References used in this project include the following:

Jo's PhD Zotero library is also online


American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (n.d.). Communicating to Engage. Retrieved 15 October 2018, from


Bailey, J., Salmon, R., & Horst, M. (2022). The ‘Engagement Incubator’: Using design to stimulate reflexivity about public engagement with science. Journal of Science Communication, 21(04), A01.

Blue, G. (2019). Science Communication Is Culture: Foregrounding Ritual in the Public Communication of Science. Science Communication, 41(2), 243–253.

Bowater, L., & Yeoman, K. (2013). Science communication: A practical guide for scientists. Wiley.

Bucchi, M., & Trench, B. (2014). Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology: Second edition. Routledge.


Canfield, K., & Menezes, S. (2020). The State of Inclusive Science Communication: A Landscape Study. Metcalf Institute, University of Rhode Island.

Cormick, C. (2020). Top tips for getting your science out there. Nature.

Cross, N. (1982). Designerly ways of knowing. Design Studies, 3(4), 221–227.

Cunliffe, A. L. (2016). “On Becoming a Critically Reflexive Practitioner” Redux: What Does It Mean to Be Reflexive? Journal of Management Education, 40(6), 740–746.

Choi, B. C. K., & Pak, A. W. P. (2006). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in health research, services, education and policy: 1. Definitions, objectives, and evidence of effectiveness. Clinical & Investigative Medicine, 29(6), 351–364.


Davies, S. R. (2013). Constituting Public Engagement: Meanings and Genealogies of PEST in Two U.K. Studies. Science Communication, 35(6), 687–

Davies, S. R., & Horst, M. (2016). Science communication: Culture, identity and citizenship. Palgrave Macmillan.

Davies, S. R., & Felt, U. (Eds.). (2020). Exploring science communication. SAGE Publications.

Dawson, E. (2019). Equity, Exclusion and Everyday Science Learning: The Experiences of Minoritised Groups (1st edition). Routledge. 


Gaver, W., Boucher, A., Pennington, S., & Walker, B. (2004). Cultural Probes and the Value of Uncertainty. Interactions, 11(5), 53–56.

Guterman, N. B. (2002). The role of research in defining a ‘practiceable’ problem for social work: The parallax of community and family violence exposure among children and youths. Social Work Education, 21(3), 313–322.


Hächler, B. (2015). Museums as Spaces of the Present: The Case for Social Scenography. In N. Hoskin (Trans.), The International Handbooks of Museum Studies (pp. 349–369). Wiley.

Horst, M. (2008). In Search of Dialogue: Staging Science Communication in Consensus Conferences. In D. Cheng, M. Claessens, T. Gascoigne, J. Metcalfe, B. Schiele, & S. Shi (Eds.), Communicating Science in Social Contexts: New models, new practices (pp. 259–274). Springer Netherlands.

Horst, M. (2011). Taking Our Own Medicine: On an Experiment in Science Communication. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4), 801–815.

Horst, M. (2013). A Field of Expertise, the Organization, or Science Itself? Scientists’ Perception of Representing Research in Public Communication. Science Communication, 35(6).

Horst, M., Davies, S. R., & Irwin, A. (2017). Reframing Science Communication. In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (Fourth Edition, pp. 881–907). The MIT Press. 


Irwin, A. (2014). Risk, science and public communication: Third-order thinking about scientific culture. In Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology: Second edition (pp. 160–172). Routledge.


Nisbet, M. C., & Markowitz, E. (2015). Public Engagement Research and Major Approaches [Commissioned annotated bibliography]. Leshner Leadership Institute, American Association for the Advancement of Science.


Opai, K. (2022, August 6). Pepeha for non-Māori. E-Tangata.


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.

Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (UK). (2006, March). Debating science. POSTnote, Number


Riedlinger, M., Broks, P., Massarani, L., Leach, J., Lewenstein, B. V., Schiele, B., & Gascoigne, T. (2020). Communicating Science: A Global Perspective. ANU Press.


Salmon, R. A., & Roop, H. A. (2019). Bridging the gap between science communication practice and theory: Reflecting on a decade of practitioner experience using polar outreach case studies to develop a new framework for public engagement design. Polar Record, 1–14. Download file

Salmon, R. A., Priestley, R. K., & Goven, J. (2017). The reflexive scientist: An approach to transforming public engagement. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 7(1), 53–68.

Stocklmayer, S. (2013). Engagement with Science: Models of Science Communication. In Communication and engagement with science and technology: Issues and dilemmas: A reader in science communication (pp. 19–38). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Swire-Thompson, B., Miklaucic, N., Wihbey, J. P., Lazer, D., & DeGutis, J. (2022). The backfire effect after correcting misinformation is strongly associated with reliability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 151, 1655–1665.


Trench, B. (2008). Towards an Analytical Framework of Science Communication Models. In Communicating Science in Social Contexts (pp. 119–135). Springer, Dordrecht.





This article was written about the process that informed this website: 

Bailey, J., Salmon, R., & Horst, M. (2022). The ‘Engagement Incubator’: Using design to stimulate reflexivity about public engagement with science. Journal of Science Communication, 21(04), A01.


A hand drawn pile of washing and a pile of books


About > Contact


About > PCST2023