Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 127 references

Informal Education is Essential to Physics: Findings of the 2024 JNIPER Summit and Recommendations for Action

T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This white paper argues that informal physics education—public engagement and outreach—should be recognized as an essential physics practice, not a peripheral activity.

desk verdict A well-organized community white paper that makes a strong normative case for informal physics education but overstates the empirical support for its benefits; worth reviewing with a request to calibrate the evidence language. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.18851 v1 pith:ZMT3ZHGF submitted 2025-07-24 physics.ed-ph physics.soc-ph

Alexandra C. Lau , Jessica R. Hoehn , Michael B. Bennett , Claudia Fracchiolla , Kathleen Hinko , Noah Finkelstein , Jacqueline Acres , Lindsey D. Anderson
show 21 more authors
Shane D. Bergin Cherie Bornhorst Turhan K. Carroll Michael Gregory Cameron Hares E. L. Hazlett Meghan Healy Erik A Herman Lindsay R. House Michele W. McColgan Brad McLain Azar Panah Sarah A. Perdue Jonathan D. Perry Brean E. Prefontaine Nicole Schrode Michael S. Smith Bryan Stanley Shannon Swilley Greco Jen Tuttle Parsons the broader JNIPER Community
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.ed-phphysics.soc-ph
keywords informalphysicseducationpublicengagementwithscienceoutreachculturechangeidentitycommunityofpracticecommunicationresearch
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that informal physics education (IPE) should be recognized as an essential disciplinary practice: engaging in IPE is part of what it means to do physics, not an optional side activity. It reports on a 2024 summit of forty-two members of the JNIPER community, which produced findings that IPE keeps physics relevant, builds public trust, opens pathways into the discipline, improves retention, and sharpens physicists' communication and research skills. The paper organizes a culture-change roadmap around three levers—structures, engagement of interested and influential parties, and research-based practices—with recommendations aimed at individuals, departments, topical groups, and national and international organizations. If this claim is right, physics institutions and funders should treat IPE as a core practice and allocate resources, recognition, and rewards to it.

What carries the argument

The mechanism carrying the argument is the community-of-practice model embodied in JNIPER, an international network of informal physics education practitioners, designers, and researchers, whose June 2024 summit of forty-two members generated the findings and recommendations. The paper organizes the culture change around three levers: structures (policies, resources, funding, and the distribution of power), engagement of interested, influential, and/or impacted parties, and integration of research-based practices in IPE, including research, assessment, evaluation, and research-practice partnerships. The recommendations are mapped to four scales of action—individuals, departments and institutions, informal STEM topical groups, and funders and national and international organizations—so that the roadmap can be enacted from the bottom up and the top down.

What would settle it

A large-scale comparison that randomly or quasi-randomly assigns similar physics departments to a multi-year IPE-integration program versus business-as-usual, then measures public trust, student persistence, and faculty research output, would settle whether elevating IPE to core practice produces the claimed gains; if the IPE departments show no differences, the central claim is undermined.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that informal physics education is not auxiliary to physics but constitutive of it. A physics community that does not practice IPE risks isolation, irrelevance, and a loss of public trust, while IPE creates porous boundaries through which people can enter physics, remain in it, and bring new perspectives to research. The paper distills four grounds for this claim: IPE secures disciplinary relevance and a social license to operate; it fosters trust and supports a society that benefits from scientific advances; it serves as a gateway for entering physics and for staying once there; and it improves physicists' skills and research. From these grounds, the paper derives a culture-change strategy with three levers and a set of concrete recommendations for making IPE central to physics institutions.

Load-bearing premise

The paper depends on the empirical premise that IPE actually produces the claimed benefits—greater public trust, broader recruitment and retention in physics, and improved skills and research for physicists—since these benefits are established mainly through prior studies, several by the paper's own contributors, rather than through new data gathered for this white paper.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Physics departments would include IPE in hiring, tenure, promotion, and service requirements, rewarding rather than discouraging public engagement.
  • Funding agencies would require public engagement plans with meaningful evaluation and would fund IPE programs and IPE research directly.
  • IPE would be embedded in curricula with academic credit, and physics career pathways in public engagement would be explicitly recognized.
  • Physics societies would create dedicated IPE sessions and publication venues, publish research digests, and release policy statements affirming IPE as part of physics.
  • If these changes take hold, the paper predicts stronger public trust in scientists, greater participation and retention of diverse students in physics, and new research ideas flowing from community engagement.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A strong test of the paper's thesis would be a longitudinal, multi-department comparison of promotion timelines, funding outcomes, and research productivity for physicists who make IPE central versus those who do not; the paper does not run this test.
  • The paper's partnership framing implies that one-way outreach presentations may be insufficient for the claimed trust and identity benefits, so follow-up work could compare two-way, co-created IPE programs against traditional demo shows on measures of trust and belonging.
  • The three-lever roadmap could transfer to other scientific disciplines, but its effectiveness likely depends on local reward structures and existing institutional infrastructures, so direct replication in chemistry, biology, or engineering would be a natural extension.
  • If IPE were fully normalized, physics identity itself might shift—an inference the paper leaves implicit—suggesting that future research could track whether required IPE training changes how physicists and students define their disciplinary roles.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. This white paper argues that informal physics education (IPE) should be recognized as an essential disciplinary practice in physics, and it presents recommendations for achieving this culture change. The arguments draw on a June 2024 summit hosted by the Joint Network for Informal Physics Education and Research (JNIPER) with 42 participants. The paper enumerates benefits of IPE in four categories (disciplinary relevance and social license, public trust, recruitment and retention, and physicists' skills and research), then organizes recommendations under three levers (structures, engagement of interested/influential/impacted parties, and research-based practices) addressed to four actor scales (individuals, departments/institutions, topical groups, and national/international organizations). It concludes with a call for readers to select and prioritize specific recommendations.

