Category: exam readings

Categories
exam readings public participation in science research methods/philosophy science communication science studies

Exam readings: Public participation in science

Well, here they are: my last three readings for my public understanding of science reading list. After this, I’ll be spending the next week thinking ONLY about my first exam, which is coming up… And I will be presenting a paper at a conference this weekend- but more on that anon.

Anyway, here are the last three readings. These are all gray literature, but give a current overview of at least NSF’s thinking about the field of PUoS:

First: Friedman, Alan J., Sue Allen, Patricia B. Campbell, Lynn D. Dierking, Barbara N. Flagg, Cecilia Garibay, Randi Korn, Gary Silverstein, and David A. Ucko. “Framework for Evaluating Impacts of Informal Science Education Projects.” Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation, 2008.

Summary: Report from a Natl. Science Foundation workshop on informal science education (ISE) in STEM fields; provides a framework for summative evaluation of projects that will facilitate cross-comparison. The authors identify six broad categories of impact: awareness, knowledge, and understanding; engagement or interest; attitude; behavior; skills; and “other” (project-specific impacts.) For funding purposes, proposals must outline their goals in these categories- while this won’t fully capture learning putcomes, in provides baseline information for evaluating the field of ISE. Also provides advice and suggestions, e.g., what to think about when coming up with goals, what approaches to take, how to evaluate, and how to document unexpected outcomes. It also discusses evaluation designs: NSF’s preference is for randomized experiments, but general advice is to use the most rigorous methods available (e.g., ethnography, focus groups)- discusses pros and cons of various methods. Some specific considerations for ISE evaluation include different starting knowledge of participants; assessments should be inclusive to those from different backgrounds (draw pictures, narratives, etc.) Also discuss specific methods, potential problems, how to assess impact categories for various types of projects (e.g., exhibits, educational software, community programs.)

Comments: Report is targeted to researchers being funded by NSF, to help them navigate new reporting requirements for projects with a public education component. Not useful for my purposes for theoretical background, but does give an outline of the current state of thinking of the NSF for this field.

Links to: Bonney et al. (use this framework for their report); Shamos (discusses different types of evaluation of scientific literacy)

Second: McCallie, Ellen, Larry Bell, Tiffany Lohwater, John H. Falk, Jane L. Lehr, Bruce V. Lewenstein, Cynthia Needham, and Ben Wiehe. “Many Experts, Many Audiences: Public Engagement with Science and Informal Science Education.” Washington, D.C.: Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education. 2009.

Summary: Study group report on public engagement with science (PES) in the context of informal science education- the focus is on describing/defining this approach. PES projects by definition should incorporate mutual discussion/learning among public and experts, facilitate empowerment/new civic skills, increased awareness of science/society interactions, and recognition of multiple perspectives or domains of knowledge. This approach is most common in areas of new science or controversy; the authors mention that the idea is not to water down the science, but to bring social context into the discussion. There are two general forms of PES in informal science education (ISE) projects: “mechanisms” (mutual learning is part of the experience- blogs, discussions) and “perspectives” (no direct interaction, but recognition of multiple values-e.g., incorporating multiple perspectives into an exhibit.) They contrast this approach with two views of traditional PUoS (making knowledge more accessable/engaging): the first view (generally held by ISE practitioners) sees PUoS as a public service; the second view (generally an academic STS/science communication perspective) sees PUoS as non-empowering, based on a deficit model, and not recognizing that the public can be critical consumers or even producers of science. PES arises from this second view: the key is that organizations must think critically about publics and experts are positioned in interactions, and bring in “mutual learning.”

Comments: While the authors recognize that “engagement” has multiple meanings (action/behavior, learning style, overall learning, participation within a group), the PES approach is not about directly influencing public policy or the direction of research. Presumably that approach is too activist(?)- they do mention the need to work toward using PES to affect policy/research. This report seems to take as a given that mutual dialogue between public and experts is a good thing; I’m not sure how well it would make that case to organizations who are skeptical about that approach.

