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employed in Anglosaxon societies to refer to the issue of the relationship between science, technology and society, is out-of-date.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.

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.

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.

Destroying iPhones: Feral science and the antithetical citizen

2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (6) ◽  
pp. 731-744 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mike Michael
Keyword(s):  
Citizen Science ◽  
Public Engagement ◽  
Science And Technology ◽  
Public Understanding Of Science ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
Destructive Testing ◽  
Public Engagement With Science ◽  
Youtube Videos ◽  
Understanding Of Science

This exploratory article considers the implications of a particular genre – YouTube videos of iPhone destruction – for the Citizen Science and Public Understanding of Science/Public Engagement with Science and Technology. Situating this genre within a broader TV tradition of ‘destructive testing’ programmes, there is a description of the forms of destruction visited upon the iPhone, and an analysis of the features shared by the videos (e.g. mode of address, enactments of the experiment). Drawing on the notion of the ‘idiotic’, there is a discussion of the genre that aims to treat its evident lack of scientific and citizenly ‘seriousness’ productively. In the process of this discussion, the notions of ‘feral science’ and ‘antithetical citizenship’ are proposed, and some of their ramifications for Citizen Science and Public Understanding of Science/Public Engagement with Science and Technology presented.

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.

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 Genetic Food Futures

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-23
Author(s):  
Catherine Price
Keyword(s):  
Public Engagement ◽  
Genetically Modified Organisms ◽  
Genetically Modified ◽  
Public Understanding Of Science ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
Controversial Issues ◽  
Select Committee ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Public Engagement With Science ◽  
Understanding Of Science

The aim of this article is to offer an answer to the question: How can we improve public engagement in the genetically modified organisms debate? It will describe the models of Public Understanding of Science and Public Engagement with Science. Public Understanding of Science dates back to the 1970s and is intended to create a relationship between science and people through education. The UK’s House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology introduced the Public Engagement with Science model in 2000. Public Engagement with Science calls for a dialogue between scientists and society, enabling science to be questioned. These models have been used in the past with controversial issues such as GM organisms, although not always successfully. The article concludes by proposing the Genetically Modified Organism Consortium. This proposal is based on the idea of engaging more voices in the debate, and offers a global, national and local response.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document