Significance. If the empirical premises hold, the paper provides a valuable and timely roadmap for institutionalizing IPE in physics. Its strength is its structured synthesis of ongoing community conversations and its explicit recognition of the need for both top-down and bottom-up change. The paper is transparent about its intended audience and its US-centric perspective, and it catalogs prior calls to action from major scientific organizations. It does not present new empirical data, but as an advocacy white paper it aggregates existing literature and offers actionable, multilevel recommendations that could inform policy discussions in physics departments, funding agencies, and professional societies.

major comments (1)
minor comments (4)
  1. [Lever 1, S.2] The citation for the Mobile Making example appears incorrect: refs. [63] and [64] are Pew Research Center and Koetke et al., not Mobile Making. The correct references are likely [90] and [91] (Mobile Making at CSUSM). Please verify all in-text reference numbers.
  2. [Lever 1, S.16] The reference [24] cited for the JNIPER Fellows program appears to be Tai et al. on planning early for careers in science, which is unrelated. Please either replace the citation with an appropriate one or remove the reference.
  3. [Throughout the text and appendices] There are several typos, including 'activity worth y of resource allocation' (should read 'worthy'), 'T o' instead of 'To' in multiple places, and 'ph ysics' in some appendix headers. A careful proofreading pass is needed.
  4. [Section II.A] The rhetorical question 'Can public engagement save physics?' is raised but not directly answered. Consider adding a sentence that summarizes the paper's position (e.g., 'We believe the evidence below indicates that IPE can address several of these challenges, though it is not a panacea.')

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: this is an advocacy white paper that synthesizes prior empirical work and Summit discussions; the recommendations are not derived from fitted inputs or self-referential definitions.

full rationale

The paper does not present a derivation chain. Its 'findings' are the outcomes of the 2024 JNIPER Summit conversations, and its recommendations are normative calls to action. Section II assembles benefits of IPE from prior studies, several authored by the paper's contributors, but this is a literature synthesis rather than a prediction or fitted parameter. The central claim that IPE should be recognized as essential physics practice is not equivalent to any cited study; it is a policy position supported by, but not reducible to, those studies. The paper explicitly frames Section II as advocacy material ('We include arguments in support of IPE with the goal of summarizing these in one place for our audience to be able to use in advocating for IPE') and states that the recommendations assume an audience already supportive of IPE. There is no equation, no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors, and no ansatz smuggled in via citation. Self-citations are used as ordinary scholarly references to prior empirical work, not as a forced conclusion. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited, and the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on several domain assumptions about the value and transferability of IPE and about the malleability of physics culture. No free parameters or invented entities appear because the paper is not a quantitative model.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The benefits of IPE for society and physicists (trust, identity, retention, skill gains) are real and generalizable.
    Section II asserts these benefits with citations, but the paper does not provide new evidence. Several cited studies are authored by the paper's own contributors.
  • domain assumption The recommendations derived from the 2024 Summit with 42 participants apply to the broader physics community.
    The paper extrapolates from a self-selected subgroup of JNIPER members to a global culture shift, even while acknowledging a US-centric perspective.
  • domain assumption Physics culture can be intentionally changed through structural, engagement, and research-based levers.
    Section III relies on organizational change frameworks (Bolman and Deal, Reinholz and Apkarian, Henderson et al.) to argue that the three levers can produce the desired shift.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Informal Education is Essential to Physics: Findings of the 2024 JNIPER Summit and Recommendations for Action." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZMT3ZHGF

@misc{pith2026250718851,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Informal Education is Essential to Physics: Findings of the 2024 JNIPER Summit and Recommendations for Action},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZMT3ZHGF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.18851}
}
read the original abstract

