Jane L Lehr
email: jlehr@vt.edu

Ellen Mccallie

Sarah R Davies

Brandiff R Caron

Benjamin Gammon

Sally Duensing

The Value of 'Dialogue Events' as Sites of Learning: An Exploration of Research & Evaluation Frameworks

Keywords: informal education public engagement with science and technology, dialogue, informal science, socioscientific controversies, dialogue events, science and society, public participation

In the last five years, informal science institutions (ISIs), science communication, advocacy and citizen action groups, funding organizations, and policymakers in the United Kingdom and United States, have become increasingly involved in efforts to promote increased public engagement with science and technology. Such engagement is described as taking place within the context of a 'new mood for dialogue' between scientific and technical experts and public(s). Mechanisms to increase public engagement with science and technology have taken a number of forms. One of the most visible features of this shift towards public engagement with science and technology (PEST) in informal science institutions is the organization and staging of adult-focused, face-to-face forums that bring scientific and technical experts, social scientists, and policymakers into discussion with members of the public about contemporary scientific and socio-scientific issues related to the development and application of science and technology. A significant aspect of the literature on efforts to increase public engagement with science and technology has focused on the development of a unifying evaluative framework for determining what counts as success for PEST mechanisms, and how success (or lack thereof) can be empirically measured. In this article, we draw from our experiences as UK and US-based 'dialogue event' practitioners and researchers/evaluators to suggest that these existing evaluative criteria are insufficient to explore the role and value of ISI-based 'dialogue events'. Instead, we suggest that it may be productive to research and evaluate these ISI-based 'dialogue events' as sites of learning. Secondly, however, we show through a discussion of our own research frameworks that understanding these 'dialogue events' as sites of learning does not intuitively provide a framework for understanding what counts as success for these efforts. Instead, research on the role of 'dialogue' within the educational literature -and the connections between 'dialogue' and competing understandings of the nature of science and society -offers a multiplicity of approaches to defining the terms and goals of these events. Finally, we identify two broader implications of researching and evaluating these 'dialogue events' as sites of learning for ISIs and all efforts to increase public engagement with science and technology.

Introduction

In the last five years, informal science institutions (ISIs), science communication, advocacy and citizen action groups, funding organizations, and policymakers in the United Kingdom and United States 1 , have become increasingly involved in efforts to promote increased public engagement with science and technology. Such engagement is described as taking place within the context of a 'new mood for dialogue' between scientific and technical experts and public(s) (e.g. House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, 2000;United States Congress, 2003). Mechanisms to increase public engagement with science and technology have taken a number of forms. One of the most visible features of this shift towards public engagement with science and technology (PEST) in informal science institutions is the organization and staging of adult-focused, face-to-face forums that bring scientific and technical experts and policymakers into discussion with members of the public about contemporary scientific and socio-scientific issues related to the development and application of science and technology (Dana Centre/Science Museum, 2003; British Association for the Advancement of Science, 2005;National Science Foundation, 2005;[START_REF] Gammon | A guide for successfully evaluating science engagement events[END_REF]Museum of Science, Boston, 2006).

A significant aspect of the literature on efforts to increase public engagement with science and technology has focused on the development of a unifying evaluative framework for determining what counts as success for PEST mechanisms, and how success (or lack thereof) can be empirically measured. However, the increase in the funding and number of these ISIbased 'dialogue events' (as commonly denoted by science education and communication practitioners) has received relatively little attention within the published literature on PEST.

The role and value of ISI-based 'dialogue events' -for event organizers, public participants, invited experts, or funding agencies -has not been theorised or examined. We also do not yet know what effect 'dialogue events' have had, more broadly, in creating a culture of increased engagement. Finally, there is a need for discussion and critical thought with respect to what counts as success for these 'dialogue events' -and for whom?

In this article, we draw from our experiences as UK and US-based 'dialogue event' practitioners and researchers/evaluators to suggest that existing evaluative criteria for efforts to increase public engagement with science and technology are insufficient to explore the role and value of ISI-based 'dialogue events'. Instead, we suggest that it may be productive to research and evaluate these ISI-based 'dialogue events' as sites of learning. Secondly, however, we show through a discussion of our own research frameworks that understanding these 'dialogue events' as sites of learning does not intuitively provide a framework for understanding what counts as success for these efforts. Instead, research on the role of 'dialogue' within the educational literature -and the connections between 'dialogue' and competing understandings of the nature of science and society -offers a multiplicity of approaches to defining the terms and goals of these events. Finally, we identify two broader implications of researching and evaluating these 'dialogue events' as sites of learning for ISIs and all efforts to increase public engagement with science and technology. This brief overview of 'dialogue events' is provided to highlight the diversity of contexts, stakeholders, and funding mechanisms that shape the practice of 'dialogue events' today. At the same time, however, this overview shows that 'dialogue events' can be robustly defined across this diversity of contexts as adult-focused, face-to-face forums that bring scientific and technical experts, social scientists, and policymakers into discussions with members of the public about contemporary scientific and socio-scientific issues related to the development and application of science and technology -and that these 'dialogue events' are an emergent feature of informal science institutions in our countries of study, the United Kingdom and United States.

In the past five years, adult-focused 'dialogue events' have become a visible and wellattended facet of informal science institutions in the United Kingdom. As highly trusted cultural institutions (OST & Wellcome Trust, 2000;National Science Board, 2004) with extensive audience reach and expertise in science communication and education, ISIs increasingly understand themselves as 'hubs for dialogue and debate between scientists and the public' with the ability to 'respond rapidly to new developments and science by hosting and supporting debates rather than only by creating new exhibitions' (BA, 2005, p. 70; see also [START_REF] Thelan | Learning Community: Lessons in Co-Creating the Civic Museum[END_REF][START_REF] Hirzy | Mastering Civic Engagement: A Challenge for Museums[END_REF]. This shift towards dialogue within ISIs has occurred within the context of the broader cultural shift towards public engagement with science and technology, as well as in response to visitor requests for socioscientific topics to be addressed in an engaging and accessible manner for a non-specialised audience [START_REF] Simonsson | The Dana Centre Audience Research: 2004-2005[END_REF]Simonsson, 2006a;[START_REF] Simonsson | Developing Audience-led Events at the Dana Centre--What have we learned so far[END_REF]. Finally, ISIs have been attracted to 'dialogue events' and other efforts to increase public engagement with science and technology as an opportunity to expand and diversify their visitor demographics -that is, to move beyond their primary audience of family visitors to include adults who do not otherwise visit the institutions [START_REF] Simonsson | The Dana Centre Audience Research: 2004-2005[END_REF]Simonsson, 2006a;[START_REF] Simonsson | Developing Audience-led Events at the Dana Centre--What have we learned so far[END_REF].

For instance, the Dana Centre, which opened in 2000, is a purpose-built venue at the Science Museum (London) designed to provide adults with 'a place for them to take part in exciting, informative and innovative debates about contemporary science, technology, and culture' (Dana Centre / Science Museum, 2003). It includes a café/bar where participants can interact both before and after events, which are held 2-4 times per week. Approximately 30% of the events held at the Dana Centre are classified as 'dialogue events' that 'aim to generate openended discussion between the general public, scientists, policy-makers and campaigners'; 'build trust, understanding, an empathy between the public, scientists, and policymakers'; and 'provide an opportunity for thoughtful and informed debate where participants can express and share opinions and suggestions (Gammon & Burch, 2006, p. 3). 2 Iterative processes of model building and evaluation have been integral to the development of dialogue-based, contemporary science programming at the Dana Centre since its inception. For a discussion 2 Roughly 60% of the Dana Centre events focus on increasing awareness and interest in contemporary science through techniques such as forum theatre, interactive panelist debates, handling sessions using real objects from the museum's collection, art installations, and science comedy events. The other 10% of events include deliberative discussions directly connected to science and technology policymaking processes (such as the current Meeting of the Minds -European Citizen's Deliberation on brain science).

Formatted: Font: Times New

Formatted: Normal

Formatted: Font: Times New

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Font: Times New Formatted: Font: Times New Deleted: While these events do seek to promote a broader culture of engagement in the interactions between scientific/technical experts, policymakers, social scientists and public(s), it is also important for readers to note that the events we are referring to as 'dialogue events' do not seek to facilitate direct public participation in policy-making. ) and Explore-at-Bristol, amongst other UK ISIs, also organize regular 'dialogue events' aimed at adults. Non-ISI organizations in the UK also regularly facilitate 'dialogue events'. For instance, the Café Scientifique network in the UK now includes over 30 different sites that seek to provide a 'forum for debating science issues', all 'for the price of a cup of coffee or a glass of wine' to 'promote public engagement with science and to mak[e] science accountable' (Café Scientifique, 2006). First held in Leeds in 1998, these events occur at cafés, bars, restaurants, and theatres. Sponsors for 'dialogue events' inside and outside ISIs in the UK include the Wellcome Trust, the British Council, the British Association for the Advancement of Science, and the Royal Society under the broad heading of supporting public engagement with science and technology.