Links to: Trench-“Analytical Framework” (assessment of the place of “engagement” model)

Third: Bonney, Rick, Heidi Ballard, Rebecca Jordan, Ellen McCallie, Tina Phillips, Jennifer Shirk, and Candie C. Wilderman. “Public Participation in Scientific Research: Defining the Field and Assessing Its Potential for Informal Science Education.” Washington, D.C.: Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education. 2009.

Summary: Study report on public participation in science research (PPSR) as part of informal science education (ISE.) History of ISE: began as public understanding of science (PUoS)- experts determined what public should know, explanations should lead to greater knowledge, which should lead to greater appreciation. Shortcomings of PUoS are that people have greater engagement when topic is directly relevant or interactive; focus is on content delivery, rather than understanding scientific processes. PPSR projects (citizen science, volunteer monitoring, etc.) ideally lead to learning both content and process. These projects involve public in the various stages of the scientific process to some degree. Three types: contributory (scientists design, public just gathers data), collaborative (scientists design, public helps refine, analyze, communicate), and co-created (designed by both and at least some public participants involved in all steps.) They evaluated 10 existing projects using Friedman at al.’s rubric; potential in PPSR projects to address all categories of impacts. Future opportunities include developing new projects (new questions, engage new audiences, test new approaches), enhance current PPSR projects (e.g., go from contributory to collaborative or co-created), add PPSR elements to other types of ISE projects, and enhance research/evaluation of PPSR projects. Two final recommendations are that projects should do a better job of articulating learning goals/outcomes at the beginning, and that comprehensive evaluation methods should be developed.

Comments: This committee report offers a current assessment of PPSR projects and synthesizes recommendations for future research. Scientific literacy remains a basic individual measure in this framework, even with the emphasis on participatory interaction (in contrast to social constructivist approach.) While the assumption is that PPSR projects do affect understanding of science, there are large challenges to assessing this, even at an individual level; part of the problem is that this type of assessment is often added post hoc.

Links to: Roth & Lee (conceptualize sci. literacy in PPSR as a communal property, not individual); Friedman at al. (framework for evaluating PPSR projects)

Categories
environment exam readings rhetoric science communication

Exam readings: Rhetoric and conservation management

Two papers today, involving rhetoric and environmental technical communication. I’m getting down to the end of my public understanding of science reading list, but also getting close to exam #1. So I’ll just have to concentrate on getting ready for that for the next week and a half…

First: Margaret B. Graham and Neil Lindeman. “The Rhetoric and Politics of Science in the Case of the Missouri River System.” Journal of Business and Technical Communication 19.4 (2005): 422-448.

Summary: The authors analyze rhetorical differences in two science reports by the US Fish & Wildlife Svc. in 2000 and 2003; the 03 report was created by a different writing team after changes in the political administration. While the major difference between the reports is different flow recommendations, there were significant differences in narrative structure and omission/inclusion of facts that create very different rhetorical spaces. One example is use of narrative: the 00 report begins with a historical narrative that describes the river as a dynamic system later harmed by humans (incidentally creating a romantic space that leaves little room for people in a restored river); the 03 report replaces this narrative with statistics and doesn’t evoke the river as an ecosystem (making it easier to justify human alterations.) In another example, the 00 report downplays scientific uncertainty (justifying the recommendation of large remedial changes for restoration) while the 03 report emphasizes it (setting up the recommendation for minimal remedial changes.) Rhetorically, control of information presented shapes the response of readers. Graham & Lindeman attribute these differences in the reports to the composition of the (anonymous) writing teams, motivated by their political and social interests. For them, the keys in understanding science communication are: knowledge of the context of the scientific argument(s) presented, understanding the structure and informational content of documents produced, and consideration of the audiences for whom communications are intended (both apparent (e.g., public) and hidden (e.g., supervisors).)

Comments: While this type of analysis is particularly applicable to government/institutional science communication, there are some broader issues as well. The increased public involvement in river decisions recommended in the 03 report is something many scholars have called for, but the authors point out that this sort of involvement often gives bad environmental results. Expertise in a scientific issue can counter manipulative interests in such participatory settings (rather than just being used to maintain a status quo.) There are also ethical concerns raised in this paper that would be applicable to communication research (e.g., framing.)

