
Brummitt, N. A., Bachman, S. P., Griffiths-Lee, J., Lutz, M., Moat, J. F., Farjon, A., Donaldson, J. S., Hilton-Taylor, C., Meagher, T. R., Albuquerque, S., Aletrari, E., Andrews, A. K., Atchison, G., […] & Lughadha, E. M. (2015). Green plants in the red: A baseline global assessment for the IUCN sampled red list index for plants. PLOS ONE, 10, e0135152. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135152
Bubela, T., Nisbet, M. C., Borchelt, R., Brunger, F., Critchley, C., Einsiedel, E., Geller, G., Gupta, A., Hampel, J., Hyde-Lay, R., Jandciu, E. W., Jones, S. A., Kolopack, P., Lane, S., Lougheed, T., Nerlich, B., Ogbogu, U., O’Riordan, K., Ouellette, C., Spear, M., Strauss, S., Thavaratnam, T., Willemse, L., & Caulfield, T. (2009). Science communication reconsidered. Nature Biotechnology, 27(6), 514–518. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0609-514
Bucchi, M. (2019). Facing the challenges of science communication 2.0: Quality, credibility and expertise. EFSA Journal, 17(Suppl 1). https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2019.e170713
Burns, T. W., O’Connor, D. J., & Stocklmayer, S. M. (2003). Science communication: A contemporary definition. Public Understanding of Science, 12(2), 183–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625030122004
Castoldi, M. (2019). Didattica generale. Nuova edizione riveduta e ampliata. Mondadori Università.
Corazza, L. (2008). Internet e la società conoscitiva. Erickson.
Corazza, L. (2021). Percorsi formativi ed engagement. In C. Panciroli (Ed.), Elementi di didattica postdigitale (pp. 81–92). Bononia University Press.
Cousins, S. R., & Witkowski, E. T. F. (2017). African cycad ecology, ethnobotany and conservation: A synthesis. The Botanical Review, 83(2), 152–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12229-017-9183-4
Davies, S. R. (2013). Constituting public engagement: Meanings and genealogies of PEST in two UK studies. Science Communication, 35(6), 687–707. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547013478203
De Vasto, D., & Creighton, J. (2018). Inspired by the cosmos: Strategies for public engagement in nonpolicy contexts. Science Communication, 40(6), 808–818. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018792572
Gastil, J. (2017). Designing public deliberation at the intersection of science and public policy. In K. H. Jamieson, D. M. Kahan, & D. A. Scheufele (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication (pp. 233–242). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190497620.013.26
Givnish, T. J. (1979). On the adaptive significance of leaf form. In O. T. Solbrig, S. Jain, G. B. Johnson, & P. H. Raven (Eds.), Topics in plant population biology (pp. 375–407). Columbia University Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-04627-0_17
Havens, K., Kramer, A. T., & Guerrant, E. O., Jr. (2013). Getting plant conservation right (or not): The case of the United States. International Journal of Plant Sciences, 175(1), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1086/674103
Hulbert, J. M., Turner, S. C., & Scott, S. L. (2019). Challenges and solutions to establishing and sustaining citizen science projects in South Africa. South African Journal of Science, 115(7/8), 8–11. https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2019/5844
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). (2018). IUCN red list of threatened species: Summary statistics. Retrieved January 26, 2019, from https://www.iucnredlist.org/resources/summary-statistics
Jenkins, M., Timoshyna, A., & Cornthwaite, M. (2018). Wild at home: Exploring the global harvest, trade and use of wild plant ingredients. Traffic Report. Retrieved December 30, 2024, from https://www.traffic.org/site/assets/files/7339/wild-at-home.pdf
Jensen, E., & Buckley, N. (2014). Why people attend science festivals: Interests, motivations and self-reported benefits of public engagement with research. Public Understanding of Science, 23(5), 557–573. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662512458624
Jia, H., Wang, D., Miao, W., & Zhu, H. (2017). Encountered but not engaged: Examining the use of social media for science communication by Chinese scientists. Science Communication, 39(5), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547017735114
Kimmerer, R. W. (2013). Braiding sweetgrass: Indigenous wisdom, scientific knowledge and the teachings of plants. Milkweed Editions.
Kouper, I. (2010). Science blogs and public engagement with science: Practices and opportunities. Journal of Science Communication, 9(1), A02. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.09010202
Lewenstein, B. V. (2016). Can we understand citizen science? Journal of Science Communication, 15(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.15010501
Maasen, S., & Weingart, P. (2000). Metaphors and the dynamics of knowledge. Routledge.