Overall, ISIs in the US have not been as involved in staging 'dialogue events' as their UK counterparts. However, this is changing. For instance, the Museum of Science, Boston, is currently offering an experimental program called 'Forum' that seeks to provide 'an opportunity for people with a variety of perspectives -experts and non-experts alike -to explore each other's views and share information' about 'the impact of science and technology on the individual, society, and the environment' (Museum of Science, Boston, 2006;see also: Boyde, 1999;[START_REF] Davis | Report: Engaging the Public with Science as it Happens: The Current Science and Technology Center at the Museum of Science[END_REF]. However, as is the case with NISE, much of the past funding for 'dialogue events' in the US appears to have been provided on an issue-by-issue basis, rather than to support public engagement with science and technology more broadly. For instance, funding for the US Human Genome Project (1990Project ( -2003; coordinated by the U.S. Department of Energy and the National Institutes of Health) required that 3-5% of the total funding of the project was set aside to address the ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of new genetic technologies. While much of the ELSI funding supported the development of programs and products directed at policymakers, journalists, lawyers, medical practitioners, and K-12 and post-secondary teachers, a portion of this money was directed at the 'public understanding' of the human genome project and its ethical, legal, and social implications. While most of these funded projects generated products to be distributed to the public (e.g., pamphlets, newsletters, TV and radio programs, websites), this money was also used to fund 'dialogue events' that occurred both inside and outside ISI settings. 4 Based on an extensive review of research and evaluation literature on efforts to increase public engagement with science and technology, [START_REF] Rowe | Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation[END_REF]revised Rowe, et al, 2004, p. 93) have identified the evaluation criteria found in Table 1. While PEST researchers have identified the need to measure multiple outcomes, the literature has consistently emphasized that visible and measurable 'impact on policy' is a primary criteria of success for these efforts [START_REF] Wilsdon | See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream[END_REF]Rowe et al, 2005; Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, 2006). From this perspective, public engagement efforts that do not facilitate direct public impact on policy, such as GM Nation, are failed efforts (Rowe et al, 2005). Other agreed upon criteria include the representativeness of participants; the early involvement of participants in the organization of the public engagement with science and technology project; and transparency (Rowe, et al, 2004, p. 93). The participants should comprise a broadly representative sample of the affected population. Independence

The participation process should be conducted in an independent (unbiased) way.

Early involvement

The participants should be involved as early as possible in the process, as soon as value judgments become salient.

workshops (1999,2000) were held for members of minority communities in Philadelphia and New Orleans to discuss the status of genetic research and avenues for greater minority-group involvement, as well as to solicit input from minority communities on their issues and concerns. A similarly intended meeting was organized in 1997 at the University of Maryland, which included as it aims to 'acquaint [participating] genome project scientists and policymakers with the aspirations and interests of these [minority] communities'; and in 1996 at Tuskegee University. ELSI also funded a project to 'introduce Native-American tribes to the basics of genetics, genetic research' and, 'in turn, inform DOE HGP managers about tribal perspectives', as well as 1994 conference entitled, 'Seeking Common Ground: A Forum for People with Disabilities and Genetic Professionals'. The process should be transparent so that the relevant population can see what is going on and how decisions are being made.

Process criteria Resource accessibility

Participants should have access to the appropriate resources to enable them to successfully fulfill their brief.

Task definition

The nature and scope of the participation task should be clearly defined Structured

The participation exercise should use/provide decision making appropriate mechanisms for structuring and displaying the decision-making process.

Cost-effectiveness

The procedure should in some sense be cost-effective from the point of view of the sponsors. Source: Rowe, et al, 2004, p. 93 As ISI-based 'dialogue events' likewise aim to increase public engagement with science and technology, it initially appears reasonable to employ existing PEST evaluative criteria to determine the success of these events. However, given the emphasis on 'impact on policy' within the existing PEST literature, applying these criteria to ISI-based 'dialogue events' would immediately position these events as failures. The majority of ISI-based 'dialogue events' have no formal connection to policy-making processes. Existing efforts to develop a unifying framework for researching and evaluating public engagement with science and technology efforts thus fail to allow for the possibility that these ISI-based 'dialogue events' have value.

Is there any value in 'dialogue events' that do not seek to facilitate direct public impact on policymaking? We wish to suggest that simply applying the existing criteria developed to determine the success of more formal PEST mechanisms to these 'dialogue events' is a mistake that hinders our understanding of the possible role and value of these efforts. Thus we argue that in order to facilitate research into these ISI-based 'dialogue events' and their possible value, it is necessary to demarcate between two classes of PEST mechanisms (and two sets of evaluative criteria): 1) mechanisms that seek to facilitate direct public participation in scientific and technical decision-making; and 2) mechanisms that seek to promote a broader culture of engagement in the interactions between scientific/technical experts, policymakers, and public(s) but do not seek to facilitate direct public participation in policy-making.

Demarcating two classes of public engagement with science and technology mechanisms makes ISI-based 'dialogue events' (and related efforts) visible to PEST researchers and evaluators by recognizing that these events may have value even though they do not seek to facilitate direct public participation in scientific and technical decision-making. However, it begs the question: how should we research and evaluate the second class of mechanisms to understand their possible value? In our own work, we have found it productive to research and evaluate these ISI-based 'dialogue events' as sites of learning.

We recognize that conceptualising 'dialogue events' and other public engagement efforts as sites of learning may seem dangerous in the context of the failure of the 'deficit model' associated with efforts to increase the public understanding of science in the 1980s and 1990s. This model began with 'an apparent assumption of 'public ignorance' in matters of science and technology' (Irwin & Wynne, 1996, p. 6). Public controversies over science and technology were thus understood to be 'created by inadequate public understandings rather than the operation of science itself' (Irwin & Wynne, 1996, p. 6). As Irwin and Wynne suggest, the deficit or 'public ignorance' model of public understanding of science 'creates boundaries between the public and science and scientific institutions, and focuses the attention of analysts, policymakers, the news media, science educators, and so on, only on the problematic/problematised public -begging the question, 'just why aren't the public more responsive?' (Irwin & Wynne, 1996, p. 6). Two additional assumptions were present in the deficit model: 1) science was assumed to be 'an important force for human improvement, … offering a uniquely privileged view of the everyday world,' and 2) science was always described and imagined as a value-free and neutral activity (Irwin & Wynne, 1996, p. 6) Within the context of the public understanding of science movement, the solution to public ignorance was to increase scientific literacy through science education. Today in the UK, the deficit model has-in theory, at least -been firmly rejected in response to a series of crises in the public trust of science and the government in the 1990s (e.g. the BSE and GM foods controversies), and a 'new mood for dialogue' between scientists, policymakers, and various publics has emerged as its replacement (House of Lords, 2000). Dialogue has thus replaced education as the goal with the shift from public understanding of science to public engagement with science and technology. Is it therefore wise to reintroduce the idea of learning into efforts to increase public engagement with science and technology?

To date, as we have seen, the criteria established to evaluate the success of public engagement efforts have not focused on learning. When learning is discussed, it is consistently positioned as a low-level goal of participatory mechanisms. 5 For instance, [START_REF] Involve | People and Participation: How to Put Citizens at the Heart of Decision-Making[END_REF], a public participation think-tank, ranks 'inform' as the lowest level of public impact. Most efforts to evaluate the success of public engagement with science and technology mechanisms, as shown above, do not even include education or learning as a measurable outcome. However, in rejecting the model of education located in PUS, is it necessary or appropriate to reject the possibility of learning altogether?

We believe not. In the following section of this paper, we describe the ways in which we, as UK and US-based 'dialogue event' practitioners and researchers/evaluators, are currently integrating research on the educational value of 'dialogue', 'talk', and 'discourse' with existing evaluation criteria for efforts to increase public engagement with science and technology. Our work aims to explore the role, value, and practice of PEST mechanisms which seek to promote a broader culture of engagement in the interactions between scientific/technical experts, policymakers, and public(s), but do not seek to facilitate direct public participation in policy-making -such as ISI-based 'dialogue events'. However, what this discussion of our own research frameworks should make clear is that understanding these 'dialogue events' as sites of learning does not intuitively provide a framework for understanding what counts as success for these efforts. In fact, much is at stake in the choices we make as researchers and evaluators regarding what counts as learning in these contexts. These choices shape the ways in which we define the terms and goals of these events -and the ways in which we, as researchers and practitioners, envision what counts as an ideal

Three Frameworks: Researching & Evaluating 'Dialogue Events' as Sites of Learning

In this section, we describe three related but distinct approaches to researching and evaluating 'dialogue events' as sites of learning, in order to show how perspectives from education can provide tools and frameworks to understand what counts as successful dialogue about socioscientific issues in contexts when dialogue is not directly linked to policy-making. However, we also make visible the ways in which existing debates within educational research about the purposes of 'dialogue' encourage us to interrogate and challenge the framing assumptions of ISI-based 'dialogue events that do not seek to directly inform policy. McCallie's current research primarily focuses on the first two goals, which can be understood as process goals.