In order to reach the full civic and scientific potential of physics, this white paper calls for a culture change in physics to recognize informal physics education (also referred to as public engagement or outreach) as an essential disciplinary practice. That is, engaging in informal physics education (IPE) is part of what it means to ''do physics.'' In June 2024, we hosted a summit with forty-two members of the Joint Network for Informal Physics Education and Research (JNIPER) to discuss concrete steps for fostering this cultural shift in physics. We present key findings from the Summit to motivate this culture change: IPE makes the work of physicists relevant; fosters trust and supports a society where everyone benefits from science and technology advances; serves as a gateway for entering into the physics discipline, and for staying once there; and improves physicists' skills and research. We identify three levers for promoting the culture change: structures supporting IPE; engagement of interested, influential, and/or impacted parties; and integration of research-based IPE practices. Each lever is accompanied by associated recommendations for action directed at individuals, departments and institutions, topical groups such as JNIPER, and funders and (inter)national organizations. Our clarion call is for members and supporters of the IPE community to choose one recommendation per lever to prioritize and to set forth a roadmap for implementation. Together, we can establish IPE as a central physics practice, ultimately leading to a deeper connection between physics and society, strengthening our mutual potential and impact for good.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.18851 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Summit attendees created visual depictions of what current physics culture looks like and what it would look like if IPE was core to the discipline of physics. Diagram (a) depicts “Mount Physics,” with the steep side of the mountain representing traditional physics culture. People on this side of the mountain have to crawl their way to the top, or they may decide to parachute off the mountain. The other side of the … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Three change levers through which to achieve the desired culture shift whereby IPE is widely recognized as an integral part of the physics discipline. A. Change Levers In the three sections that follow, we describe the “lever” (i.e., the category of activity within the physics discipline in which change may occur) and then report recommendations for the IPE community related to that change lever4 . The recommendatio… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

127 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    R. P. Crease and P. D. Bond, The Leak: Politics, Activists, and Loss of Trust at Brookhaven National Laboratory (The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2022)

    2022

  2. [2]

    Kaiser, How the Hippies Saved Physics: Science, Counterculture, and the Quantum Revival (W

    D. Kaiser, How the Hippies Saved Physics: Science, Counterculture, and the Quantum Revival (W . W . Norton & Company, Erscheinungsort Nicht Ermittelbar, 2012)

    2012

  3. [3]

    Hargittai, Leo Szilard: the physicist who envisaged nuclear weapons but later opposed their use, Phys

    I. Hargittai, Leo Szilard: the physicist who envisaged nuclear weapons but later opposed their use, Phys. World (2023)

    2023

  4. [4]

    Cartlidge, Law and the end of the world, Phys

    E. Cartlidge, Law and the end of the world, Phys. World (2010)

    2010

  5. [5]

    L. Bao, M. N. Calice, D. Brossard, B. Beets, D. A. Scheufele, and K. M. Rose, How institutional factors at US land-grant universities impact scientists’ public scholarship, Public Underst. Sci. 32, 124 (2023)

    2023

  6. [6]

    E. H. Ecklund, S. A. James, and A. E. Lincoln, How Academic Biologists and Physicists View Science Outreach, PLOS ONE 7 , e36240 (2012)

    2012

  7. [7]

    M. N. Calice, B. Beets, L. Bao, D. A. Scheufele, I. Freiling, D. Brossard, N. W . Feinstein, L. Heisler, T . T angen, and J. Handelsman, Public engagement: Faculty lived experiences and perspectives underscore barriers and a changing culture in academia, PLOS ONE 17 , e0269949 (2022)

    2022

  8. [8]

    K. A. Assamagan, M. Carneiro, S. Demers, K. Jepsen, D. Lincoln, and A. Muronga, The Need for Structural Changes to Create Impactful Public Engagement in US Particle Physics, arXiv:2203.08916

    work page Pith review arXiv

Show all 127 references
  1. [9]

    N. C. Woitowich, G. C. Hunt, L. N. Muhammad, and J. Garbarino, Assessing motivations and barriers to science outreach within academic science research settings: A mixed-methods survey, Front. Commun. 7 , (2022)

    2022

  2. [10]

    Falk and M

    J. Falk and M. Storksdieck, Using the contextual model of learning to understand visitor learning from a science center exhibition, Sci. Educ. 89, 744 (2005)

    2005

  3. [11]

    J. H. Falk and L. D. Dierking, Learning from Museums (Rowman & Littlefield, 2018)

    2018

  4. [12]

    M. B. Bennett, C. Fracchiola, D. B. Harlow, and K. Rosa, Informal Learning in Physics, in The International Handbook of Physics Education Research: Teaching Physics (AIP Publishing, Melville, New Y ork, 2023), p. 12.1-12.28

    2023

  5. [13]

    Phipps, Research Trends and Findings From a Decade (1997–2007) of Research on Informal Science Education and Free-Choice Science Learning, Visit

    M. Phipps, Research Trends and Findings From a Decade (1997–2007) of Research on Informal Science Education and Free-Choice Science Learning, Visit. Stud. 13, 3 (2010)

    2010

  6. [14]

    Avraamidou and W .-M

    L. Avraamidou and W .-M. Roth, Intersections of Formal and Informal Science, 1st ed. (Routledge, 2017)

    2017

  7. [15]

    National Research Council, Board on Science Education, Center for Education, and Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits (National Academies Press, W ashington, DC, 2009)

    2009

  8. [16]

    O’Connor and J

    C. O’Connor and J. O. Weatherall, The Misinformation Age: How False Beliefs Spread (Y ale University Press, 2019). 41

    2019

  9. [17]

    AAAS Center for Public Engagement with Science & T echnology, AAAS Logic Model for Public Engagement with Science, https:/ /www.aaas.org/ sites/default/files/content_files/2016-09-15_AAAS-Logic-Model-fo r-Public-Engagement_Final.pdf

    2016

  10. [18]

    McCallie, L

    E. McCallie, L. Bell, T . Lohwater, J. H. Falk, J. L. Lehr, B. V . Lewenstein, C. Needham, and B. Wiehe, Many Experts, Many Audiences: Public Engagement with Science and Informal Science Education, A CAISE Inquiry Group Report, Center for Advancement of Informal Science Educat...

