scholarly journals Panel Session toward Improved Communication and Engagement with the Public after the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident: Study Reports and Discussion with Specialists from Relevant Fields

2021 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 134-142
Author(s):  
Hiroko Yoshida ◽  
Yujiro Kuroda ◽  
Takahiko Kono ◽  
Wataru Naito ◽  
Akihiro Sakoda
Keyword(s):  
Public Engagement ◽  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
Study Group ◽  
Health Physics ◽  
Fukushima Accident ◽  
The Public ◽  
Fukushima Daiichi ◽  
Understanding Of Science ◽  
Expert Study

Background: From 2018 to 2020, the Expert Study on Public Understanding after the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident (the Expert Study Group) identified and analyzed activities designed to promote public understanding of science and radiation since the Fukushima accident, and held discussions on how to achieve public understanding in the situation where public confidence has been lost, and how experts should prepare for dealing with the public. This panel session was held at the 53rd meeting of the Japan Health Physics Society on June 30, 2020.Materials and Methods: First, three subgroup (SG) leaders reported their research methods and results. Then, two designated speakers, who participated as observers of the Expert Study Group, commented on the activities. Next, the five speakers held a panel discussion. Finally, the rapporteur summarized.Results and Discussion: SG leaders presented reports from researchers and practitioners in health physics and environmental risks who provided information after the Fukushima accident. During the discussion, experts in sociology and ethics discussed the issues, focusing on the overall goals of the three groups, local (personal) and mass communication, and ethical values. Many of the activities instituted by the experts after the accident were aimed at public understanding of science (that is, to provide knowledge to residents), but by taking into account interactions with residents and their ethical norms, the experts shifted to supporting the residents’ decision-making through public engagement. The need to consider both content and channels is well known in the field of health communication, and overlaps with the above discussion.Conclusion: How to implement and promote the public engagement in society was discussed in both the floor and designated discussions. Cooperation between local communities and organizations that have already gained trust is also necessary in order to develop relationships with local residents in normal times, to establish an information transmission system, and to make it work effectively.

scholarly journals Researchers: share your passion for science!

2016 ◽  
Vol 44 (5) ◽  
pp. 1507-1515 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claire Concannon ◽  
Muriel Grenon
Keyword(s):  
Communication Skills ◽  
Public Engagement ◽  
Public Understanding Of Science ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
Time Constraints ◽  
The Public ◽  
Understanding Of Science ◽  
Positive Impacts

The promotion of the public understanding of science has many positive impacts on society, including expanding the reach of science to a broader range of individuals and having a favourable impact on the economy. It also results in many benefits for researchers involved, including the development of their communication skills and improvement in the quality of their research. Despite increased awareness of the importance of public engagement (PE), the involvement of researchers has only slightly increased in the last 10 years. Time constraints, lack of opportunity and lack of funding are the main barriers preventing their participation. We propose that joining an existing PE programme can be a good way for scientists to overcome these barriers. We list specific examples of established activities that are easy for researchers to get involved in, allowing them to share their enthusiasm for science.

Review of engagement activities to promote awareness of radiation and its associated risk amongst the Japanese public before and after the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident

2021 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 1258-1287
Author(s):  
Akihiro Sakoda ◽  
Naoki Nomura ◽  
Yujiro Kuroda ◽  
Takahiko Kono ◽  
Wataru Naito ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Power Plant ◽  
Nuclear Power Plant ◽  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Radiation Risk ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
Nuclear Power Plant Accident ◽  
The Public ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Fukushima Daiichi

Abstract Following the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident in 2011, many radiation experts directly experienced a vast gap between ideal and real public understanding (PU) of radiation in risk communication. Therefore, this study collated and reviewed information about PU activities for radiation and its risk that six Japanese academic societies—which seem to be socially neutral expert communities—related to radiation and radiation risk conducted before and after the accident. Activities these radiation-related societies provided to the general public were discussed from the following perspectives: (a) difficulties in two-way communication due to resources, motivation and public interest and concerns; (b) balance between academic research and PU activities; (c) academic societies’ building trust with the public while ensuring member experts’ neutrality and independence; and (d) discussions among academic societies to prepare for public engagement. We hope that this paper encourages experts and academic societies in radiation protection to hold more national and international discussions about their roles in public communication and outreach.

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.