McCallie defines collaborative talk as any collective verbal interaction in which participants listen, respond/refute, and build on one another's contributions in the process of exploring an idea or topic. For McCallie, equity in dialogue events includes both valuing a diversity of perspectives and contributions in terms of what is considered in the discussion, as well as valuing the diversity of people present in terms of their membership and participation as part of a community. Thus, McCallie focuses on collaboration and equity as markers of quality and success for ISI-based 'dialogue events'. Her understanding of collaborative talk and equity in her research is shaped by her exploration of research on classroom dialogue, sociocultural and interactional approaches to understanding learning, and socioscientific controversies.

Researchers and practitioners within the learning sciences, science education, and museum learning have increasingly highlighted the need for 'dialogue', 'talk', and 'discourse' as a necessary component of learning as well as a process of learning (e.g., [START_REF] Lipman | Thinking in Education[END_REF]Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999;[START_REF] Mercer | Words and minds. How we use language to think together[END_REF][START_REF] Allen | Looking for learning in visitor talk: A methodological exploration[END_REF][START_REF] Ash | Reflective scientific sense-making dialogue in two languages: The science in the dialogue and the dialogue in the science[END_REF][START_REF] Rowe | Discourse in Activity and Activity as Discourse[END_REF][START_REF] Alexander | Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk[END_REF][START_REF] Andriessen | Arguing to Learn[END_REF][START_REF] Sawyer | From rhetoric to action: Implementing STS education through action research[END_REF]. The central idea in much of this research is that one articulates, builds, and solidifies one's understandings through processes of expressing oneself and actively engaging with others. Researchers have identified various patterns of such verbal interaction, which, as a group of patterns, [START_REF] Sawyer | From rhetoric to action: Implementing STS education through action research[END_REF]

9

Exploratory talk is a term used to indicate collaborative discourse that is in process, specifically talk about ideas that are not in final form [START_REF] Barnes | From communication to curriculum[END_REF][START_REF] Cazden | Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning[END_REF]. [START_REF] Mercer | The quality of talk in children's collaborative activity in the classroom[END_REF] describes it as "occur[ing] when partners engage critically but constructively with each other's ideas" (p. 369). As dialogue events are to facilitate growth through the exchange and interaction of views and experiences, McCallie examines dialogue events for exploratory talk.

Another type of collaborative discourse that is argued to support both learning and thinking is that of argumentation [START_REF] Driver | Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms[END_REF][START_REF] Duschl | Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education[END_REF]von Aufschnaiter, Erduran, Osborne, & Simon, in press). Following from the analyses of structural patterns of argumentation, [START_REF] Toulmin | The Uses of Argument[END_REF] suggests that argumentation has consistent types of micro-structures across fields. He describes three fundamental components: data, claims, and warrants, as well as several other components. Claims are the assertions or conclusions, whether tentative or forceful, which are supported by data. Data is the evidence, the foundation on which the claim is based. Warrants are the general principles of the field that bridge data with claims, illustrating that the connection between the data and claims is an 'appropriate and legitimate one' (Toulmin, 1958, p. 98). McCallie shares [START_REF] Duschl | Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education[END_REF] conclusion that Toulmin's model is a valuable contribution to understanding interaction. For example, [START_REF] Duschl | Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education[END_REF] argue that the model recognizes argumentation as a highly social and contextualized process that allows for a view of the nature of science that moves beyond science as a 'rhetoric of conclusions' [START_REF] Schwab | The teaching of science as enquiry[END_REF] or 'final form' science [START_REF] Duschl | Restructuring Science Education. The Importance of Theories and Their Development[END_REF], in which science is presented a clean, neat and undisputed series of discoveries. Further, Toulmin's emphasis on the importance of context in determining what counts as appropriate and acceptable data, claims, and warrants suggests that values and belief systems can be legitimate aspects of argumentation as ISI-based 'dialogue events'. For McCallie (2006a[START_REF] Mccallie | POSTER: Dialogue Events on Socio-Scientific Issues among Adults at ISIs[END_REF], this understanding of the nature of argumentation explicitly creates opportunities for public(s) -despite a lack of formally recognized scientific or technical expertise -to legitimately and equitably participate in 'dialogue events' on controversial socioscientific issues, and provides tools to 'trac[e] the quantity and quality of argumentation' (Erduran, Simon & Osborne, 2004, p. 916; see also : Simon, Eduran & Osborne, 2006).

Notably, from our and McCallie's perspective, this research on 'dialogue' in education rejects the teacher-centered deficit or transmission-and-acquisition model [START_REF] Sawyer | From rhetoric to action: Implementing STS education through action research[END_REF] of education. Instead, it takes a socio-cultural approach to understanding learning in which teachers and students are understood as a community of learners, 'working together with all serving as resources to the others, with varying roles according to their understanding of the activity at hand and differing (and shifting) responsibilities in the system' through multidirectional dialogue (Rogoff, Matusov & White, 1996, p. 397). In this context, understanding 'dialogue events' as sites of learning forces analytical attention to the interaction [START_REF] Greeno | Learning in Activity[END_REF] among the public(s) and invited scientific, technical, social science, and policy experts. In fact, this perspective also allows the researcher to explore whether public participants should be understood as experts, in a reciprocal fashion, such as on the social dimensions of emerging sciences and technologies during the 'dialogue event' (following [START_REF] Sclove | Democracy and Technology[END_REF]. [START_REF] Pedretti | Decision making and STS education: Exploring scientific knowledge and social responsibility in schools an science centers through an issues-based approach[END_REF][START_REF] Barron | Achieving coordination in collaborative problem solving groups[END_REF]Kolstø, 2001a[START_REF] Kolstø | Scientific Literacy for Citizenship: Tools for Dealing with the Science Dimension of Controversial Socioscientific Issues[END_REF][START_REF] Jiménez-Aleixandre | Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? argumentation and decision making about environmental management[END_REF][START_REF] Zohar | Exploring high school students' use of theory and evidence in an everyday context: the role of scientific thinking in environmental science decision-making[END_REF]Ratlcliffe & Grace, 2003;[START_REF] Sadler | The Morality of Socioscientific Issues: Construal and Resolution of Genetic Engineering Dilemmas[END_REF]. For example, [START_REF] Sadler | Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research[END_REF] argues that research focusing on socioscientific issues addresses four themes: '(a) socioscientific argumentation, (b) relationships between nature of science (NOS) conceptualizations and socioscientific decision making, (c) the evaluation of information pertaining to socioscientific issues, and (d) the influence of conceptual understanding on informal reasoning' (Sadler, 2004, p. 515). As [START_REF] Sadler | Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research[END_REF] typology suggests, much of this research has focused on analyzing patterns of argumentation and student interaction in the context of socioscientific controversies. For instance, Jiménez-Aleixandre and Pereiro-Munoz ( 2002) analyzed student decision-making processes related to environmental management, and concluded that students combined conceptual knowledge, scientific evidence, and value judgments in their decision-making practices. For McCallie, these types of analyses provide ways of exploring the intersections of scientific evidence and social values apparent in discussions about socioscientific controversies at 'dialogue events'.

Framework 2: Symmetrical Individual Learning Through Social Processes

Drawing from a similar literature to McCallie (2006a[START_REF] Mccallie | POSTER: Dialogue Events on Socio-Scientific Issues among Adults at ISIs[END_REF], supplemented by research in science communication and critical public understanding of science (see [START_REF] Laird | Participatory analysis, democracy, and technology decision-making[END_REF][START_REF] Limoges | Expert knowledge and decision-making in controversy contexts[END_REF][START_REF] Rip | Controversies as informal technology assessment[END_REF]), Davies, et al, (in press) suggest that non-policy informing 'dialogue events' can be productively understood as sites of symmetrical individual learning through social processes. Thus, in contrast to the existing focus in PEST research and evaluation literature on 'impact on policy', research and evaluation efforts should focus on change at the individual rather than institutional level for these events. Notably, these researchers examine how ISI-based 'dialogue events' facilitate individual change -or learning -for all those involved in the dialogue process, whether scientists, policymakers, and public(s), and define learning as more than an accumulation of facts. Drawing on both current educational literature and the literature of public participation [START_REF] Cremin | American education, the metropolitan experience, 1876-1980[END_REF][START_REF] Lave | Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues, part 1: Social cognition[END_REF][START_REF] Limoges | Expert knowledge and decision-making in controversy contexts[END_REF][START_REF] Rip | Controversies as informal technology assessment[END_REF][START_REF] Rogoff | Firsthand learning through intent participation[END_REF], for these authors learning involves emotions, empathy, and social understandings, and is an active and participatory process focused on growth in mutual understanding, awareness, and knowledge of competing perspectives on socioscientific issues as well as 'facts'. 'Dialogue events' are thus positioned as providing opportunities for empowering individuals for further involvement, as personally beneficial for all participants (whether technical experts or laypeople), and as part of a gradual step-by-step change in science and society. The emphasis on symmetry in learning avoids a deficit model perspective of PEST as 'educating' the public, and their conceptualisation of 'learning' moves the focus from the transmission of 'facts' to the build up of social understandings.

