The relationship between knowledge and attitudes in the public understanding of science in Britain

1995 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geoffrey Evans ◽  
John Durant
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Research ◽  
National Sample ◽  
Public Understanding Of Science ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
The Public ◽  
Positive Attitudes ◽  
Attitudes Towards Science ◽  
Understanding Of Science ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Human Embryology

The belief that greater understanding leads to more positive attitudes informs many practical initiatives in the public understanding of science. However, there has been comparatively little empirical study of the justification for this belief. This paper explores the relationship between understanding of science and levels of support for science using a national sample of over 2000 British respondents. The analysis indicates that the internal consistency of attitudes towards science is poor, and that the links between attitudes towards science in general and attitudes towards specific areas of scientific research are weak. Understanding of science is weakly related to more positive attitudes in general: but, more significantly, it is also associated with more coherent and more discriminating attitudes. Of particular importance is the finding that while knowledgeable members of the public are more favourably disposed towards science in general, they are less supportive of morally contentious areas of research than are those who are less knowledgeable. Although an informed public opinion is likely to provide a slightly more supportive popular basis for some areas of scientific research, it could serve to constrain research in controversial areas such as human embryology.

Measuring scientific interest: the effect of knowledge questions on interest ratings

1993 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-57 ◽  
Author(s):  
George Gaskell ◽  
Daniel Wright ◽  
Colm O'Muircheartaigh
Keyword(s):  
Life Science ◽  
Context Effects ◽  
Public Understanding Of Science ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
Sample Survey ◽  
Scientific Interest ◽  
The Public ◽  
Interest In Science ◽  
Attitudes Towards Science ◽  
Understanding Of Science

Research into the publics' interest in, knowledge of and attitudes towards science has captured the attention of politicians and educators. Sample survey research has been employed to assess the diverse aspects of the public understanding of science. However, surveys are subject to various biases that may affect the findings, calling into question both the reliability and the validity of the measures concerned. In this study we look at one common bias—that of context effects. Context effects occur when a question influences responses to later questions. The effects of answering one of four different sets of science questions (physical or life science, and easy or difficult questions) on what people report as their interest in science and what they think science is, were investigated using a split ballot format ( n = 2099). Two approaches from social psychology, framing and consistency, are used to predict the effects of these knowledge questions on subsequent responses. Context effects were found and were more in line with the framing explanation. The results signal the need for caution in interpreting findings from surveys of the public understanding of science.

Concepts of power: natural philosophy and the uses of machines in mid-eighteenth-century London

1995 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan Q. Morton
Keyword(s):  
Eighteenth Century ◽  
Social Status ◽  
Industrial Development ◽  
Natural Philosophy ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Public Understanding Of Science ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
The Public ◽  
Understanding Of Science

How may scientific research contribute effectively to industrial development? This question has been debated for many years. However, a recent development in this discussion has come from a number of eminent scientists and others who have become concerned with what has become known as the public understanding of science. According to them, a greater understanding of science by members of the public would result in a higher value being placed on scientific research, which, eventually, would result in both increased social status for scientists and growing funding from government and industry for their work. Thus, in part, concern about the public understanding of science is an indirect way of influencing the outcome of discussions about the science budget.

Psychology and its publics

2017 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 3-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Pettit ◽  
Jacy L. Young
Keyword(s):  
Public Engagement ◽  
Public Understanding Of Science ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Engagement With Science ◽  
Understanding Of Science ◽  
The Relationship

This paper introduces the special issue dedicated to ‘Psychology and its Publics’. The question of the relationship between psychologists and the wider public has been a central matter of concern to the historiography of psychology. Where critical historians tend to assume a pliant audience, eager to adopt psychological categories, psychologists themselves often complain about the public misunderstanding of them. Ironically, both accounts share a flattened understanding of the public. We turn to research on the public understanding of science (PUS), the public engagement with science (PES) and communications studies to develop a rich account of the circuitry that ties together psychological experts and their subjects.

scholarly journals Introduction: From “The Popularization of Science through Film” to “The Public Understanding of Science”

2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fernando Vidal
Keyword(s):  
Science Communication ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Public Understanding Of Science ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
Deficit Model ◽  
The Public ◽  
Popularization Of Science ◽  
History Of ◽  
Understanding Of Science ◽  
The Relationship

Science in film, and usual equivalents such asscience on filmorscience on screen, refer to the cinematographic representation, staging, and enactment of actors, information, and processes involved in any aspect or dimension of science and its history. Of course, boundaries are blurry, and films shot as research tools or documentation also display science on screen. Nonetheless, they generally count asscientific film, andscience inandon filmorscreentend to designate productions whose purpose is entertainment and education. Moreover, these two purposes are often combined, and inherently concern empirical, methodological, and conceptual challenges associated withpopularization,science communication, and thepublic understanding of science. It is in these areas that the notion of thedeficit modelemerged to designate a point of view and a mode of understanding, as well as a set of practical and theoretical problems about the relationship between science and the public.

