Public awareness of science

Last updated

Public awareness of science (PAwS) is everything relating to the awareness, attitudes, behaviors, opinions, and activities that comprise the relations between the general public or lay society as a whole to scientific knowledge and organization. This concept is also known as public understanding of science (PUS), or more recently, public engagement with science and technology (PEST). It is a comparatively new approach to the task of exploring the multitude of relations and linkages science, technology, and innovation have among the general public. [1] While early work in the discipline focused on increasing or augmenting the public's knowledge of scientific topics, in line with the information deficit model of science communication, the deficit model has largely been abandoned by science communication researchers. Instead, there is an increasing emphasis on understanding how the public chooses to use scientific knowledge and on the development of interfaces to mediate between expert and lay understandings of an issue.[ example needed ] Newer frameworks of communicating science include the dialogue and the participation models. [2] The dialogue model aims to create spaces for conversations between scientists and non-scientists to occur while the participation model aims to include non-scientists in the process of science.

Contents

Major themes

Photo taken during a Citizen Science Bioblitz White Pacific Trillium Flower.jpg
Photo taken during a Citizen Science Bioblitz

The area integrates a series of fields and themes such as:

Important lines of research are how to raise public awareness and public understanding of science and technology. Also, learning how the public feels and knows about science generally as well as individual subjects, such as genetic engineering, or bioethics. Research by Matthew Nisbet highlights several challenges in science communication, including the paradox that scientific success can create either trust or distrust in experts in different populations and that attitudes of trust are shaped by mostly socioeconomic rather than religious or ideological differences. [3] A 2020 survey by the Pew Research Center found varying levels of trust in science by country, political leanings, and other factors. [4]

The Bodmer report

The publication of the Royal Society's' report The Public Understanding of Science [5] (or Bodmer Report) in 1985 is widely held to be the birth of the Public Understanding of Science movement in Britain. [6] The report led to the foundation of the Committee on the Public Understanding of Science and a cultural change in the attitude of scientists to outreach activities. [7]

Models of engagement

Contextualist model

In the 1990s, a new perspective emerged in the field with the classic study of Cumbrian Sheep Farmers' interaction with the Nuclear scientists in England. Brian Wynne demonstrated how the experts were ignorant or disinterested in taking into account the lay knowledge of the sheep farmers while conducting field experiments on the impact of the Chernobyl nuclear fallout on the sheep in the region. [8] Because of this shortcoming from the side of the scientists, local farmers lost their trust in them. The experts were unaware of the local environmental conditions and the behaviour of sheep and this has eventually led to the failure of their experimental models. Following this study, scholars have studies similar micro-sociological contexts of expert-lay interaction and proposed that the context of knowledge communication is important to understand public engagement with science. Instead of large scale public opinion surveys, researchers proposed studies informed by sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK). The contextualist model focuses on the social impediments in the bidirectional flow of scientific knowledge between experts and laypersons/communities.

Deliberative model

Scholars like Sheila Jasanoff have advanced the debate around public engagement with science by leveraging the theory of deliberative democracy to analyze the public deliberation of and participation in science through various institutional forms. Proponents of greater public deliberation argue it is a basic condition for decision making in democratic societies, even on science and technology issues. [9] There are also attempts to develop more inclusive participatory models of technological governance in the form of consensus conferences, citizen juries, extended peer reviews, and deliberative mapping. [10]

Civic science model

Some scholars have identified a new era of "post-normal science" (PNS) in which many scientific discoveries carry high stakes if risks are estimated incorrectly within a broader social context that has a high degree of uncertainty. [11] [12] This PNS era requires a new approach to public engagement efforts and requires a reevaluation of the underlying assumptions of "public engagement", especially with emerging science and technology issues, like CRISPR gene editing, that have the potential to become "wicked problems". [13] [14] These "wicked" issues often require regulatory and policy decisions that have no single correct solution and often involve numerous interest groups –none of whom are clearly positioned to decide and resolve the problem. Policy and regulatory decisions around these scientific issues are inherently political and must balance trade-offs between the scientific research, perceptions of risk, societal needs, and ethical values. [15] While scientists can provide factual answers to research questions and mathematical estimates of risk, many considerations surrounding these wicked science and technology issues have no factual answer. The unidirectional deficit model of simply educating the public on theses issues is insufficient to address these complex questions, and some scholars have proposed scientists adopt a culture of civic science: "broad public engagement with issues that arise at the many intersections between science and society." [13] An emphasis is placed on developing an iterative engagement model that actively seeks to incorporate groups who stand to be adversely effected by a new technology [14] and conducting this engagement away from universities so that it can be done on the public's terms with the public's terms. [16] Other scholars have emphasized that this model of public engagement requires that the public be able to influence science, not merely be engaged by it, up to the point of being able to say "no" to research that does not align with the broader public's values. [17] Under the civic science model, there are five key lessons for scientists committed to public engagement: [14] [18] [19] [20]