    2009

  11. [19]

    A. V . Maltese and R. H. T ai, Eyeballs in the Fridge: Sources of early interest in science, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 32, 669 (2010)

    2010

  12. [20]

    Oreskes, O

    N. Oreskes, O. Edenhofer, J. Krosnick, M. S. Lindee, M. Lange, and M. Kowarsch, Why Trust Science? (Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 2019)

    2019

  13. [21]

    Y ang, T

    Y . Y ang, T . Y . Tian, T . K. Woodruff, B. F. Jones, and B. Uzzi, Gender-diverse teams produce more novel and higher-impact scientific ideas, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 119, e2200841119 (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    A. V . Maltese and R. H. T ai, Pipeline persistence: Examining the association of educational experiences with earned degrees in STEM among U.S. students, Sci. Educ. 95, 877 (2011)

    2011

  15. [23]

    K. P. Dabney, R. H. T ai, J. T . Almarode, J. L. Miller-Friedmann, G. Sonnert, P. M. Sadler, and Z. Hazari, Out-of-School Time Science Activities and Their Association with Career Interest in STEM, (2012)

    2012

  16. [24]

    R. H. T ai, C. Qi Liu, A. V . Maltese, and X. Fan, Planning Early for Careers in Science, https:/ /www.science.org/doi/10.1126/ science.1128690

  17. [25]

    K. A. Fadigan and P. L. Hammrich, A longitudinal study of the educational and career trajectories of female participants of an urban informal science education program, J. Res. Sci. T each. 41, 835 (2004)

    2004

  18. [26]

    Rahm and J

    J. Rahm and J. C. Moore, A case study of long-term engagement and identity-in-practice: Insights into the STEM pathways of four underrepresented youths, J. Res. Sci. T each. 53, 768 (2016)

    2016

  19. [27]

    Thorley, Physicists and Outreach: Implications of Schools Physics Outreach Programmes from the Perspective of the Participating Physicists, Unviersity College London, 2016

    C. Thorley, Physicists and Outreach: Implications of Schools Physics Outreach Programmes from the Perspective of the Participating Physicists, Unviersity College London, 2016

    2016

  20. [28]

    Prefontaine, C

    B. Prefontaine, C. Mullen, J. J. Güven, C. Rispler, C. Rethman, S. D. Bergin, K. Hinko, and C. Fracchiolla, Informal Physics Programs as Communities of Practice: How Can Program Structures Support University Students’ Identities?, arXiv:2012.03022

    2012 arXiv

  21. [29]

    A. A. Bergerson, B. K. Hotchkins, and C. Furse, Outreach and Identity Development: New Perspectives on College Student Persistence, J. Coll. Stud. Retent. Res. Theory Pract. 16, 165 (2014)

    2014

  22. [30]

    Rethman, J

    C. Rethman, J. Perry, J. P. Donaldson, D. Choi, and T . Erukhimova, Impact of informal physics programs on university student development: Creating a physicist, Phys. Rev. 42 Phys. Educ. Res. 17 , 020110 (2021)

    2021

  23. [31]

    Randolph, J

    J. Randolph, J. Perry, J. P. Donaldson, C. Rethman, and T . Erukhimova, Female physics students gain from facilitating informal physics programs, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 020123 (2022)

    2022

  24. [32]

    M. Shapiro, Exploring Science Outside the Classroom Key to Inspiring Future Black Physics Majors, https:/ /www.teamuptogether.org/ about/exploring-science-outside-the-classroom-key-to-ins piring-future-black-physics-majors

  25. [33]

    Fracchiolla, B

    C. Fracchiolla, B. Prefontaine, M. V asquez, and K. Hinko, Is Participation in Public Engagement an Integral Part of Shaping Physics Students’ Identity?, in Research and Innovation in Physics Education: Two Sides of the Same Coin, edited by J. Guisasola and K. Zuza (Springer I...

    2020

  26. [34]

    A. M. Porter, R. Y . Chu, and R. Ivie, Attrition and Persistence in Undergraduate Physics Programs, American Institute of Physics, 2024. https:/ /ww2.aip.org/ statistics/ attrition-and-persistence-in-undergraduate-physics-programs

    2024

  27. [35]

    American Physical Society, APS Member Survey on Public Engagement, https:/ /www.aps.org/initiatives/ advocate-amplify/public-engagement/public-engagement -member-survey

  28. [36]

    K. A. Hinko and N. D. Finkelstein, Impacting University Physics Students through Participation in Informal Science, in Vol. 1513 (2013), pp. 178–181

    2013

  29. [37]