Links to: Groffman et al. (environmental communication); Yearley (scientific uncertainty often makes sci. a bad ally to environmentalism, public participation in decision-making for environmental issues can lead to bad results)

Second: Marie Paretti. “Managing Nature/Empowering Decision-Makers: A Case Study of Forest Management Plans.” Technical Communication Quarterly 12.4 (2003): 439-459.

Summary: Paretti analyzes forest management plans (FMPs), whose function is to inform landowners and provide practical knowledge (unlike general environmental communication, these plans give advice to active resource managers.) Most research in science communication to landowners has been in how to reach them and how to communicate controversies, not how to communicate technical information effectively. Paretti outlines four models of communication: technocratic (no interchange), Jeffersonian (experts give advice to public), Interactive Jeffersonian (experts give technical advice, public gives values), and Social Constructionist (information and values go both ways). The IJ model describes current practice; Paretti advocates the SC model. FMPs begin by the landowner stating their goals, then the expert provides a detailed description of natural resources and recommendations for achieving goals. The rhetoric of FMPs maintains the landowner-expert divide and leaves owner a novice on own land in some ways: language style is technical, recommendations are framed as directives, and the decision process is not articulated. Paretti suggests changing the consultation process: start by listing resources, then consult together on goals, then have expert give recommendations (while making specific suggestions, using different language, IDing places where local knowledge would be useful).

Comments: Paretti advocates a collaborative, discussion-based consultation process that values non-technical knowledge and emphasizes how the decision-making process works so that the landowner can be educated about it. These recommendations follow a similar pattern to other authors calling for more public participation in socio-technological issues; in this case, the landowners presumable have some local knowledge of their land, so would have something to bring to the table themselves.

Links to: Graham & Lindeman (participatory process not always best for envt.)

Categories
exam readings public participation in science research methods/philosophy science communication

Exam reading: Scientific literacy as collective praxis

Is scientific literacy something that we should be able to assess in individuals? Or is it something that emerges as part of community activity? Traditional evaluations of science literacy are based on the former, but there’s a trend to see science literacy as an emergent property of social interaction (at least in non-professional contexts.) Here’s a summary of one paper on the topic:

Wolff-Michael Roth and Stuart Lee. “Scientific literacy as collective praxis.” Public Understanding of Science 11 (2002): 33-56. Print.

Summary: The authors rethink science literacy as a collective, action-based process, not everyday knowledge; they foreground the social and material aspects to learning (complex knowledge is a product of interaction among people and situated in space and social activities.) Their three propositions: sci. lit. is a property of collective activity; science isn’t a “normative framework for rationality” (people can draw on other approaches for decision-making); and effective learning activities have a community purpose (rather than learning as the primary goal.) They feel that “citizen thinking” (not pure science) is most effective at addressing specific local problems; this includes politics, aesthetics, philosophy, etc. Their research centers on a community group trying to improve a watershed. Group members from different activity systems (e.g., scientists, activists, farmers) represented the situation differently and contributed different understandings; the authors see “scientific literacy” as the more-complete knowledge of the situation generated by the interaction of these different understandings. Key conclusions: science literacy can arise through conversation- making known something that wasn’t known before- the collective understanding of the situation then influences individuals’ understanding. Learning is lifelong and situation-based.

Comments: Seems to apply more to science in everyday life, rather than professional science- so an alternative framework for the effects of citizen science projects. Part of their rationale for distributed nature of literacy is the division of labor and ability to consult experts in modern society. Social construction of learning: learning and agency are social; individual learning/agency are reflections of the social setting. Advocate definition of science as a creative activity “tempered by honesty in the face of experimental evidence.”

Links to: Shamos (key place of experts in public understanding of science-though he doesn’t define this as science literacy)

Categories
birds exam readings learning theory public participation in science

Exam readings: Public participation in science

Citizen science projects like those at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology are an important venue for science communication. These two papers evaluate whether and what project participants learned about science as a process during two of these projects.