  1. Establish why you want to engage with the public and clearly identify your goals.
  2. Seek out and engage with a broad, diverse range of groups and perspectives and center engagement on listening to these groups.
  3. Work cooperatively with groups to establish common definitions to avoid the perception that researchers are being disingenuous by relying on semantic differences between expert and lay interpretations of vocabulary to ensure the public "supports" their position.
  4. Working to tilt public debates in favor of the priorities and values of researchers will not lead to consistent "best" decisions because wicked science and technology problems will have different considerations and perspectives depending on the application and cultural context.
  5. Meaningfully engage as early as possible; engagement must begin early enough in the research process that the public's views can shape both the research and implementation of findings

Measuring public understanding of science

Social scientists use various metrics to measure public understanding of science, including:

Factual knowledge

The key assumptions is that the more individual pieces of information a person is able to retrieve, the more that person is considered to have learned. [21]

Examples of measurement:

Self-reported knowledge, perceived knowledge, or perceived familiarity

The key assumption is that emphasizes the value of knowledge of one's knowledge. [22]

Examples of measurement:

Structural knowledge

The nature of connections among different pieces of information in memory. [21] The key assumption is that the use of elaboration increases the likelihood of remembering information. [21]

Examples of measurement:

Trust and credibility

People may trust science or scientists to different degrees, or may find specific scientists or specific research to be more or less credible. These factors can be related to how science can be used to advance knowledge, and may also be related to how science is communicated. [24]

Examples of measurement:

Mixed use of measures

Project examples

Government and private-led campaigns and events, such as Dana Foundation's "Brain Awareness Week", are becoming a strong focus of programmes which try to promote public awareness of science.

The UK PAWS Foundation dramatically went as far as establishing a Drama Fund with the BBC in 1994. The purpose was to encourage and support the creation of new drama for television, drawing on the world of science and technology. [27]

The Vega Science Trust [28] was set up in 1994 to promote science through the media of television and the internet with the aim of giving scientists a platform from which to communicate to the general public.

The Simonyi Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science chair at The University of Oxford was established in 1995 for the ethologist Richard Dawkins [29] by an endowment from Charles Simonyi. Mathematician Marcus du Sautoy has held the chair since Dawkins' retirement in 2008. [30] Similar professorships have since been created at other British universities. Professorships in the field have been held by well-known academics including Richard Fortey and Kathy Sykes at the University of Bristol, Brian Cox at Manchester University, Tanya Byron at Edge Hill University, Jim Al-Khalili at the University of Surrey, and Alice Roberts at the University of Birmingham.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Science studies</span> Research area analyzing scientific expertise

Science studies is an interdisciplinary research area that seeks to situate scientific expertise in broad social, historical, and philosophical contexts. It uses various methods to analyze the production, representation and reception of scientific knowledge and its epistemic and semiotic role.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Science and technology studies</span> Academic field

Science and technology studies (STS) or science, technology, and society is an interdisciplinary field that examines the creation, development, and consequences of science and technology in their historical, cultural, and social contexts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Public participation (decision making)</span> Extent to which societies encourage the people to share in organizational decision-making

Citizen Participation or Public Participation in social science refers to different mechanisms for the public to express opinions—and ideally exert influence—regarding political, economic, management or other social decisions. Participatory decision-making can take place along any realm of human social activity, including economic, political, management, cultural or familial.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sociology of scientific knowledge</span> Study of science as a social activity

The sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK) is the study of science as a social activity, especially dealing with "the social conditions and effects of science, and with the social structures and processes of scientific activity." The sociology of scientific ignorance (SSI) is complementary to the sociology of scientific knowledge. For comparison, the sociology of knowledge studies the impact of human knowledge and the prevailing ideas on societies and relations between knowledge and the social context within which it arises.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Science journalism</span> Journalism genre

Science journalism conveys reporting about science to the public. The field typically involves interactions between scientists, journalists, and the public.