    T . K. Carroll, E. C. Nutwell, A. D. Christy, M. B. Bennett, and N. D. Finkelstein, Facilitator Stem T eacher Identity Development Via Online Informal Stem Education During the (COVID)- 19 Era, Career T ech. Educ. Res. 48, 42 (2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    N. D. Finkelstein and L. Mayhew, Acting in Our Own Self‐Interests: Blending University and Community in Informal Science Education, in 2008 PHYSICS EDUCATION RESEARCH CONFERENCE, Vol. 1064 (American Institute of Physics, 2008), pp. 19–22

    2008

  31. [39]

    Fracchiolla, B

    C. Fracchiolla, B. Prefontaine, and K. Hinko, Community of practice approach for understanding identity development within informal physics programs, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020115 (2020)

    2020

  32. [40]

    Fracchiolla, N

    C. Fracchiolla, N. D. Finkelstein, and K. A. Hinko, Characterizing Models of Informal Physics Programs, in 2018 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings (American Association of Physics T eachers, W ashington, DC, 2019)

    2018

  33. [41]

    Izadi, J

    D. Izadi, J. Willison, K. A. Hinko, and C. Fracchiolla, Developing an Organizational Framework for Informal Physics Programs, in 2019 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings (American Association of Physics T eachers, Provo, UT , 2020)

    2019

  34. [42]

    Izadi, J

    D. Izadi, J. Willison, N. Finkelstein, C. Fracchiolla, and K. Hinko, T owards mapping the landscape of informal physics educational activities, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 020145 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    Willison, D

    J. Willison, D. Izadi, I. W ard, K. A. Hinko, and C. Fracchiolla, Challenges in Study Design for Characterizing the Informal Physics Landscape, in 2019 Physics Education 43 Research Conference Proceedings (American Association of Physics T eachers, Provo, UT , 2020)

    2019

  36. [44]

    American Physical Society, JNIPER | American Physical Society, https:/ /www.aps.org/initiatives/ advocate-amplify/public-engagement/jniper

  37. [45]

    Lave and E

    J. Lave and E. Wenger, Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation (Cambridge University Press, 1991)

    1991

  38. [46]

    Wenger-Trayner and Wenger-Trayner, Introduction to Communities of Practice, https:/ /www.wenger-trayner.com/introduction-to-communities-of-practice/

    E. Wenger-Trayner and Wenger-Trayner, Introduction to Communities of Practice, https:/ /www.wenger-trayner.com/introduction-to-communities-of-practice/

  39. [47]

    Trench, P

    B. Trench, P. Murphy, and D. Fahy, editors , Little Country, Big Talk: Science Communication in Ireland (Pantaneto Press, n.d.)

  40. [48]

    Christopherson, D

    E. Christopherson, D. A. Scheufele, and B. Smith, The Civic Science Imperative, Stanf. Soc. Innov. Rev. 16, 46 (2018)

    2018

  41. [49]

    S. D. Renoe and C. Nelson, Creating a Science-Engaged Public, Issues Sci. T echnol. (2022)

    2022

  42. [50]

    M. A. Kaye Elizabeth Good Christopherson, Anna Dulencin, Jon, Science for the People, https:/ /nautil.us/ science-for-the-people-943122/

  43. [51]

    M. N. Calice, L. Bao, B. Beets, D. Brossard, D. A. Scheufele, N. W . Feinstein, L. Heisler, T . T angen, and Handelsman, A Triangulated Approach for Understanding Scientists’ Perceptions of Public Engagement with Science, https:/ /journals.sagepub.com/doi/ abs/10.1177 /0963662...

  44. [52]

    Fracchiolla, A

    C. Fracchiolla, A. C. Lau, and N. Schrode, Fostering connection: Principles and practices for well-designed public engagement in physics, Phys. Plasmas 31, 050602 (2024)

    2024

  45. [53]

    Cole and D

    M. Cole and D. L. Consortium, The Fifth Dimension: An After-School Program Built on Diversity (Russell Sage Foundation, New Y ork, 2006)

    2006

  46. [54]

    http:/ /www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLgxD9DiwxLGqKZx5kcyzdRffPEHLo7dck

    JNIPER Summit 2024 Playlist (2024). http:/ /www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLgxD9DiwxLGqKZx5kcyzdRffPEHLo7dck

    2024

  47. [55]

    https:/ /www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ITCZjb2HoQ

    That’s Not Physics (2024). https:/ /www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ITCZjb2HoQ

    2024

  48. [56]

    A. P. Kaminski, The People’s Spaceship: NASA, the Shuttle Era, and Public Engagement after Apollo (University of Pittsburgh Press, 2024)

    2024

  49. [57]

    A. C. Barton, T eaching science with homeless children: Pedagogy, representation, and identity, J. Res. Sci. T each. 35, 379 (1998)

    1998

  50. [58]

    Tyson and B

    A. Tyson and B. Kennedy, Public Trust in Scientists and Views on Their Role in Policymaking, 2024. https:/ /www.pewresearch.org/ science/2024/11/14/public-trust-in-scientists-and-views-on -their-role-in-policymaking/

    2024

  51. [59]

    Cologna et al., Trust in scientists and their role in society across 68 countries, Nat

    V . Cologna et al., Trust in scientists and their role in society across 68 countries, Nat. Hum. Behav. 1 (2025)