For Davies, et al (in press), 'dialogue events' are thus explicitly understood as sites of education for scientifically literate citizenship, in which scientific and technical experts, policymakers, and public(s) are understood as citizens both challenged by and contributing to decision-making about complex socioscientific controversies. The potential strength of ISIbased 'dialogue events' is the opportunity to create interactions between 'those who generate scientific knowledge, those who affect its use in context, and those who experience it in daily life' to 'bring to the fore the social, cultural, and moral aspects of science in society in order for them to be discussed transparently. In this way, dialogue events move beyond serving as a forum for transmission and acceptance of science to a place of problematizing and negotiating knowledge' (Davies et al, in press). 'Dialogue events' are thus envisioned as part of the practice of more effective citizenship and the establishment of new relationships between science and society. They are seen as sites for change, but of change on a smallscale, which may, however, escalate into larger shifts within science and society. Such a vision of ISI-based dialogue creates a framework for further analysis and evaluation. Contrary to previous typologies and evaluative strategies (RCUK 2005;[START_REF] Rowe | Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation[END_REF]2004;2005), which tend to focus on large scale impacts, this theorisation of non-policy related dialogue will lead to a focus on individual or small group interactions, experiences, and impacts. The emphasis will be on understanding how these interactions function and on evaluating whether the strict conditions of symmetry and equity are met. In fact, the entire criteria for 'success' will have shifted: events which look like 'failures' according to other criteria -little resolution or identifiable outcomes, a cacophony of different voices, little transfer of scientific 'facts' -may, according to this schema, be viewed as successes (cf. [START_REF] Seifert | Local steps in an international career: a Danish-style consensus conference in Austria[END_REF].

Framework 3: 'Dialogue Events' for Social Justice [START_REF] Lehr | Dialogue events as resources for personal and public decision-making[END_REF] focus extensively on the ways in which researching and evaluating 'dialogue events' as sites of learning creates an opportunity to critically examine the calls for and practices of dialogue within ISI-based public engagement efforts and to make visible underlying assumptions of event organizers, funders, and expert and public participantsparalleling critical analyses of the broader cultural shift towards public engagement (e.g., [START_REF] Irwin | Constructing the scientific citizen: Science and democracy in the biosciences[END_REF][START_REF] Wynne | Risk as globalizing 'democratic' discourse? Framing subjects and citizens[END_REF]. For instance, practitioners identify building 'trust, understanding, and empathy between the public, scientists, and policy-makers' (Gammon & Burch, 2006, p. 3) as an objective of 'dialogue events' that do not seek to enable direction public participation in scientific and technical decision-making. The development of increased public interest in science and technology and public confidence in discussing science and technology are understood as interrelated goals. These practitioner objectives appear to parallel those of many researchers and practitioners within science education who understand the goal of science education for non-scientists to be the development of individuals who 'will act as informed, responsible citizens' (Zembylas, 2005, p. 711), who are 'capable of applying scientific knowledge and habits of mind' (Sadler, 2004, p. 514) in the context of socioscientific controversies.

However, within science education research, questions have been raised about whether increasing trust and confidence in science should be goal of science education for nonscientists. [START_REF] Lehr | Social Justice Pedagogies and Scientific Knowledge: Remaking Citizenship in the Non-Science Classroom[END_REF] notes that there is nothing inherently wrong with the idea that science educators seek to train future citizens, not just future scientists. Indeed, within a world where non-scientist citizens are increasingly required to make private and public decisions about science and technology, this shift to include the needs of these future citizens within formal and informal science curricula/programs can be understood as 'radical' [START_REF] Osborne | Science education for all: Radical vision or hopeless fantasy? King's College London Inaugural Lecture[END_REF])and ISI-based 'dialogue events' are part of this trend. However, the problem for [START_REF] Lehr | Social Justice Pedagogies and Scientific Knowledge: Remaking Citizenship in the Non-Science Classroom[END_REF] emerges in the model of scientifically literate citizenship located within these efforts to train 'informed, responsible citizens'. Critics within science education suggest that it is necessary 'to examine the power relations and inequities' embedded in existing scientific knowledge and habits of mind, and to offer, as an alternative, 'science teaching and learning practices that empower children, builds solidarity, and initiate change' (Zembylas, 2005, p. 710). These efforts, which Zembylas describes as 'teaching science for social justice' in contrast to 'science education for citizenship', focus on creating more critical relationships between science and society, focusing on changing science, not public(s). [START_REF] Roth | Rethinking Scientific Literacy[END_REF] have recently argued that the model of scientific literacy dominant within science education needs to be reconceptualized, suggesting that science should be understood not as 'a single normative framework for rationality but merely one of many resources that people can drawn on in everyday collective decision-making processes' (Roth & Barton, 2004, p. 158) as they engage in the struggle to create a more just and equitable world.

Following from these debates within science education, [START_REF] Lehr | Dialogue events as resources for personal and public decision-making[END_REF] ask whether the goal of ISI-based 'dialogue events' should be to increase trust between scientific and technical experts, policymakers, and public(s) or to create more critical and oppositional perspectives? In other words, is a 'bad' attitude towards science necessarily a 'bad thing'? Rather than understanding the events as opportunities to increase trust between scientific and technical experts, policymakers, and public(s), [START_REF] Lehr | Dialogue events as resources for personal and public decision-making[END_REF] explore how 'dialogue events' can serve as opportunities to create more oppositional practices of non-scientist citizenship, providing non-scientist citizens with tools to question and even challenge the authority of scientific knowledge in personal and public scientific and technical decisionmaking practices. Research questions ask how participants understand the 'dialogue event' series as a resource in decision-making practices and seek to identify the other scientific and non-scientific resources that participants utilize to respond to socioscientific controversies and uncertainties. [START_REF] Lehr | Dialogue events as resources for personal and public decision-making[END_REF] also draw from educational theory outside of science education to raise questions about the possibilities of equitable dialogue amongst scientific and technical experts, policymakers, and public(s). For instance, whereas idealized models of dialogic and critical [START_REF] Freire | Pedagogy of the Oppressed[END_REF] pedagogy emphasize the educational need for inclusivity and equality amongst dialogue participants, critics have challenged the idea that it is even possible for actors to be situated equally within the rational public sphere that is assumed by dialogic pedagogy proponents [START_REF] Ellsworth | Why doesn't this feel empowering? Working through the repressive myths of critical pedagogy[END_REF]. [START_REF] Lehr | Dialogue events as resources for personal and public decision-making[END_REF] are thus exploring whether existing power differences between scientific and technical experts, policymakers, and public(s) can be disrupted at 'dialogue events'. Other critiques of dialogic pedagogy [START_REF] Boler | Feeling Power: Emotions in the Classroom[END_REF][START_REF] Hooks | Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom[END_REF] have emphasized the need for emotion as a valued component of dialogue -whereas emotion is typically written out of calls within formal education to support dialogue, debate, and argumentation around socioscientific issues. [START_REF] Lehr | Dialogue events as resources for personal and public decision-making[END_REF] are exploring how emotion is or is not supported at 'dialogue events', as well as how conceptions of 'rational' vs. 'irrational' function as part of their efforts to understanding how 'dialogue events' function for social justice.

Implications: Relationships Between Science and Society in Models of Learning

In the previous section, we have begun to explore the usefulness of researching and evaluating 'dialogue events' as sites of learning by showing how we are currently employing perspectives from education to identify the value of 'dialogue events' that do not seek to facilitate direct public participation in policy-making. The work we have described is currently in-progress. We recognize that what we have offered are three related but distinct frameworks for researching and evaluating 'dialogue events' rather than empirical findings. However, we have discussed this work-in-progress for multiple purposes. show the potential fruitfulness of understanding 'dialogue events' as sites of learning in the development of research frameworks and evaluative criteria to assess PEST mechanisms that do not seek to facilitate direct public participation in policy-making. Second, however, we sought to trouble the idea that understanding these 'dialogue events' as sites of learning intuitively provides a framework for understanding what counts as success for these efforts. Instead, as we have shown, adopting different perspectives from educational literatures creates different models of success.

The models of learning and the associated visions of the 'ideal' outcomes for ISI-based 'dialogue events' that are embedded in the three research frameworks discussed above share many similarities. These include an understanding of all participants in ISI-based 'dialogue events' as both (potential) learners and contributing experts, and an understanding of 'dialogue events' as a site for renegotiating the relationship between science and society. Where our frameworks differ is in the ways in which we envision the outcomes of this renegotiation. However, that is fitting, as it is the dialogue participants, themselves, who have the potential to collaboratively determine the regulations of the new, emerging relationships between scientific and technical experts, policymakers, and public(s). It is our responsibility as scholars/practitioners researching and evaluating ISI-based 'dialogue events' as sites of learning to make explicit how our own commitments regarding the ideal relationship between science and society shape the questions we ask and the educational theories we employ.