Public engagement or public participation is a term that has recently been used to describe "the practice of involving members of the public in the agenda-setting, decision-making, and policy-forming activities of organizations/institutions responsible for policy development." It is focused on the participatory actions of the public to aid in policy making based in their values.

Information seeking is the process or activity of attempting to obtain information in both human and technological contexts. Information seeking is related to, but different from, information retrieval (IR).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Science communication</span> Public communication of science-related topics to non-experts

Science communication is the practice of informing, educating, raising awareness of science-related topics, and increasing the sense of wonder about scientific discoveries and arguments. Science communicators and audiences are ambiguously defined and the expertise and level of science knowledge varies with each group. Two types of science communication are outward-facing or science outreach and inward-facing or science "inreach". Examples of outreach include science journalism and science museums. Examples of inreach include scholarly communication and publication in scientific journals. Science communication is influenced by systemic inequalities that impact both inreach and outreach.

Co-production is a form of knowledge production based on the dynamic interaction between technology and society; where technical experts and other groups come together, with their different ways of viewing and analyzing the world and, in the process, generate new knowledge and technologies. It has a long history, particularly arising out of radical theories of knowledge in the 1970s and, beyond science and technology studies, is often applied to public services and administration and forms the basis of participatory development.

The Science Communication Observatory is a Special Research Centre attached to the Department of Communication of the Pompeu Fabra University in Barcelona, Spain, set up in 1994. This centre is specialized in the study and analysis of the transmission of scientific, medical, environmental and technological knowledge to society. The journalist Vladimir de Semir, associated professor of Science Journalism at the Pompeu Fabra University, was the founder and is the current director of the centre. A multidisciplinary team of researchers coming from different backgrounds is working on various lines of research: science communication; popularization of sciences, risk and crisis communication; science communication and knowledge representation; journalism specialized in science and technology; scientific discourse analysis; health and medicine in the daily press; relationships between science journals and mass media; history of science communication; public understanding of science; gender and science in the mass media, promotion of scientific vocations, science museology, etc.

In studies of science communication, the information deficit model, also known as the deficit model or science literacy/knowledge deficit model, theorizes that scientific literacy can be improved with increased public engagement by the scientific community. As a result, the public may then be able to make more decisions that are science-informed. The model implies that communication should focus on improving the transfer of information from experts to non-experts.

Anthony Leiserowitz is a human geographer at Yale University who studies public perceptions of climate change. He has particularly examined perceptions within the United States, where people are considerably less aware of climate change than in other countries. In the U.S., awareness of information about climate change is heavily influenced by emotion, imagery, associations, and values. Their public discourse reflects a lack of understanding of the science involved in climate change and little awareness of the potential for effective responses to it.

Reiner Grundmann, is Professor of Science and Technology Studies (STS) at the University of Nottingham and Director of its interdisciplinary STS Research Priority Group. He is a German sociologist and political scientist who has resided in the UK since 1997. Previous appointments include Aston University and the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.

David Ian Hanauer is Professor of Applied Linguistics/English at Indiana University of Pennsylvania and the Lead Assessment Coordinator for the SEA-PHAGES program at the University of Pittsburgh. He is the editor of the Scientific Study of Literature journal, the official publication of IGEL. Hanauer is an applied linguist specializing in assessment and literacy practices in the sciences and poetic inquiry. He has authored or co-authored over 75 journal articles and book chapters as well as 8 books. Hanauer’s research agenda is typified by the combination of qualitative and quantitative methods, as well as arts-based approaches, and scientific measurement of concepts traditionally considered abstract, such as voice in written text, project ownership and poeticity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sociology of scientific ignorance</span> Study of ignorance in science

The sociology of scientific ignorance (SSI) is the study of ignorance in and of science. The most common way is to see ignorance as something relevant, rather than simply lack of knowledge. There are two distinct areas in which SSI is being studied: some focus on ignorance in scientific research, whereas other focus on public ignorance of science. Sociology of scientific ignorance is a complementary field to the sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK).

Scientific dissent is dissent from scientific consensus. Disagreements can be useful for finding problems in underlying assumptions, methodologies, and reasoning, as well as for generating and testing new ways of tackling the unknown. In modern times, with the increased role of science on the society and the politicization of science, a new aspect gained prominence: effects of scientific dissent on public policies.