    2025

  52. [60]

    Global Risks 2024: Disinformation Tops Global Risks 2024 as Environmental Threats Intensify, 44 https:/ /www.weforum.org/press/2024/01/global-risks-report-2024-press-release/

    2024

  53. [61]

    Research!America, Can You Name a Living Scientist?, https:/ /www.researchamerica.org/ sd_question/can-you-name-a-living-scientist/

  54. [62]

    NSB-2021-2, 2021

    National Science Board, National Science Foundation, The STEM Labor Force of T oday: Scientists, Engineers, and Skilled T echnical Workers, No. NSB-2021-2, 2021

    2021

  55. [63]

    Pew Research Center, Public Trust in Scientists and Views on Their Role in Policymaking, 2024

    2024

  56. [64]

    Koetke, K

    J. Koetke, K. Schumann, S. M. Bowes, and N. V aupotič, The effect of seeing scientists as intellectually humble on trust in scientists and their research, Nat. Hum. Behav. 9, 331 (2025)

    2025

  57. [65]

    Research!America, How Important Is It for Scientists to Inform Elected Officials about Their Research and Its Impact on Society?, https:/ /www.researchamerica.org/ sd_question/how-important-is-it-for-scientists-to-inform- elected-officials-about-their-research-and-its-impact-o...

  58. [66]

    Research!America, Should Scientists Consider It Part of Their Job to Inform the Public about Their Research and Its Impact on Society?, https:/ /www.researchamerica.org/ sd_question/ should-scientists-consider-it-part-of-their-jo b-to-inform-the-public-about-their-research-and...

  59. [67]

    Census Bureau, IPEDS, AIP, and APS, Retention of Individuals Marginalized by Race/Ethnicity in Physics, https:/ /www.aps.org/learning-center/ statistics/diversity

    U.S. Census Bureau, IPEDS, AIP, and APS, Retention of Individuals Marginalized by Race/Ethnicity in Physics, https:/ /www.aps.org/learning-center/ statistics/diversity

  60. [68]

    IPEDS and APS, Degrees Earned by Women, by Field, https:/ /www.aps.org/learning-center/ statistics/diversity

  61. [69]

    Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, 2024

    National Center for Education Statistics, College Enrollment Rates, U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, 2024

    2024

  62. [70]

    A. B. Bossmann and A. Sandner, Women in Physics in Germany: Current Developments and Actions Taken toward Equal Opportunities, in AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 3040 (AIP Publishing, 2023), p. 050016

    2023

  63. [71]

    Anteneodo, C

    C. Anteneodo, C. Brito, A. Alves-Brito, S. S. Alexandre, B. N. D’ Avila, and D. P. Menezes, Brazilian physicists community diversity, equity, and inclusion: A first diagnostic, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010136 (2020)

    2020

  64. [72]

    M. F. Parisoto, J. D. S. Mendes, É. de Mello Silva, G. Bailas, and A. C. F. dos Santos, The Road to Gender Equity in Brazil: Small Advances and Major Setbacks, in AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 3040 (AIP Publishing, 2023), p. 050005

    2023

  65. [73]

    Goswami et al., Gender Equity in Physics in India: Interventions, Outcomes, and Roadmap, in AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol

    S. Goswami et al., Gender Equity in Physics in India: Interventions, Outcomes, and Roadmap, in AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 3040 (AIP Publishing, 2023), p. 050018

    2023

  66. [74]

    Josten, G

    C. Josten, G. Lordan, and K. Robinson, The City Quantum Summit: A Briefing on Diversity and Inclusion in the Quantum Sector, The London School of Economics and Political Science, 2023

    2023

  67. [75]

    Mulvey and J

    P. Mulvey and J. Pold, Physics Bachelors: Influences and Backgrounds, American Institute 45 of Physics, 2024. https:/ /ww2.aip.org/ statistics/physics-bachelors-influences-and-backgrounds

    2024

  68. [76]

    Ong, The Double Bind in Physics Education: Intersectionality, Equity, and Belonging for Women of Color (Harvard Education Press, 2023)

    M. Ong, The Double Bind in Physics Education: Intersectionality, Equity, and Belonging for Women of Color (Harvard Education Press, 2023)

    2023

  69. [77]

    Hyater-Adams, N

    S. Hyater-Adams, N. D. Finkelstein, and K. A. Hinko, Performing Physics: An Analysis of Design-Based Informal STEAM Education Programs, in (2018)

    2018

  70. [78]

    Abbasi et al., Citizen science for IceCube: Name that Neutrino, Eur

    R. Abbasi et al., Citizen science for IceCube: Name that Neutrino, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 139, 533 (2024)

    2024

  71. [79]

    L. R. House, K. Gebhardt, K. Finkelstein, E. Mentuch Cooper, D. Davis, D. J. Farrow, and D. P. Schneider, Participatory Science and Machine Learning Applied to Millions of Sources in the Hobby–Eberly T elescope Dark Energy Experiment, Astrophys. J. 975, 172 (2024)

    2024

  72. [80]

    L. R. House et al., Using Dark Energy Explorers and Machine Learning to Enhance the Hobby–Eberly T elescope Dark Energy Experiment, Astrophys. J. 950, 82 (2023)