Implications for Informal Science Institutions

We wish to note one final intersection in the three research frameworks discussed above. Each approach points to the possibility of reshaping our understanding of the role of informal science institutions in society. [START_REF] Mcmanus | Topics in museums and science education[END_REF] identifies three generations of ISIs. Here, we suggest that a 'fourth generation' of ISIs may be emerging. According to [START_REF] Mcmanus | Topics in museums and science education[END_REF], the first generation of ISIs were object-based and were typically private or elite collections of objects and specimens from the natural world, as well as artefacts, such as early scientific instruments. Many of these collections were originally created as 'cabinets of curiosity' [START_REF] Janousek | The 'context museum': Integrating science and culture[END_REF][START_REF] Mcmanus | Topics in museums and science education[END_REF][START_REF] Melber | Science education in U.S. natural history museums: A historical perspective[END_REF][START_REF] Orosz | Curators and Culture: The Museum Movement in America[END_REF]. As an Enlightenment project, this generation of ISIs emphasized the collection and classification of the natural world for the purpose of research and the production of natural knowledge [START_REF] Allmon | The value of natural history collections[END_REF][START_REF] Hooper-Greenhill | Museum and Gallery Education[END_REF]. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, many of these exhibitions were 'opened' to the public. This resulted in the positioning of ISIs as 'experts in mediation between the esoteric world of science and that of the public' [START_REF] Farmelo | Here and Now: Contemporary Science and Technology in Museums and Science Centres[END_REF]. However, the understanding of ISIs as curated collections of objects remained in this transition to an educational mission.

The second generation of ISIs shifted from objects in the natural world to objects created by advances in science and industry [START_REF] Mcmanus | Topics in museums and science education[END_REF]. While still object-based, the new narrative of this generation of ISIs emphasized the industrial progress of human society as a strategy to affirm and increase public acceptance and support for science and technology, particularly in the post-World War II and Cold War contexts (Bradburne, 1998, p. 239).This new emphasis paralleled efforts in formal science education to train future non-scientist citizens to appreciate and support science and scientists during the same time period (Rudolph, 2002). Collection, conservation, and research remained important aspects of this generation, in addition to public education. The third generation of ISIs emerged in the 1960s and 1970s with the advent of science centres. For [START_REF] Mcmanus | Topics in museums and science education[END_REF], third generation ISIs represented a move from objects-based exhibits to scientific concept or phenomena-based exhibits. A pedagogical shift also occurred from a transmission or didactic model of education to a constructivist model that 'regard [ed] the learner as an active participant in the construction of new knowledge and understanding' [START_REF] Johnson | Science centers as learning environments[END_REF] [START_REF] Ansel | Real, simple and new[END_REF] describes three factors that distinguish science centres from previous museums: '1) They show real phenomena and allow for real experiences, 2) they do so in an enjoyable, unstructured, highly social setting and 3) they provide teaching props, models and programs which visitors are unlikely to encounter elsewhere' (Ansel, 2003, p. 3). The third generation of ISIs challenged many of the assumptions about the role and value of ISIs found in the two earlier generations, and now many ISIs that can be classified as first or second generation have incorporated elements of the science centre approach. However, while a shift did occur in the pedagogical model employed -from training geared towards 'knowing lots of science' to 'thinking like a scientist' -the authority of scientific knowledge remains unchallenged even within the third generation of ISIs.

What is the future of ISIs? Shifts have already occurred to complicate McManus' threegeneration categorization. For instance, [START_REF] Pedretti | Perspectives on learning through research on critical issues-based science center exhibitions[END_REF] has identified a new category of exhibits at science centres that 'critically explore the nature of science and the relationship among science, technology, society, and environment'. Critical issues-based exhibits 'invit [e] visitors to consider such scientific material from a variety of perspectives, engage in decision-making and healthy debate of complex issues, and critique the nature and practice of science and technology' (Pedretti, 2004, p. S36). [START_REF] Rennie | The communication of science and technology: Past, present, and future agendas[END_REF] suggested that a shift by ISIs to include '"science and technology's engagement with the public" may represent the way forward' (Rennie & Stocklmayer, 2003, p. 768) in the future development of ISIs. However, they also noted that, 'It is very difficult at this time to make predictions about how this can happen'.

We suggest here that understanding 'dialogue events' as sites of learning may provide us with a way to understand how ISIs can become more involved, through their programming and exhibits, in increasing public engagement with science and technology. However, this shift necessitates more than simply the addition of socioscientific controversies to the existing content of ISIs (whether object or concept-based). Instead, if the efforts of ISIs to support increased public engagement that is not linked to policy-making are to have value, then they must involve the incorporation of new understandings of learning, focused on symmetry and mutuality. The possibility exists for ISIs to operate not as (only) storehouses of knowledge, but as sites for the production of new knowledge through dialogic engagement between scientists, policymakers, and public(s). ISIs have the opportunity to function as a resource for the production of this new knowledge by bringing together and training scientists, policymakers, and publics in how to interact dialogically, contributing their own expertise on science, technology, and education to the discussions, and creating the possibility of a space within the broader culture for public dialogue to take root.

Implications for Efforts to Increase Public Engagement with Science & Technology

There is a second important implication of researching and evaluating 'dialogue events' as sites of learning. Efforts to identify the educational value of public engagement with science and technology mechanisms that do not seek to facilitate direct public participation in policymaking also raise the question of whether learning should function as an evaluative criterion for those efforts that do seek to facilitate direct public impact.

As we hope to have shown in the body of the paper, learning can be understood as more than a simplistic transmission-and-acquisition model of teaching and learning. Examining the effect of 'dialogue events' in creating an opportunity for symmetrical or mutual learning on the part of scientists, policymakers, and public(s) is a useful mode of research and evaluation for non-policy informing efforts. What of the public engagement with science and technology mechanisms that do seek to facilitate direct public participation in scientific and technical decision-making, however? In conclusion, we wish to make one final suggestion: more is at stake in public engagement with science and technology mechanisms that seek to facilitate direct public participation in policy-making than a particular policy or decision. What is at stake, as well, is the possibility of a broader culture of engagement in the interactions between scientific/technical experts, policymakers, and public(s). Understanding all public engagement with science and technology efforts as potential sites of learning may be a productive way to explore ways to support the broader cultural transformation we wish to see.

  The Value of 'Dialogue Events' as Sites of Learning: An Exploration of Research & Evaluation Frameworks

  the procedure should have a genuine impact on policy. Transparency

  and technical experts, policymakers, and public(s).

Framework 1 :

 1 Collaboration and Equity McCallie (2006a, 2006b) has drawn from her work with ISIs and from literature on the learning sciences, science education, and museum learning to develop a framework for researching and evaluating ISI-based 'dialogue events'. McCallie has identified four goals in 'dialogue event' mission statements and in her interviews with ISI-based 'dialogue event' practitioners, which underpin her research framework. These include: (1) the promotion of collaborative talk; (2) the enhancement of equitable interactions; (3) the development of new or different understandings or knowledge; and (4) the enhancement of interest and engagement in controversial science-based issues in society (socioscientific issues).

Finally

  , McCallie's research framework draws from research in science education focused on socioscientific controversies (Millar & Osborne, 1998; Patronis, Potari & Spiliotopoulou,

First

  The Value of 'Dialogue Events' as Sites of Learning 13

Reconceptualising Efforts to Increase Public Engagement with Science and Technology: ISI-Based 'Dialogue Events' as Sites of Learning

	The Value of 'Dialogue Events' as Sites of Learning
	events' have also been funded by Humanities Councils. For instance, the Choices and
	Challenges Project at Virginia Tech has organized a series of 'dialogue events' over the past
	20 years that have been partially funded by the National Endowment for Humanities and the
	Virginia Foundation for Humanities.
	A significant aspect of the literature on efforts to increase public engagement with science
	and technology has focused on the development of a unifying evaluative framework for
	determining what counts as success for PEST mechanisms, and how success (or lack thereof)
	can be empirically measured. In this section we suggest that while ISI-based 'dialogue
	events' are understood by event organizers, public participants, invited experts, and funding agencies as an effort to support increased public engagement with science and technology, F the existing PEST evaluative criteria are insufficient to explore the role and value of ISI-based 'dialogue events'. Instead, we suggest that it may be productive to research and o r evaluate these ISI-based 'dialogue events' as sites of learning.
	P
	e
	e r
	R
	e
	v i e Finally, in the US, 'dialogue w
	O n l
	y
	5

Table 1 : The (Revised) Evaluation Criteria of Rowe and Frewer (2000)

 1

	Criteria	Definition
	Acceptance criteria
	Representativeness

  refers to as collaborative discourse. McCallie analyses 'dialogue event' interactions for various types of talk, including collaborative discourse such as exploratory talk and argumentation.The Value of 'Dialogue Events' as Sites of Learning

	F o r
	P
	e
	e r
	R
	e
	v i e
	w
	O n l	Deleted: , Deleted: specifically
	y

Institutional partners in NISE already include: the New York Hall of Science; the Sciencenter (Ithaca, NY); the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry; the Fort Worth Museum of Science and History; the Museum of Life and Science in North Carolina; the Association of Science-Technology Centers (ASTC); the Materials Research Society; Main Street Science (Cornell University); MRSEC Interdisciplinary Education Group (U. Wisconsin-Madison); and the Envision Center for Data Perceptualization (Purdue University).