Public uptake of science: a case for institutional reflexivity

1993 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 321-337 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Wynne
Keyword(s):  
Sociology Of Science ◽  
The Other ◽  
Public Understanding Of Science ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
The Public ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Scientific Institutions ◽  
Understanding Of Science ◽  
Epistemological Principle ◽  
The Relationship

This paper attempts to advance the notion of reflexivity as a key element of improving current understanding of the public understanding of science problem, and for improving the relations between science and its public more generally. By reflexivity here I mean more systematic processes of exploration of the prior commitments framing knowledge, in the way it has been introduced in sociological debates on modernity, rather than the more methodological-epistemological principle of consistency as it has been developed in sociology of science. The dominant framing of the public understanding of science issue corresponds with wider assumptions about the relationship between science and laypeople. Laypeople are assumed to be essentially defensive, risk- and uncertainty-averse, and unreflexive. Science on the other hand is assumed to be the epitome of reflexive self-criticism. This paper draws upon research in PUS to show that laypeople display considerable reflexive negotiation of their identity in relationships to science and scientific institutions. The latter, on the other hand, show considerable deep resistance to recognizing and reconsidering the unstated models of the public which structure their scientific discourses. This only makes the public understanding problem worse. Reflexive institutions would be needed to place science-public interactions on a more constructive footing.

scholarly journals The crisis of the "Public Understanding of Science" in Great Britain

2003 ◽  
Vol 02 (01) ◽  
pp. F01 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nico Pitrelli
Keyword(s):  
Public Engagement ◽  
Social Effects ◽  
Public Understanding Of Science ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
New Approach ◽  
The Public ◽  
Science Technology ◽  
Public Engagement With Science ◽  
Understanding Of Science ◽  
The Relationship

In a brief article published by Science1 last October, British scientists stated that the expression "Public Understanding of Science" (PUS), which was traditionally employed in Anglosaxon societies to refer to the issue of the relationship between science, technology and society, is out-of-date. It should be replaced by "Public Engagement with Science and Technology" (PEST), a new acronym that clearly invites to reconceptualise the relationship between science and the public. The new approach involves the engagement of the public or rather the publics of science, through dialogue, in particular through an open and equal-to-equal discussion between scientists and non-experts that would enable non-experts to become the actual protagonists in the scientific decisions producing social effects.

Understanding understanding: a model for the public learning of radioactivity

1999 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 267-284 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve Alsop
Keyword(s):  
Informal Learning ◽  
Background Radiation ◽  
Public Understanding Of Science ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
Change Model ◽  
Potential Health ◽  
The Public ◽  
Understanding Of Science ◽  
Conceptual Change Model

While much of the work in the public understanding of science has focused on the public's appreciation of science and their familiarity with key scientific concepts, understanding the processes involved in learning science has largely been ignored. This article documents a study of how particular members of the public learn about radiation and radioactivity, and proposes a model to describe their learning—the Informal Conceptual Change Model [ICCM]. ICCM is a multidimensional framework that incorporates three theoretical dimensions—the cognitive, conative, and affective. The paper documents each of these dimensions, and then illustrates the model by drawing upon data collected in a case study. The emphasis of the analysis is on understanding how the members of the public living in an area with high levels of background radiation learn about the science of this potential health threat. The summarizing comments examine the need for a greater awareness of the complexities of informal learning.

The roles of rhetoric in the public understanding of science

1994 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan G. Gross
Keyword(s):  
Rhetorical Analysis ◽  
Public Understanding Of Science ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
Minor Role ◽  
Contextual Model ◽  
Deficit Model ◽  
The Public ◽  
Science Rhetoric ◽  
Understanding Of Science ◽  
Social Scientific

In the public understanding of science, rhetoric has two distinct roles: it is both a theory capable of analysing public understanding and an activity capable of creating it. In its analytical role, rhetoric reveals two dominant models of public understanding: the deficit model and the contextual model. In the deficit model, rhetoric acts in the minor role of creating public understanding by accommodating the facts and methods of science to public needs and limitations. In the contextual model, rhetoric and rhetorical analysis play major roles. Rhetorical analysis provides an independent source of evidence to secure social scientific claims; in addition, it supplies the grounds for a rhetoric of reconstruction, one that reconstitutes the fact and facts of science in the public interest.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document