    2023

  73. [81]

    L. G. Bolman and T . E. Deal, Leadership and management effectiveness: A multi-frame, multi-sector analysis, Hum. Resour. Manage. 30, 509 (1991)

    1991

  74. [82]

    Kezar, Understanding sensemaking/ sensegiving in transformational change processes from the bottom up, High

    A. Kezar, Understanding sensemaking/ sensegiving in transformational change processes from the bottom up, High. Educ. 65, 761 (2013)

    2013

  75. [83]

    Henderson, A

    C. Henderson, A. L. Beach, and N. Finkelstein, Four Categories of Change Strategies for Transforming Undergraduate Instruction, in Transitions and Transformations in Learning and Education, edited by P. Tynjälä, M.-L. Stenström, and M. Saarnivaara (Springer Netherlands, Dordre...

    2012

  76. [84]

    A. C. Lau, C. Henderson, M. Stains, M. Dancy, C. Merino, N. Apkarian, J. R. Raker, and E. Johnson, Characteristics of departments with high-use of active learning in introductory STEM courses: implications for departmental transformation, Int. J. STEM Educ. 11, 10 (2024)

    2024

  77. [85]

    J. C. Corbo, D. L. Reinholz, M. H. Dancy, S. Deetz, and N. Finkelstein, Framework for transforming departmental culture to support educational innovation, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 010113 (2016)

    2016

  78. [86]

    D. L. Reinholz and N. Apkarian, Four frames for systemic change in STEM departments, Int. J. STEM Educ. 5, 3 (2018)

    2018

  79. [87]

    Elrod and A

    S. Elrod and A. Kezar, Increasing Student Success in STEM: A Guide to Systemic Institutional Change (Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2016)

    2016

  80. [88]

    Feola et al., STEM education institutional change projects: examining enacted approaches through the lens of the Four Categories of Change Strategies Model, Int

    S. Feola et al., STEM education institutional change projects: examining enacted approaches through the lens of the Four Categories of Change Strategies Model, Int. J. STEM Educ. 10, 67 (2023)

    2023

  81. [89]

    American Association of Universities et al., Framework for Systemic Change in Undergraduate STEM T eaching and Learning, American Association of Universities, 2011

    2011

  82. [90]

    Price, S

    E. Price, S. Siyahhan, J. Marshall, and C. DeLeone, Mobile Making: A Research-Based 46 Afterschool Program Led by STEM Undergraduates Serving as Near-Peer Mentors, J. STEM Outreach 6, 1 (2023)

    2023

  83. [91]

    Mobile Making | Center for Research & Engagement in STEM Education | CSUSM, https:/ /www.csusm.edu/crese/research/mobilemaking.html

  84. [92]

    L. Bao, M. N. Calice, D. Brossard, D. A. Scheufele, and E. M. Markowitz, Are Productive Scientists More Willing to Engage With the Public?, Sci. Commun. 46, 65 (2024)

    2024

  85. [93]

    Smith et al., Informal Science Education and Career Advancement, arXiv:2112.10623

    M. Smith et al., Informal Science Education and Career Advancement, arXiv:2112.10623

    arXiv

  86. [94]

    American Physical Society, Statement on Public Engagement, https:/ /www.aps.org/ about/governance/ statements/public-engagement

  87. [95]

    University of T exas at Austin, General Guidelines for Promotion Review of Professional-Track Faculty, https:/ /utexas.app.box.com/ s/8ugvlqjp60mufyq2dtwvq7ca6db94nvl

  88. [96]

    University College Dublin, Development Framework for Faculty, https:/ /www.ucd.ie/hr/t4media/Development%20Framework%20for%20Faculty_Final%2 0310322.pdf

  89. [97]

    The Elective Classification for Community Engagement, https:/ /carnegieclassifications.acenet.edu/elective-classifications/community-engagement /

  90. [98]

    Physical Review Physics Education Research, https:/ /journals.aps.org/prper/

  91. [99]

    Journal of STEM Outreach, https:/ /www.jstemoutreach.org/

  92. [100]

    Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, https:/ /theoryandpractice.citizenscienceassociation.org

  93. [101]

    The Physics Teacher, https:/ /pubs.aip.org/pte

  94. [102]

    Connected Science Learning | NSTA, https:/ /www.nsta.org/connected-science-learning

  95. [103]

    Research!America Public Engagement Working Group, Recommended Strategies to Integrate Public Engagement and Civic Science Training into Graduate STEMM Education, 2024

    2024

  96. [104]

    President’ s Council of Advisors on Science and T echnology, Letter to the President: Advancing Public Engagement with the Sciences, 2023

    2023

  97. [105]

    M. S. Reed et al., Reimagining the language of engagement in a post-stakeholder world, Sustain. Sci. 19, 1481 (2024)

    2024

  98. [106]

    Indigenous Corporate Training, Inc, 9 Terms to Avoid in Communications with Indigenous Peoples, https:/ /www.ictinc.ca/blog/9-terms-to-avoid-in-communications-with-indigenous-peoples

  99. [107]