For instance, The Exploratorium's 1995 exhibit, 'Diving into the Gene Pool', included a lecture and discussion series on bioethics and the Human Genome Project that was partially funded by ELSI. However, most of the ELSI-funded dialogue events seem to have occurred outside ISI settings. For instance, in collaboration with the National Educational Foundation of Zeta Phi Beta sorority, two

The criteria employed by[START_REF] Guston | Evaluating the first U.S. consensus conference: The impact of the citizens' panel on telecommunications and the future of democracy[END_REF] to evaluate the first consensus conference in the United States (1997) are an exception.[START_REF] Guston | Evaluating the first U.S. consensus conference: The impact of the citizens' panel on telecommunications and the future of democracy[END_REF] assesses four different types of impacts, what he labels 'actual impact', 'general thinking', 'training of knowledgeable personnel', and 'interaction with lay knowledge'.

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tsed Email: editor_ijse@hotmail.co.ukInternational Journal of Science Education

Acknowledgements

This material is based partially upon work supported by the United States National Science Foundation under Grant No. 0119787 to the Center for Informal Learning and Schools. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. We also wish to thank the co-editors of this special issue and our two anonymous reviewers for their insightful commentary on earlier drafts.

Notes on Contributors

This article emerged in the context of ongoing dialogue and collaboration between the authors, who are researchers and practitioners engaged in attempts to create, manage, evaluate, and analyze 'dialogue events' in the United Kingdom and United States. The Center for Informal Learning and Schools (CILS) has provided the opportunity and medium to link the research and practice of 'dialogue events' by providing support for postgraduate students and post-doctoral researchers at King's College London to enter into collaborative relationships with practitioners at three different 'dialogue event' sites: the Dana Centre at the Science Museum (London); the Darwin Centre at the Natural History Museum (London); and the Choices and Challenges Project at Virginia Tech (Blacksburg, VA, USA). The explorations in this article are thus grounded in our experiences in these two national contexts, as well as by the four overarching and interconnected themes of CILS research: (1) the means and structures of participating in informal learning; (2) the use of explanation, communication, and discourse in informal contexts in a range of settings; (3) the organizational structures, policies and agencies of those engaged in informal learning and their implications for practice; and (4) learning environments and their design.


David Andrew Green

Shyamala Devi

Louis S Paulraj

Keywords: HIV, AIDS, Stigma, Discrimination, Measurement HIV, AIDS, Stigma, Discrimination, Measurement

Care Centre visits to married people living with HIV -An indicator for measuring AIDS -related stigma & discrimination

Mother (A) 33 ( 14) 21 (9) 3.

Father (A) 17 ( 7) 7 (3) 4.

Child(ren) (A) 13 ( 6) 1 (1) 5.

Sibling(s) (B) 19 ( 8) 0 (0) 6.

Other Relatives (B) 0 (0) 38 (17) 7.

Friends (B) 0 (0) 7 (3) 8.

Positive Network (B) 11 ( 5) 29 (13) 9

None (C) 16 ( 7) 111 (48) 9) 29 ( 22) 75 ( 56) 108 ( 81) 19 ( 14) 6 ( 5) 25 ( 19) <35 (yrs) 16 ( 14) 9 ( 8) 25 ( 21) 61 ( 52) 92 ( 79) 16 ( 14) 9 ( 8) 25 ( 21) >35 (yrs) 17 ( 15) 8 ( 7) 25 ( 22) 60 ( 53) 92 ( 81) 14 ( 12) 7 ( 6) 21 ( 19) Non-spouse infected persons were less likely than spouse-infected to be visited by their spouse (3% vs. 10%; p<0.05) but more likely to receive 'extended' family visitation (43% vs. 24%; p<0.01). Spouse-infected persons had a higher rate of no visitors than persons not infected by their spouse (54% vs. 40%; p<0.05).

Observation of the presence and relationship of attendants and visitors to HIV-positive people has potential as an indicator of caregiving AIDS-related stigma and discrimination. The measure appears particularly sensitive to the gender of the HIVpositive person. Such a measure may aid healthcare professionals to focus resources such as relational councelling upon the family and close friends of people experiencing AIDSrelated stigma and discrimination, with the aim of improving the provision of care within the community.

Introduction

In India, stigma defined as "…a powerful social label, stemming from a discrediting attribute of the individual, which radically changes their social identity…" leading to discrimination defined as actions "…we exercise through which we effectively, if often unthinkingly, reduce his [sic] life chances…" (Goffman, 1963) is all too common. Stigma via social marking precipitates and legitimises (to the actor) negative behaviour [START_REF] Reidpath | An Asia Pacific six-country study on HIV-related discrimination: introduction[END_REF] such as social ostracism, prejudice and violence (Herek, Capitanio & Widaman, 2003). This situation is particularly apparent for people living with HIV (Aggleton & Warick, 1999;[START_REF] Unaids | HIV/AIDS stigma and discrimination: A conceptual framework and basis for action: UNAIDS World AIDS Campaign[END_REF], in part due to its perceived (Herek, Capitanio & Widaman, 2003;Poindexter & Linsk, 1999;[START_REF] Wight | Precusive depression among HIV infected AIDS caregivers over time[END_REF]. In fact the stigma and discrimination directed at people living with HIV is considered to be one of the social roots of the pandemic (Parker & Aggleton, 2003;Piot, 2003).

Most of the work investigating the perception of HIV-related stigma has understandably focussed on the person living with HIV, termed 'personal stigma'. Recent attention has turned to the stigma and discrimination experienced by (non-professional) caregivers, family and close acquaintances (Demi et al., 1997;Poindexter & Linsk, 1999;[START_REF] Wight | Precusive depression among HIV infected AIDS caregivers over time[END_REF]. This reflects the fact that stigma can impose severe hardships not only upon those actually or perceived to be infected, but also their associates, carers and social groups (Herek, 1999;[START_REF] Schiff | The role of personal contact with HIV-infected people in explaining urban, African American pre-adolescents' attitudes towards peers HIV/AIDS[END_REF]. Carers may, due to their relationship to an HIVpositive person experience 'courtesy stigma' (Goffman, 1963) or 'guilt by association' (Powell-Cope & Brown, 1992). Association stigma and discrimination may be exacerbated by actively (and openly) caring for the HIV-positive person. This may affect the feelings and actions of the caregiver which is in turn perceived by the HIV-positive person. As such there is stigma placed upon that caring relationship -the caregiving dyad, which is unique but dependent upon the overlap of stigma felt by each individual [START_REF] Wight | Perceived HIV stigma in AIDS caregiving dyads[END_REF].

HIV-related discrimination indicated by action or omission, whether intentional or unintentional, direct or indirect can adversely affect HIV-positive people's access to treatment, work and education (Gostin & Mann, 1994;UNAIDS, 2004). This paper shall focus upon AIDS-related discrimination, reflected in an absence of caregiving behaviour from those closest to the HIV-positive person. In India, as in many other societies the primary carer of an HIV-positive person is most often a family member. HIV-positive status can place severe stresses upon the carer and family functioning in general (Land & Hudson, 2002;Powell-Cope & Brown, 1992;Wardlaw, 1994;[START_REF] Wight | AIDS caregiving and health among midlife and older women[END_REF]. Our belief is that an absence of care provision may (at least in part) reflect AIDS-related stigma and discrimination that are all-pervasive in India (Bharat et al., 1998).

As recognized by Wight et al, estimation of perceived stigma within the caregiving dyad is important for understanding how best to allocate resources aimed at alleviating stigma among individuals and families impacted by HIV [START_REF] Wight | Perceived HIV stigma in AIDS caregiving dyads[END_REF]. Overt questioning regarding any psychological issue can independently affect both its perception and reporting behaviour. Furthermore, formal questioning can be distressing, resource intensive and inappropriate for those in severe ill health or experiencing extreme stress. Therefore, a simple, inexpensive and indirect method of identifying patients who may be experiencing severe AIDS-related stigma and discrimination within the caregiving dyad could enable health care providers to focus resources upon appropriate individuals and societies. Such identification requires the development of a simple indicator which accurately reflects the complex social phenomena (Clifford & Rixford, 1998;[START_REF] Spicker | Developing indicators: Issues in the use of quantitative data about poverty[END_REF] of AIDS-related stigma and discrimination. In India, there is a strong cultural ethos of caring amongst the 'extended family', therefore an absence of such behaviour is more likely to be evidence of stigma and discrimination upon the caregiving dyad than in the west, where significant care is often provided by state-managed or by the charitable sector with relatively limited input from family and friends.