Mundane science use in a practice theoretical perspective: Different understandings of the relations between citizen-consumers and public communication initiatives build on scientific claims

2016 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 40-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bente Halkier
Keyword(s):  
Public Engagement ◽  
Theoretical Perspective ◽  
Public Understanding Of Science ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
Public Communication ◽  
Science Literature ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Engagement With Science ◽  
Scientific Claims ◽  
Understanding Of Science

Public communication initiatives play a part in placing complicated scientific claims in citizen-consumers’ everyday contexts. Lay reactions to scientific claims framed in public communication, and attempts to engage citizens, have been important subjects of discussion in the literatures of public understanding and public engagement with science. Many of the public communication initiatives, however, address lay people as consumers rather than citizens. This creates specific challenges for understanding public engagement with science and scientific citizenship. The article compares five different understandings of the relations between citizen-consumers and public issue communication involving science, where the first four types are widely represented in the Public Understanding of Science discussions. The fifth understanding is a practice theoretical perspective. The article suggests how the public understanding of and engagement in science literature can benefit from including a practice theoretical approach to research about mundane science use and public engagement.

scholarly journals Tension between visibility and invisibility: Science communication in new information environments

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia Metag
Keyword(s):  
Public Engagement ◽  
Scientific Knowledge ◽  
Science Communication ◽  
Public Understanding Of Science ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
Digital Information ◽  
The Public ◽  
New Information ◽  
Public Engagement With Science ◽  
Understanding Of Science

The visibility and invisibility of scientific knowledge, its creation, and of scientists are at the core of science communication research. Thus, prominent paradigms, such as the public understanding of science or public engagement with science and technology, have implications for the visibility of scientific knowledge in the scientific community and among the public. This article posits that visibility in science communication is achieved with the availability of scientific knowledge, the approval of its dissemination, and its accessibility to third parties. The public understanding of science and public engagement with science paradigms emphasize different aspects of visibility with the latter focusing on the visibility of the creation of scientific knowledge more than public understanding of science which focuses on the knowledge itself. The digital information environment has engendered new formats and possibilities for visibility but also new risks, thereby creating tensions in science communication.

scholarly journals Mapping mental models of science communication: How academics in Germany, Austria and Switzerland understand and practice science communication

2022 ◽  
pp. 096366252110657
Author(s):  
Sabrina Heike Kessler ◽  
Mike S. Schäfer ◽  
David Johann ◽  
Heiko Rauhut
Keyword(s):  
Mental Models ◽  
Public Engagement ◽  
Science Communication ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Communication Theory ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
Communication Model ◽  
The Public ◽  
Understanding Of Science ◽  
The Way

The mental models that individual scholars have of science communication – how it works, what it is supposed to achieve and so on – shape the way these academics actually communicate to the public. But these mental models, and their prevalence among scholars, have rarely been analysed. Drawing on a large-scale, representative web survey of academics at universities in Germany, Austria and Switzerland ( n = 15,778) from 2020, we identify three mental models that are prevalent among scholars, and that correspond to conceptual models found in science communication theory: ‘Public Understanding of Science’, ‘Public Engagement with Science’ and ‘Strategic Science Communication’. The results suggest that the ‘Strategic Science Communication’ model is particularly prevalent among academics in precarious employment and female scholars. Extrinsically motivated academics, that is, those under pressure to win grants, also seem to use science communication more strategically. The ‘Public Engagement’ model is prevalent among older and female scholars, while ‘Public Understanding’ is particularly prevalent among scholars who find their work especially meaningful. Findings also reveal that academics’ mental models largely align with the way they practice science communication.

Comparison of thyroid doses to the public from radioiodine following the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents

2021 ◽  
pp. 014664532110068
Author(s):  
Sergey M. Shinkarev
Keyword(s):  
Chernobyl Accident ◽  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Power Plants ◽  
Nuclear Power Plants ◽  
Ecological Models ◽  
Large Set ◽  
Fukushima Accident ◽  
The Public ◽  
Thyroid Dose ◽  
Fukushima Daiichi

Estimates of thyroid doses to the public from radioiodine intake following the accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plants are compared. The basis for thyroid dose estimates after the Chernobyl accident was a large set of measurements of 131I thyroidal content for approximately 400,000 residents in Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia. Due to a lack of direct thyroid measurements after the Fukushima accident (just over 1000 residents were measured), thyroid doses were estimated based on ecological models and are therefore associated with much higher uncertainty than those based on direct thyroid measurements. Thyroid dose estimates for evacuees were up to 50,000 mGy for Chernobyl and up to approximately 100 mGy for Fukushima. This large difference in thyroid dose to the public is mainly due to the different dominant pathways of radioiodine intake: ingestion of fresh, locally produced cows’ milk (Chernobyl) and inhalation of contaminated air (Fukushima).

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