First: Deborah Trumbull, Rick Bonney, Derek Bascom & Anna Cabral. “Thinking Scientifically During Participation in a Citizen-Science Project.” Science Education 84 (2000): 265-275.

Summary: One assumption of citizen science projects is that participants will think more scientifically after participating; this paper analyzes letters written by cit. sci. participants to see whether this is the case. People participated in a bird seed preference test; they received a kit with information on scientific method/process, and instructions for the experiment mentioned that they would be learning about the process of inquiry. Demographics of participants: they tended to be older, well-educated, white, and had positive attitudes about and interest in science. Survey results suggested that, after participation, participants didn’t have changed levels of scientific knowledge. The authors decided to analyze the many unsolicited letters received from participants to look for evidence of inquiry (e.g., clearly identifying problems or hypotheses, designing an experiment, changing procedures if necessary, and analyzing and interpreting the results.) Some people did demonstrate inquiry, but not many (especially consistent observation, changing methods when not working, hypothesis formation.) They conclude that more explicit education about the process of inquiry is probably necessary for people to actually try it out. They also highlight some other potential problems with cit. sci. projects, e.g., people not understanding the point of pooling consistent data from a wide geographic area, or the relationship between prior knowledge and a formal research question.

Comments: The main conclusion here is that citizen science projects do have the potential to increase inquiry, but that it probably has to be emphasized in the instructional materials. Another possibility is that more localized or community-based citizen science projects might promote inquiry through a higher level of interaction (though this might have to be guided in some way…)

Links to: Roth & Lee (measure scientific literacy differently in citizen science projects); Brossard et al. (assessment of learning/attitudes about science in another CLO project)

Second, Dominique Brossard, Bruce Lewenstein, and Rick Bonney. “Scientific Knowledge and Attitude Change: The Impact of a Citizen Science Project.” International Journal of Science Education. 27.9 (2005): 1099–1121. Print.

Summary: Presents an analysis of the learning of participants in the Neighborhood Nestwatch Project (Cornell Lab of Ornithology). This project asked participants to put up nest boxes and report data about birds that used them using standardized protocols. Participants received protocol information, info about bird biology, and practical info about nest boxes; they were also encouraged to interact with CLO staff electronically or via phone. The project had a dual emphasis: collecting wide range of nesting data and increasing participant knowledge and change attitudes. Using a framework of experiential education, authors predicted that bird knowledge and knowledge about scientific inquiry would increase. Using the Elaboration Likelihood Model (increased attention activates persuasion), they predicted that there would be an increase in positive attitudes toward science and the environment. They found that attitudes toward science and the environment didn’t change (science-beliefs might have been more complex than test questions, or lack of emphasis in educational materials; environment-may have been high to begin with). While knowledge of bird biology increased, knowledge about the scientific process did not (they attribute this to both the level of emphasis of these things in educational materials and participant interest).

Comments: The authors recommend that more emphasis should be made on the scientific context in order to directly increase understanding of science and inquiry. This seems to be a common issue with citizen science projects- people participate with certain interests in mind, and generally this is not to learn more about the scientific process.

Links to: Trumbull et al. (CLO project); Roth & Lee (perspective of science literacy as a communal thing, making it ineffective/inappropriate to test individuals’ knowledge for citizen science projects)

Categories
exam readings rhetoric science communication

Exam reading: Risk perception in science communication

People are notoriously bad at judging risk- we’re fascinated by rare, unusual events but blase about common and everyday hazards. This page is an interesting example- the comparison of lightning fatalities and shark-related fatalities between Florida and Hawaii is instructive, and bunnies in New York City are apparently really ornery…

A big part of science communication involves talking about risk and uncertainty, so this is a big deal. Today’s exam reading is by Paul Slovic: “Perception of Risk from Radiation” from Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 1996.