We believe that observation and recording of those who attend upon admission, and those that visit HIV-positive people may reflect the extent of AIDS-related stigma and discrimination experienced within the caregiving dyad. Such a measure should be sensitive to factors that influence AIDS-related stigma and discrimination, particularly gender but also location, age and source of sexual infection. Greater stigma is placed on HIV-positive people whom are women, who are rural (where poverty and insufficient HIV/AIDS education are more prevalent) [START_REF] Wight | Perceived HIV stigma in AIDS caregiving dyads[END_REF], are older (Herek, Capitanio & Widaman, 2003) and those who are considered to be the source of infection within a long-term relationship (marriage).

Objective

Our aim is to test whether simple observation of the presence and relationship of attendants and visitors to married HIV-positive people in an HIV care centre may provide a simple, inexpensive and indirect indicator of caregiving AIDS-related stigma and discrimination by assessing whether the measure is sensitive to gender, location, age and source of infection. person. Closeness was ranked with the spouse being number one , as a wife or husband is considered more proximal to an HIV-positive person than their mother or father due to the greater shared stigma, resources and life conditions [START_REF] Wight | Perceived HIV stigma in AIDS caregiving dyads[END_REF]).

Only those HIV-positive people who were infected through sexual contact and married at the time of attendance were included in the analysis, thereby ensuring that all clients had the possibility of spouse visitation. Data was compared according to gender (male vs. female), location (urban vs. rural), age (< 35 vs. ≥ 35 years) and source of sexual infection (spouse vs. non-spouse). There was an approximately equal split between groups for each characteristic (Table 1). Statistical analyses were performed.by Chi-Squared testing.

TABLE 1

Deleted: were from Many of the subjects were unable to declare their exact age, therefore approximate age was recorded in the following categories (Table 2). Both the mode and median age were in the 30-34 category, therefore age was subsequently broken into those younger than 35 years, and those 35 years and above (see Table 1).

TABLE 2

Results

On admission HIV-positive people were predominantly accompanied by their spouse (53%), with the mother being twice as likely to attend as the father (14% vs. 7%), whilst a small number were without attendants (7%) (Table 3). Those classed as other (more distant) relatives were more likely to visit (17%) as opposed to more immediate relatives.

Overall, whilst few attended alone (7%), many received no visitors (48%).

TABLE 3

Consolidation of the observed attendant and visitor data was performed to yield 3 levels: Immediate Family (A), Extended Family (B) and None (C) (Table 4). 20% attended without their immediate family and a further 13% without 'extended' family. Immediate family was most likely to be in attendance on admission (80%), however, subsequent visitors were mainly drawn from the 'extended' family (32%). Females were more likely to attend without being accompanied than males were ((11% vs. 4%; p<0.05)(Table 5). No effect of location, age or infector upon attendants was obtained.

TABLE 4 Characteristic Comparisons

TABLE 5

Females were more likely than males were to be visited by 'extended' family (39% vs. 27%; p<0.05). Females were also more likely to be visited by their mothers than males (14% vs. 6%; p<0.01)(Table 6). Females received significantly fewer visits from spouses (3% vs. 10%; p<0.05) and fathers (0% vs. 6%; p<0.05). No effect of location or age upon visitation was obtained.

Non-spouse infected persons received more visits from their fathers, than spouse-infected persons (5% vs. 0%; p<0.05). Non-spouse infected persons were less likely than spouseinfected persons to have been visited by their spouse than spouse infected persons (3% vs. 10%; p<0.05). Non-spouse infected persons were more likely to receive 'extended' family visitation (43% vs. 24%; p<0.01), whereas spouse infected persons had a higher rate of no visitors (54% vs. 40%; p<0.05).

TABLE 6

In general, the attendants were predominantly drawn from within the immediate family, whereas visitors came from the 'extended' family, if at all. In general, the spouse was most likely to attend on admission, followed by the mother, then the father with a relatively few being unaccompanied. This pattern most likely reflects the primary caregiver who is in a time of crisis required to bring the HIV-positive person to the care centre. Whilst 7% were recorded as having attended alone, we have noted that a number of HIV-positive people appear to receive assistance to the clinic, but that those persons are unwilling to enter the clinic. Whilst we have not directly investigated this, such behaviour may indicate AIDS-related stigma where the caregiver may not want to be part of "HIV affected community", which can often strain the caregiver-care receiver relationship (Pearlin et al., 1994;Wardlaw, 1994). In some cases whilst adequate care may be provided at home this is not extended 'in public' in an attempt to minimize the effects of stigma and discrimination upon themselves, or the dyad as a whole (Herek, 1999;[START_REF] Schiff | The role of personal contact with HIV-infected people in explaining urban, African American pre-adolescents' attitudes towards peers HIV/AIDS[END_REF].

Discussion

Once the HIV-positive person is admitted and receiving care, visitation is in effect voluntary and as such more liable to be affected by processes of AIDS-related stigma and discrimination. Visitation was more frequently performed by persons other than the immediate family, whilst many received no visitors whatsoever. This may reflect a lack of care provision relating to AIDS-related stigma and discrimination or alternatively that simply the primary carer(s) were 'taking a rest' from their stressful and demanding task (Land & Hudson, 2002;Powell-Cope & Brown, 1992;Wardlaw, 1994;[START_REF] Wight | AIDS caregiving and health among midlife and older women[END_REF]. Within Indian society, in our experience the former is the most likely as 'taking a rest' during hospital admission of a family member with a nonstigmatised illness would be frowned upon. Deleted: suspect that given the condition of PLWHAs in many (if not all) cases they were accompanied on their journey to the clinic but that they were unable, or unwilling to enter the clinic despite the condition of the PLWHA. This Comparisons based on gender demonstrated that females were more likely to attend unaccompanied. Consistent with the fact that the spouse is the most common attendant, this difference is mainly due to fewer husbands, compared to wives attending at the time of admission. This replicates previous findings of greater male (husband and father) caregiving disconnection [START_REF] Wight | Perceived HIV stigma in AIDS caregiving dyads[END_REF]. Reasons for this may include the perception of gender roles yielding lower levels of care, the financial requirement to work, their own ill health and possibly a greater susceptibility to stigma. Interestingly, father accompaniment was not different, between genders, although in both cases the actual numbers were small. No effect of location, age or infector upon attendants was obtained suggesting that it is gender affects attending behaviour with little or no contribution from the other measured factors.

Females were more likely to be visited by their mothers and those outside of their immediate families than males were, suggesting lower general stigma. However, this finding is tempered by a lower frequency of spouse visits, probably for similar reasons to those stated for attendants. This finding also contrasts with the data showing that females are more vulnerable to AIDS-related stigma and discrimination within the community and the family, reflecting the lower status of women (Paxton et al., 2005)..However, the current study was weighted towards the spouse and the natural parents of the person with HIV, thus it may have failed to take into account discriminatory behaviour particularly prevalent from the in-laws of females (Bharat et al., 1998). Furthermore, differences may have resulted from the fact that our sample contained only married people. Whether our findings apply to unmarried people is unknown, particularly as AIDS-related stigma and discrimination is considered to be significantly worse for unmarried women (Paxton et al., 2005).

Significant differences in father visitation to non-spouse infected persons are difficult to interpret in view of the generally low rate of father visitation. Non-spouse infected persons are less likely to have been visited by their spouse but were more likely to receive 'extended' family visitation reflecting the absence of 'closer' family members and they also had a higher rate of no visitation. These findings may result from stigma relating to their apparent 'guilt', that leads to discrimination and lack of care but may also reflect an inability to deal with HIV-related issues within the immediate family. No effect of location or age upon visitation was obtained. Our indicator appears to be sensitive to gender effects and to a lesser extent infector, but was insensitive to location [START_REF] Wight | Perceived HIV stigma in AIDS caregiving dyads[END_REF] and age (Herek, Capitanio & Widaman, 2003). However, as our sample was relatively small,further studies are warranted.

Recording of only the 'closest' relative may have led to a distortion of the data. For instance, when a spouse visits no account of parental attendance is taken. However, those 'closest' are most likely, to act as primary caregivers and be subject to shared stigma [START_REF] Wight | Perceived HIV stigma in AIDS caregiving dyads[END_REF] and therefore of greatest interest when examining the caregiving dyad. For instance, if a friend visits with a spouse or parent, then almost without exception it is the spouse or parent who is the caregiver and therefore counting the friend in our analysis would have been misleading. In our experience, broad caregiving There may be many factors other than AIDS-related stigma that prevent attendance with, or visitation of HIV-positive people such as their own health status, childcare, work, economic factors (Farmer, 1996) particularly if the caregiver themselves are HIVpositive (LeBlanc, London & Aneshensel, 1997). However, at the time of sampling no HIV-positive person had their spouse admitted within the clinic. Attendance and visitation is dependent upon a host of factors relating to the HIV-positive person, the carer, their relationships and society as a whole. However, it is those within the caregiving dyad who are most likely to attempt to overcome such obstacles. Summation of the total number of persons and/or visits could have been performed.