    K. Burn, R. Conway, A. Edwards, and E. Harries, The role of school-based research champions in a school–university partnership, Br. Educ. Res. J. 47 , 616 (2021)

    2021

  100. [108]

    M. T . Huber and P. Hutchings, Dynamics of Departmental Change: Lessons From a Successful STEM T eaching Initiative, Change Mag. High. Learn. 53, 41 (2021)

    2021

  101. [109]

    U. K. H. Ecker, S. Lewandowsky, J. Cook, P. Schmid, L. K. Fazio, N. Brashier, P. Kendeou, E. K. Vraga, and M. A. Amazeen, The psychological drivers of misinformation 47 belief and its resistance to correction, Nat. Rev. Psychol. 1, 13 (2022)

    2022

  102. [110]

    J. W . Creswell and J. D. Creswell, Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (SAGE Publications, 2017)

    2017

  103. [111]

    C. E. Coburn and W . R. Penuel, Research-Practice Partnerships in Education: Outcomes, Dynamics, and Open Questions, Educ. Res. 45, 48 (2016)

    2016

  104. [112]

    A. L. Brown, Design Experiments: Theoretical and Methodological Challenges in Creating Complex Interventions in Classroom Settings, J. Learn. Sci. 2, 141 (1992)

    1992

  105. [113]

    University of Colorado Boulder, The Partnerships for Informal Science Education in the Community, https:/ /www.colorado.edu/outreach/pisec/partnerships-informal-science-education-com munity

  106. [114]

    John Besley and Anthony Dudo, Landscaping Overview of the North American Science Communication Training Community: T opline T akeaways from Trainer Interviews, 2017

    2017

  107. [115]

    S. Yuan, A. Dudo, and J. C. Besley, Scientific societies’ support for public engagement: an interview study, Int. J. Sci. Educ. Part B 9, 140 (2019)

    2019

  108. [116]

    Risien and R

    J. Risien and R. Nilson, Landscape Overview of University Systems and People Supporting Scientists in Their Public Engagement Efforts, Oregon State University, 2018

    2018

  109. [117]

    SciPEP, Insights and Practical Considerations for Communicating Basic Science, Report for the Department of Energy Office of Science and The Kavli Foundation as part of the Science Public Engagement Partnership, OSF, 2024

    2024

  110. [118]

    https:/ / sciencecounts.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/ Assessing-Scientist-Willingness- to-Engage-in-Science-Communication.pdf

    T odd Newman, Christopher Volpe, Laura Lindenfeld, John Besley, Anthony Dudo, and Nicole Leavey, Assessing Scientists’ Willingness to Engage in Science Communication, (unpublished). https:/ / sciencecounts.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/ Assessing-Scientist-Willingness- to-Eng...

    2019

  111. [119]

    Volpe, E

    C. Volpe, E. Klein, and M. Race, Americans-Motivations-for-and-Barriers-to-Engaging-with-Science.Pdf, ScienceCounts, 2022

    2022

  112. [120]

    J. J. DeVoe, PPPL to Lead Collaborative Center Aimed at Supporting Efforts to Bring More Underserved Communities into Plasma Science and the Fusion Energy Field, https:/ /www.pppl.gov/news/2023/pppl-lead-collaborative-center-aimed-supporting-effort s-bring-more-underserved

    2023

  113. [121]

    Y oung-McLear, S

    K. Y oung-McLear, S. Zelmanowitz, R. James, D. Brunswick, and T . DeNucci, Beyond Buzzwords and Bystanders: A Framework for Systematically Developing a Diverse, Mission Ready, and Innovative Coast Guard Workforce, in 2021 CoNECD Proceedings (ASEE Conferences, Virtual - 1pm to ...

    2021

  114. [122]

    STEMM Opportunity Alliance, STEMM Equity and Excellence 2050 - A National Strategy for Progress and Prosperity, AAAS, 2024

    2024

  115. [123]

    Ding and X

    L. Ding and X. Liu, Getting Started with Quantitative Methods in Physics Education Research, in Getting Started in PER, edited by Charles R. Henderson and Kathleen A. 48 Harper, Vol. 2 (American Association of Physics T eachers, 2012), pp. 1–42

    2012

  116. [124]

    Fossey, C

    E. Fossey, C. Harvey, F. Mcdermott, and L. Davidson, Understanding and Evaluating Qualitative Research, Aust. N. Z. J. Psychiatry 36, 717 (2002)

    2002

  117. [125]

    Vivek and Y

    R. Vivek and Y . Nanthagopan, Review and Comparison of Multi-Method and Mixed Method Application in Research Studies, Eur. J. Manag. Issues 29, 200 (2021)

    2021

  118. [126]

    R. B. Johnson and A. J. Onwuegbuzie, Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come, Educ. Res. 33, 14 (2004)

    2004

  119. [127]

    Discovery Science: Communicating, Connecting, & Capacity Building

    M. Brody, A. Bangert, and J. Dillon, Assessing Learning in Informal Science Contexts, National Research Council for Science Learning in Informal Environments Committee, 2008. 49 Appendix 1: JNIPER Summit plenary summaries Brooke Smith, Director of Science and Society at the Ka...

    2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.