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.

What do we know about “don't knows”? Or, contexts of “ignorance”

1996 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jill Turner ◽  
Mike Michael
Keyword(s):  
The Self ◽  
Public Understanding Of Science ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
Late Modernity ◽  
The Public ◽  
Political Statement ◽  
Understanding Of Science ◽  
Don't Know Responses

This paper addresses the meanings of “ignorance” in the context of “don't know” responses to questionnaires. First, we consider some of the broader functions of questionnaires, suggesting that they reflect and mediate between particular types of institutions, respondents and society. We then unpack some of the meanings of “don't know” responses. Specifically, we argue that the “don't know” response is not merely a sign of deficit but, potentially, a potent political statement. Moreover, in relation to studies of the public understanding of science, it can be employed as a resource by people reflexively to express their identity through their relationship with science. Next we consider ignorance in the more expansive contexts of late modernity, which include concerns about the ambivalent role of science in general, the transgressive quality of biotechnology in particular and the impetus to narrate the self. Consideration of these factors, we argue, may be useful for further interrogation of the meanings of “don't know” responses.

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 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