However, the duration of stay varied between clients, which would have had to be taken into account. Whilst this may provide interesting information regarding the level of overall AIDS-related stigma this may be misleading as frequency of caregiving in a crisis (eg: care centre admission) may be disproportional to that during non-critical times where other time and financial commitments may be given priority. Furthermore, stigma or the fear of it may prevent an individual visiting a client entirely, however if a visitation is made, then stigma is unlikely to play a role in subsequent visitation behaviour. Hence, we assert that the recording of the 'closest' person or total absence, provide robust measures of AIDS-related stigma and discrimination within the dyad. Further study could utilise a questionnaire assessment of stigma perceived by the HIVpositive person and the caregiver [START_REF] Wight | Perceived HIV stigma in AIDS caregiving dyads[END_REF] and compare it with the observational data -information a good nursing team should be aware of. Furthermore, additional factors known to modulate caregiving such as duration of care, household income, self-rated health may also be assessed. In this manner we might attempt to establish whether our measure accurately reflects AIDS-related stigma and discrimination -hence quantify its value as a simple indicator (Clifford & Rixford, 1998;[START_REF] Spicker | Developing indicators: Issues in the use of quantitative data about poverty[END_REF].

Conclusion

In conclusion, observation of the presence and relationship of attendants and visitors to HIV-positive people in a care centre appears to provide a simple, inexpensive and indirect indicator of caregiving AIDS-related stigma and discrimination that is particularly sensitive to gender. Interventions such as relational councelling aimed at the family and close friends of the HIV-positive people identified may help to reduce stigma and discrimination, thereby improving the provision of care within the community. Effects of resources and stressors on burden and depression of family members who provide care to an HIV-infected woman. Journal of Family Psychology. 11, 35-48. FARMER, P. (1996). Social inequalities and emerging infections diseases. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2, 259-269. GOFFMAN, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity.

Harmondsworth: Penguin.

  Deleted: whom may be Deleted: identified by having had no attendant or visitors in order to reduce Deleted:

  Deleted: and enable identification of those PLWHAs whose Deleted: may be subject to severe stigma and discrimination Deleted: 230 (128 male, 102 women) married HIV-positive people attending the HIV/AIDS Care Centre at the Madurai branch of the Family Planning Association -India over a 6 month period from May to October, 2005. Clients on entry to the care centre gave informed consent for collection of data relating to their care to be used for administrative or research purposes having been told that refusal would not affect the care they would receive. Observation by clinical staff was performed with recording of the relationship of attendants upon admission and visitors 'closest' to the HIV-positive

  Deleted: (and therefore most likely caregiver) Deleted: PLWHA Deleted: i.e. Deleted: 1 st Deleted: (e.g. Deleted: PLWHA Deleted: , etc (see table 3) Deleted: PLWHAs that Deleted: were included in the analysis

  Deleted: visited females (p<0.05) resulting in significant gender differences Deleted: (5% vs. 0%; p<0.05)

  Deleted: HIV-positive people to the complex but who Deleted: unable, or Deleted: despite the condition of the HIV-positive person.

  In our experience wDeleted: In addition the interest and caregiving behaviour of the 'extended family' is commonly observed to increase in times of general medical crisis. This behaviour is extended to PLWHAs although its frequency has not been compared to other non-stigmatized pathology

  Such discrimination is particularly prevalent from the in-laws of females(Bharat et al., 1998)

  In our experience, if parents are the primary caregivers, the spouse is not, and vice versa. I people are rare in HIV cases -consistent with caregiving dyads being secretive and self-isolating in response to the fear of rejection(Nelms, 2002).

  Deleted: and therefore must be deemed to be of reasonable health Deleted: In fact, a suggest recording the 'closest' attendant and visitor provides a simple, inexpensive and indirect indicator of AIDS-related stigma that may aid the allocation of resources aimed at alleviating stigma and discrimination among individuals and families impacted by HIV. Such action could have positive effects on the lives of HIV-positive people.

  . & WARICK, I. (1999). Community responses to AIDS. UNAIDS, (Ed.), Sex and youth: Contextual factors affecting risk for HIV/AIDS (pp. 58-102). Geneva: UNAIDS. BHARAT, S., SINGHANETRA-REARD, A. & AGGLETON, P. (1998). Household and community response to HIV/AIDS in Asia: the case of Thailand and India. AIDS. 12 Suppl B, S117-S122. CLIFFORD, W.C. & RIXFORD, C. (1998). Lessons learned from the history of social indicators. San Francisco: Redefining Progress. DEMI, A., BAKEMAN, R., MONEYHAM, L., SOWELL, R. & SEALS, B. (1997).

Formatted

  . & MANN, J.M.(1994). Towards the development of a human rights impact assessment for the formulation and evaluation of public health policies. Health and Human Rights. 1(1), 58-80. HEREK, G.M. (1999). AIDS and stigma. American Behavioural Scientist. 42, 1106-1116. HEREK, G.M., CAPITANIO, J.P. & WIDAMAN, K.F. (2003). Stigma, social risk, and health policy: Public attitudes toward HIV surveillance policies and the social construction of illness. Health Psychology. 22, 533-540. LAND, H. & HUDSON, S. (2002). HIV serostatus and factors related to physical and mental well-being in Latina family caregivers. Social Science & Medicine. 54, 147-159. LEBLANC, A.J., LONDON, A.S. & ANESHENSEL, C.S. (1997). The physical costs of AIDS caregiving. Social Science & Medicine. 45, 915-923. NELMS, T.P. (2002). A most wonderful, tragic experience: The phenomenon of mothering in caregiving an adult son with AIDS. Journal of Health and Social Behaviour. 38, 223-236.

  . &AGGLETON, P. (2003). HIV and AIDS-related stigma and discrimination: A conceptual framework and implications for action. Social Science & Medicine. 57(1), 13-24. PAXTON, S., GONZALES, G., UPPAKAEW, K., ABRAHAM, K.K., OKTA, S., GREEN, C., NAIR, K.S., MERATI, TP., THEPHTHIEN, B., MARIN, M. & QUESADA, A. (2005). AIDS-related discrimination in Asia. AIDS Care. 17, 413-424. PEARLIN, L.I., MULLAN, J.T., ANESHENSEL, C.S., WARDLAW, L. & HARRINGTON, C. (1994). The structure and function of AIDS caregiving relationships. Psychosocial Rehabilitation Journal. 17, 51-67. POINDEXTER, C.C. & LINSK, N. (1999). HIV-infected stigma in a sample of HIVaffected older female African American caregivers. Social Work. 44, 446-461. PIOT, P. (2003). AIDS: The need for an exceptional response to an unprecedented crisis. Geneva: UNAIDS. POWELL-COPE, G.M. & BROWN, M.A. (1992). Going public as an AIDS family caregiver. Social Science & Medicine. 34, 571-580.

Formatted

Table 1 .

 1 Demographic Population. a See Table2for further breakdown.

	N = 230	Characteristic	N (%)
	Gender	Male	128 (56)
		Female	102 (44)
	Location Urban	95 (41)
		Rural	135 (59)
	Infector	Spouse	97 (42)
		Non-Spouse	133 (58)
	Age a	< 35 yrs	119 (51)
		> 35 yrs	111 (49)
		F o r
		P
		e
		e r
			R
			e
			v i e
			w
			O n l
			y

Table 3 .

 3 Recorded Attendants and Visitors.

	Category (Code)	Attendant(s) N (%) Visitor(s) N (%)
	Immediate Family (A) 184 (80)	45 (20)
	'Extended' Family (B) 30 (13)	74 (32)
	None (C)	16 (7)	111 (48)
	B + C	46 (20)	185 (80)
	F o r
	P
	e
		e r
		R
		e
		v i e
			w
			O n l
			y

Table 4 .

 4 Consolidated Attendants and Visitors.

	Attendant	Mother	Father	Parent	Spouse	IF (%)	EF (%) None	EF &
	Factors	(%)	(%)	(%)	(%)			(%)	None
									(%)
	Male	16 (13)	10 (8)	26 (20)	74 (58)	103 (81) 20 (16)	5 (4)*	25 (20)
	Female	17 (17)	7 (7)	24 (24)	47 (46)	81 (80)	10 (10)	11 (11)* 21 (21)
	Urban	12 (13)	7 (7)	19 (20)	51 (54)	74 (78)	16 (17)	5 (5)	21 (22)
	Rural	21 (16)	10 (7)	31 (23)	70 (52)	110 (82) 14 (10)	11 (8)	25 (19)
	Spouse INF	16 (17)	5 (5)	21 (22)	46 (47)	76 (78)	11 (11)	10 (10)	21 (22)
	Non-Sp INF	17 (13)	12 (
	F o r
		P
			e
			e r
				R
				e
					v i e
						w
						O n l
							y

Table 5

 5

	.
	IF	= Immediate Family EF	= 'Extended' Family Non =
	None
	Spouse INF = Spouse Infector	Non-Sp INF = Non-Spouse Infector
	* Indicates p<0.05.

Table 6

 6

	.
	IF	= Immediate Family EF	= 'Extended' Family Non =
	None
	Spouse INF = Spouse Infector	Non-Sp INF = Non-Spouse Infector
	* Indicates p<0.05.

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ac-phm-vcy Health Sciences

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ac-phm-vcy