Summary: Slovic takes a rhetorical approach to communicating radiation risks-in this case, experts’ assessments of risk don’t match those of public. Public risk perception is based more on “dread” (emotion, voluntariness) and event unfamiliarity, while experts base assessments on probability of occurrence plus severity. There’s a psychological “signal effect”- rare, unfamiliar events are more scary than common, familiar ones. These differences in perception have social/political impact (e.g., Three-Mile Island had minor health effects but led to widespread public oppoisition to nuclear power.) Radiation is associated with “cosmic transmutation,” contamination, taint, and cancer; it’s a highly emotional type of pollution, e.g., there can be social stigma attached to people exposed to radiation because of “taint.” Nuclear and chemical risk perceptions share some similarities, e.g., medical applications are perceived as low-risk while environmental applications (pesticides, power plants) are high-risk. In communication, the challenge is getting from expert knowledge to recommendations for public (typical approach is to compare to a familiar risk, but be careful to compare similar hazards- nuclear exposure to x-rays, rather than nuclear exposure to chance of being struck by lightning.) There are large ethical issues with communication, because of strong framing effects- more pragmatically, it’s easy to destroy trust and hard to build it.

Comments: Slovic’s paper is more applied than theoretical, but he does mention some wider issues. For example, mentions ethical concerns around framing. Another big issue is that any type of media attention to an issue (even if saying “there’s no risk associated with doing x”) will tend to lead to perceptions of more risk surrounding that issue- this obviously has practical implications for communicating science.

Links to: Trench (risk=hazard + outrage); Irwin (risk from communications perspective); Nisbet (framing)

Categories
environment exam readings rhetoric science communication

Exam reading: Science comm for environmental issues

And here’s an applied example of the “deficit-dialogue” non-transition. Peter Groffman, Cathlyn Stylinski, Matthew C. Nisbet, Carlos M. Duarte, Rebecca Jordan, Amy Burgin, M. Andrea Previtali, and James Coloso: “Restarting the conversation: challenges at the interface between ecology and society,” from a Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment special issue.

Summary: Science communication and outreach efforts are not currently sufficient to engage the public in pressing environmental issues. The authors summarize current social research and make recommendations. Scientists are widely respected on social-policy issues, but need to rethink outreach efforts. Awareness of environmental issues varies widely (demographics, nationality) and other issues (esp. economy) currently are rated more important; communicators can increase salience of issues by connecting them to people’s lives. Most people learn about scientific issues individually, informally, and sporadically; in the U.S., mainly via TV, but the Internet is a prime source of science info for those who deliberately seek it out (selective perception and interpretation are important). The largest effect of media campaigns is awareness, rather than factual knowledge. Audiences are influenced by presentation, e.g., give both views represented equal weight. Scientists tend to focus on information deficit, rather than changing attention/salience; here’s where framing and mental models come in. There are also new tools and approaches to use: formal research communication, training for young scientists, participation in local social forums, online news communities (e.g., science blogs + news), public participation in research, and recruiting opinion leaders (social networks, etc.)

Comments: Article is introduction to a special issue of journal; other papers go into detail about some of the new approaches mentioned.

Links to: Trumbull et al., Bonney et al., Brossard et al. (public participation in research); Nisbet (framing)

Categories
exam readings politics science communication

Exam reading: “Towards an analytical framework”

In this chapter, Brian Trench comments on various models for science communication. “Towards an Analytical Framework of Science Communication Models” from Communicating Science in Social Contexts: New Models, New Practices.

Summary: Trench posits that the deficit to dialogue model transition has been overstated in sci. comm. circles (it’s more a normative recommendation than a descriptive assessment.) He puts science comm. into the broader context of communications theory (e.g., active audience, risk comm. composed of hazard (probability) + outrage (subjective elements)) and education (e.g., inquiry- and project-based learning). The process of dialogue is not free of power relations, and in practice “dialogue” is often like marketing/message tailoring research. While there is evidence of trends toward more open dialogue (open public debate, scientists active in NGOs), the converse is also true, esp. because of the knowledge economy (commodification of knowledge, the cultural/social values of science are obscured). Overall, the deficit model is still used for much of sci comm (appropriately, in some cases); there’s really a continuum of “dialogue.” His framework goes from deficit to dialogue to participation models. More specifically, deficit includes defense of science and marketing; dialogue includes context, consultation, engagement of public; and participation includes deliberation and critique. He briefly discusses the philosophical/ideological implications of this spectrum.