Macnaghten, P., & Guivant, J. S. (2011). Converging citizens? Nanotechnology and the political imaginary of public engagement in Brazil and the United Kingdom. Public Understanding of Science, 20(2), 207–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662510379084
Margulies, J. D., Bullough, L. A., Hinsley, A., Daniel, I., Cowell, C., Goettsch, B., Klitgard, B. B., Lavorgna, A., Sinovas, P., & Phelps, J. (2019). Illegal wildlife trade and the persistence of plant blindness. Plants, People, Planet, 1(3), 173–182. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp3.10053
Martín-López, B., Montes, C., Ramírez, L., & Benayas, J. (2009). What drives policy decision-making related to species conservation? Biological Conservation, 142(7), 1370–1380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.01.030
Nava, T. S., & Hofman, C. L. (2018). Engaging Caribbean Island communities with indigenous heritage and archaeology research. Journal of Science Communication, 17(4), C06. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.17040306
Palmer, S. E., & Schibeci, R. A. (2014). What conceptions of science communication are espoused by science research funding bodies? Public Understanding of Science, 23(5), 511–527. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662512455295
Pellerey, M. (1983). Progettazione didattica. SEI.
Perié, L., Riboli-Sasco, L., & Ribrault, C. (2014). Straight into conflict zones, scientific research empowers the minds. Journal of Science Communication, 13(2), C05. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.13020305
Petersen, A., Anderson, A., Allan, S., & Wilkinson, C. (2009). Opening the black box: Scientists’ views on the role of the news media in the nanotechnology debate. Public Understanding of Science, 18(5), 512–530. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662507084202
Pitrelli, N. (2003). La crisi del “Public Understanding of Science” in Gran Bretagna. Journal of Science Communication, 2(1), F01. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.02010901
Prokopy, R. J., & Owens, E. D. (1983). Visual detection of plants by herbivorous insects. Annual Review of Entomology, 28, 337–364. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.en.28.010183.002005
Royal Society. (1985). Public understanding of science. Retrieved December 30, 2024, from https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/publications/1985/10700.pdf
Rowe, G., Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J., Poortinga, W., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2008). Analysis of a normative framework for evaluating public engagement exercises: Reliability, validity and limitations. Public Understanding of Science, 17(4), 419–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506075351
Rowlands, I., Nicholas, D., Russell, B., Canty, N., & Watkinson, A. (2011). Social media use in the research workflow. Learned Publishing, 24(3), 183–195. https://doi.org/10.1087/20110306
RT&IP. (2022, October 12). Italiani e Social Media Edizione 2022. Blogmeter: Integrated Social Intelligence. Retrieved December 30, 2024, from https://blogmeter.it/italiani-e-social-media-edizione-2022/
Schneider, L. (2017). Fishy peer review at science by citizen scientist Ted Held. Retrieved December 30, 2024, from http://www.forbetterscience.com
Schrögel, P., & Kolleck, A. (2019). The many faces of participation in science: Literature review and proposal for a three-dimensional framework. Science & Technology Studies, 32(2), 77–99. https://doi.org/10.23987/sts.59519
Schussler, E. E., & Olzak, L. A. (2008). It’s not easy being green: Student recall of plant and animal images. Journal of Biological Education, 42(2), 112–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2008.9656123
Schwarz-Plaschg, C. (2018). Nanotechnology is like … The rhetorical roles of analogies in public engagement. Public Understanding of Science, 27(2), 153–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516655686
Sitas, N., Baillie, J. E. M., & Isaac, N. J. B. (2009). What are we saving? Developing a standardized approach for conservation action. Animal Conservation, 12(3), 231–237. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2009.00244.x
Smith, R. J., Veríssimo, D., Isaac, N. J., & Jones, K. E. (2012). Identifying Cinderella species: Uncovering mammals with conservation flagship appeal. Conservation Letters, 5(3), 205–212. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00229.x
Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behaviour. Social Science Information, 13(2), 65–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901847401300204
UNODC. (2016). World wildlife crime report: Trafficking in protected species. Retrieved December 30, 2024, from https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/wildlife/World_Wildlife_Crime_Report_2016_final.pdf
Wandersee, J. H., & Schussler, E. E. (1999). Preventing plant blindness. The American Biology Teacher, 61(2), 82–86. https://doi.org/10.2307/4450624
Weingart, P., Joubert, M., & Connoway, K. (2021). Public engagement with science—Origins, motives and impact in academic literature and science policy. PLOS ONE, 16(7), Article e0254201. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0254201
Watermeyer, R. (2012). Measuring the impact values of public engagement in medical contexts. Science Communication, 34(6), 752–775. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547011432804
Weingart, P., & Meyer, C. (2021). Citizen science in South Africa: Rhetoric and reality. Public Understanding of Science. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662521996556
Wilkinson, C., Bultitude, K., & Dawson, E. (2011). “Oh yes, robots! People like robots; the robot people should do something”: Perspectives and prospects in public engagement with robotics. Science Communication, 33(3), 367–397. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547010389818
World Bank. (2018). The Global Wildlife Program: Knowledge platform 2016–2018. Retrieved December 30, 2024, from https://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/106731546908148816/43567-GWP-Annual-Report-2018.pdf
Downloads
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Categorias
Licença
Copyright (c) 2024 Laura Corazza, Gabriele Martinucci
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Formazione & insegnamento é distribuído sob a Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
Para obter mais detalhes, consulte nossa Política de Repositório e Arquivamento, bem como nossos Termos de Direitos Autorais e Licenciamento.