The gateway belief model (GBM) is a dual process theory in psychology and the communication sciences. The model suggests that public perception of the degree of normative (expert) agreement – or (scientific) consensus – on societal issues, such as climate change, vaccines, evolution, gun control, and GMO's functions as a so-called "gateway" cognition, influencing an individual's personal opinions, judgments, attitudes, and affective dispositions toward various social and scientific issues.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">David A. Kirby</span> American science communicator

David Allen Kirby is an American professor of science communication studies within University of Manchester’s Centre for the History of Science, Technology and Medicine. He researches, writes about, and teaches science communication and the history of science. He is best known for his work showing how fictional narratives can be used in the process of design and for his studies on the use of scientists as consultants for Hollywood film productions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Boundary organization</span>

A boundary organization is a formal body jointly generated by the scientific and political communities to coordinate different purposes and promote consistent boundaries and mutually incomprehensible interactions. Boundary organizations provide an institutionalized place for the development of long-term relationships, the promotion of two way communication, the development and use of management tools, and the negotiations on the boundaries of the problem itself. According to Carr and Wilkinson, boundary organizations are increasingly becoming networks and social arrangements between scientific and political institutions. On the international level, boundary organizations are most frequently set up for governments to deal with environmental issues.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Climate communication</span> Environmental and science communication

Climate communication or climate change communication is a field of environmental communication and science communication focused on the causes, nature and effects of anthropogenic climate change.

