the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Evaluating Expectations on Museum Communication about Geo- and Environmental Sciences
Abstract. In order to design an exhibition on earth and environmental science research, we conducted an online survey on the thematic interests of potential future visitors. The 775 valid responses we received were used to analyse the level of interest in predefined subject areas. In addition, further topics were extracted from open questions that were mentioned by the survey participants as being particularly interesting. The analysis of these interest levels in relation to the socio-demographic distribution of the participants provides an indication of which topics should be discussed in a future exhibition. The data also allows conclusions to be drawn about the development of strategic communication concepts. These will be able to support the processes from initial contact through to a participatory dialog. It is also of particular interest that the data obtained in this survey allows the hypothesis that topics for which the participants indicated a low level of interest may not actually be uninteresting, but rather result from a lack of prior knowledge. The study presented here therefore leads to the conclusion that such topics should be addressed in communication with visitors to an exhibition in order to build up prior knowledge and increase interest in these topics.
- Preprint
(1025 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 27 Nov 2024)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2567', Anonymous Referee #1, 15 Oct 2024
reply
Review of Evaluating Expectations on Museum Communication about 1 Geo- and Environmental Sciences.
This paper provides a useful data set on interest in Earth science subjects from a range of potential visitors to a geologically themed museum. The complementary numeric and coded analysis of open ended answers provide a useful and appropriate data set that can be used to answer several hypotheses. However, in its present form I think there are several major issues with manuscript.
- There is very little referencing of relevant museum, exhibition space, and general science communication literature. A quick goggle scholar search for science museum turns up many very relevant articles that need to be presented in the intro to set up the literature gaps that this article seeks to fill. There are also lots of potential geoscience education references that are completely absent e.g. geoscience concept inventory or perceptions (e.g. Libarkin et al., Jolley et al. ). These references need to be brought back and compared to the results in the discussion.
- A well referenced intro needs to lead into the specific aims/ hypotheses, around correlations with demographic data and geological interest.
- One major issue is the lack of ethics consultation, most publications require ethics consultation with this type of data set, I am unsure on Geoscience communications policies here, but what is currently presented would not be sufficient for most journals.
- The validation process of the questions with a focus group needs a bit more explanation, this is a very important process with any questionnaire.
- The results need some statistical analysis, there are several statements about significance that need backing up with simple analysis.
- Factor analysis could be considered to allow a systematic way to group the data. Do these groupings align with the emergent themes in the coding ?
- All the results that will be discussed should be presented in the results, leave out data that does not pertain to the aims/hypotheses. At present, new data appears in the discussion and conclusions not first presented in the results.
- The discussion should be used to focus in on comparing the results to the international literature on science museums and geoscience communication and education.
- The conclusion needs to focus on reporting the achievement of the aims, and maybe set up future directions.
I also have a pdf., which are just my train of thought as I was reading but may provide some context for the above major comments. There are many areas where the scientific writing needs significant improving although this may need to wait for future reviews rounds for the article. I do think l the data should be published (although not in its current form), and I commend the authors for their work with coding and analysis.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Simon Schneider, 23 Oct 2024
reply
Dear Reviewer,
We read your comments and suggestions with great interest. We think that the points you have raised will enhance the quality and added value of the publication. Therefore, we will work on the appropriate adjustments and additions in the coming days.
With best regards
Simon SchneiderCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2567-AC1 -
RC2: 'Reply on AC1', Anonymous Referee #2, 04 Nov 2024
reply
I agree with the comments from Reviewer 1. This is an interesting study and the data are worth publishing, but significant work on the manuscript is necessary before publication would be recommended.
Because much revision is needed, I will wait to do a thorough review of the revised manuscript. Here are a few initial recommendations:
- I agree that institutional ethics approval is normally required for a study of this sort. It may be possible to obtain retrospective ethics approval for this study from your institution's research ethics committee. Hopefully, this may be possible, given anonymous and uncontroversial data were collected.
- Geopark education are keywords that should help you to find additional relevant literature for your introduction and discussion.
- A minor comment: Consider replacing 'Profession' with 'Occupation' which might be a better term.
Good luck with your revision. I look forward to reading the next iteration of your manuscript.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2567-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Simon Schneider, 07 Nov 2024
reply
Dear Reviewer 2,
Thank you for your comments and supportive feedback.
We will work on the manuscript in the coming days and incorporate the suggestions and ideas from you and Reviewer 1.
Best regards,
Simon SchneiderCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2567-AC2
-
RC2: 'Reply on AC1', Anonymous Referee #2, 04 Nov 2024
reply
Data sets
Evaluating Expectations on Museum Communication about Geo- and Environmental Sciences - Survey Data Simon Schneider et al. https://doi.org/10.5282/ubm/data.526
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
140 | 54 | 61 | 255 | 4 | 4 |
- HTML: 140
- PDF: 54
- XML: 61
- Total: 255
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 4
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1