References

  1. ↑ Savaget, Paulo; Acero, Liliana (2017). "Plurality in understandings of innovation, sociotechnical progress and sustainable development: An analysis of OECD expert narratives" (PDF). Public Understanding of Science. 27 (5): 611–628. doi:10.1177/0963662517695056. PMID   29298581. S2CID   3179006.
  2. ↑ Cowan, Louise. "LibGuides: Science Communication: Models of science communication". Newcastle University. Retrieved 10 January 2022.
  3. ↑ Nisbet, Matthew (2018). "Divided Expectations: Why We Need a New Dialogue about Science, Inequality, and Society". Skeptical Inquirer . 42 (1): 18–19. Archived from the original on 19 June 2018. Retrieved 19 June 2018.
  4. ↑ Branch, Glenn (January–February 2021). "In Science We Trust? Twenty-Country Pew Survey Shows Trust in Scientists –with Major Caveats". Skeptical Inquirer . Amherst, New York: Center for Inquiry. Archived from the original on 11 October 2021. Retrieved 11 October 2021.
  5. ↑ The Royal Society. "The Public Understanding of Science". The Royal Society. Retrieved 11 October 2015.
  6. ↑ "Going public: Public attitudes to science and research". www.wellcome.ac.uk. Archived from the original on 11 August 2007. Retrieved 6 June 2022.
  7. ↑ "House of Lords – Science and Technology – Third Report". Parliament of the United Kingdom.
  8. ↑ Wynne, Brian (1996). "Misunderstood Misunderstandings: Social Identities and the Public Uptake of Science". In Alan Irwin; Brian Wynne (eds.). Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 19–46.
  9. ↑ Jasanoff, Sheila (2003). "Breaking the Waves in Science Studies: Comment on H.M. Collins and Robert Evans, 'The Third Wave of Science Studies'". Social Studies of Science. 33 (3): 389–400. doi:10.1177/03063127030333004. S2CID   143457704.
  10. ↑ Lövbrand, Eva, Roger Pielke, Jr. and Silke Beck (2011). "A Democracy Paradox in Studies of Science and Technology". Science, Technology, & Human Values. 36 (4): 474–496. doi:10.1177/0162243910366154. S2CID   2005295.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  11. ↑ Funtowicz, Silvio O.; Ravetz, Jerome R. (September 1993). "Science for the post-normal age". Futures. 25 (7): 739–755. doi:10.1016/0016-3287(93)90022-L. S2CID   204321566.
  12. ↑ Funtowicz, Silvio O.; Ravetz, Jerome R. (14 May 2020). "Science for the Post-Normal Age". Commonplace. doi: 10.21428/6ffd8432.8a99dd09 .
  13. 1 2 "The Civic Science Imperative (SSIR)". ssir.org. Retrieved 5 April 2021.
  14. 1 2 3 Wirz, Christopher D.; Scheufele, Dietram A.; Brossard, Dominique (29 September 2020). "Societal Debates About Emerging Genetic Technologies: Toward a Science of Public Engagement". Environmental Communication. 14 (7): 859–864. doi: 10.1080/17524032.2020.1811478 . ISSN   1752-4032.
  15. ↑ "The COVID-19 Communication War". Issues in Science and Technology. 17 April 2020. Retrieved 5 April 2021.
  16. ↑ Leshner, Alan I. (13 October 2006). "Science and Public Engagement". chronicle.com. Retrieved 5 April 2021.
  17. ↑ Evans, John H. (3 September 2020). "Can the Public Express Their Views or Say No Through Public Engagement?". Environmental Communication. 14 (7): 881–885. doi:10.1080/17524032.2020.1811459. ISSN   1752-4032. S2CID   222074307.
  18. ↑ Brossard, Dominique; Belluck, Pam; Gould, Fred; Wirz, Christopher D. (14 January 2019). "Promises and perils of gene drives: Navigating the communication of complex, post-normal science". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 116 (16): 7692–7697. Bibcode:2019PNAS..116.7692B. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1805874115 . ISSN   0027-8424. PMC   6475393 . PMID   30642954.
  19. ↑ Scheufele, D. A. (20 August 2013). "Communicating science in social settings". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 110 (Supplement_3): 14040–14047. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1213275110 . ISSN   0027-8424. PMC   3752169 . PMID   23940341.
  20. ↑ Rowe, Gene; Watermeyer, Richard Patrick (4 March 2018). "Dilemmas of public participation in science policy". Policy Studies. 39 (2): 204–221. doi:10.1080/01442872.2018.1451502. ISSN   0144-2872. S2CID   158913099.
  21. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Eveland, William (2004). "How Web Site Organization Influences Free Recall, Factual Knowledge, and Knowledge Structure Density". Human Communication Research. 30 (2): 208–233. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00731.x.
  22. 1 2 3 4 Ladwig, Peter (2012). "Perceived familiarity or factual knowledge? Comparing operationalizations of scientific understanding". Science and Public Policy. 39 (6): 761–774. doi:10.1093/scipol/scs048.
  23. ↑ Duckett, Catherine J.; Hargreaves, Kate E.; Rawson, Kirstie M.; Allen, K. Elizabeth; Forbes, Sarah; Rawlinson, Katherine E.; Shaw, Hollie; Lacey, Melissa (2021). "Nights at the museum: Integrated arts and microbiology public engagement events enhance understanding of science whilst increasing community diversity and inclusion". Access Microbiology. 3 (5): 000231. doi:10.1099/acmi.0.000231. PMC   8209632 . PMID   34151182.
  24. ↑ Agley, Jon; Xiao, Yunyu; Thompson, Esi E; Golzarri-Arroyo, Lilian (30 March 2023). "Using Normative Language When Describing Scientific Findings: Randomized Controlled Trial of Effects on Trust and Credibility". Journal of Medical Internet Research. 25: e45482. doi:10.2196/45482. ISSN   1438-8871.
  25. ↑ Nadelson, Louis; Jorcyk, Cheryl; Yang, Dazhi; Jarratt Smith, Mary; Matson, Sam; Cornell, Ken; Husting, Virginia (19 January 2014). "I Just Don't Trust Them: The Development and Validation of an Assessment Instrument to Measure Trust in Science and Scientists". School Science and Mathematics. 114 (2): 76–86. doi:10.1111/ssm.12051. ISSN   0036-6803.
  26. ↑ Song, Hyunjin; Markowitz, David; Taylor, Samuel (30 June 2022). "Trusting on the shoulders of open giants? Open science increases trust in science for the public and academics". Journal of Communication. 72 (4): 497–510.
  27. ↑ "PAWS off science?". Physics Education. 33 (1). January 1998. doi:10.1088/0031-9120/33/1/011. S2CID   250835641.
  28. ↑ "The Vega Science Trust - Science Video - Homepage". vega.org.uk.
  29. ↑ "Professor Richard Dawkins – The Simonyi Professorship". University of Oxford. Archived from the original on 14 May 2011.
  30. ↑ "Professor Marcus du Sautoy – The Simonyi Professorship". University of Oxford. Archived from the original on 31 May 2010.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.