Comments: Provides a counterpoint to idea of thorough deficit-dialogue shift. In contrast to Shamos, states that scientism is wide trend among scientists, and related to assumption of deficit; their definitions of scientism are different.

Links to: Bucchi (similar discussion of lack of deficit-dialogue binary); Shamos (characterizes scientism as anti-science, not a majority scientific view)

Categories
exam readings knowledge work politics science communication science studies

Exam readings: Science in the knowledge economy

These are both chapters from Communicating Science in Social Contexts: New Models, New Practices that put science communication into a very wide context of societal changes.

In “Representation and Deliberation: New Perspectives on Communication Among Actors in Science and Technology Innovation,” Giuseppe Pellegrini wants to reform the way democracy operates:

Summary: Pellegrini takes on the relationships between scientific experts, business, political institutions, and the public, and suggests that new governance models are needed for developing technical-scientific fields (e.g., nano, biotech, communications). He contrasts representative democracy (public delegates decision-making to political class, they delegate it to scientific & business experts) to deliberative democracy (participation of all interested parties.) In recent years, doubt has been cast on both scientific experts as a community of objective decision makers (e.g., scientists going into business), and on political institutions’ ability to regulate business or even remain functional (e.g., globalization, collapse of the social contract). This has been facilitated by: greater communication, the speed of scientific and technological changes in recent years, the end of consequence-free perception of progress, and a new appreciation of the uncertainty inherent in science (facilitated by a conflict-driven media.) Pellegrini suggests a new view of rights of citizens, which would include access to opportunities to participate in scientific social decision-making, and access to information about government workings (and ability to communicate directly with decision-makers). This would expand the deliberative aspects of democracy past traditional voting, or delegation of decision-making powers to elites.

Comments: Pellegrini is not clear about who will guarantee or fund these new communication rights of citizens, or guarantee that vested interests will not attempt to manipulate the system via traditional advertising, etc., (but acknowledges these are valid criticisms), and it’s also unclear how decisions will actually be made (he’s explicitly advocating more open discussion about science-tech-society issues, not decision-making.) He does mention that not all participants’ views should be equal (so still a role for experts). Mention of “powerful and authoritative scientists” making society’s decisions is ironic, given the recent state of political discourse in the U.S.

With somewhat related themes, Bernard Schiele’s “On and About the Deficit Model in an Age of Free Flow” redefines scientific literacy in the “knowledge economy.”

Summary: Schiele’s view is that science has become integrated into the “information society” to such an extent that the deficit model of communication is no longer useful. Science began by openly communicating in the vernacular, but increasing specialization and the rise of professional science communicating media separated science “producers” from “consumers.” The deficit model assumed that both science literacy and political literacy were necessary for citizens to participate in sci-tech decision-making processes. Shiele believes that the boundary between science and non-science is becoming blurred (e.g., psychology), and that the communication process is now about fostering multiple connections between science and society. He connects these changes to the knowledge economy: universities collaborating with industry (and communicating results to public), research is becoming more applied (problem-solving and products), and scientists are also becoming replaceable knowledge workers. The public now feels able to comment on the directions research takes; non anti-science, but feels that “progress” is not the answer.

Comments: I’m not sure to what extent Schiele’s characterization of scientists as replaceable knowledge workers is accurate. He seems to equate expertise with the ability to marshal (publicly available) knowledge at need and adapt to different contexts (so everyone could potentially succeed in any field); I don’t think this knowledge flexibility necessarily maps to understanding how knowledge is created & interpreted within different domains. He also seems to be defining science literacy as a way of thinking about science and scientific culture, and assuming that the public is educated about science/scientific institutions (as cultural actors; not about how the scientific process works.)

Links to: Shamos (very different definition of scientific literacy)

Categories
exam readings rhetoric science communication

Exam readings: Science cafes and framing

This weekend, I spent two days drifting from Panera to Panera, and got a lot of reading done (although I feel like a dork for spending my weekend cafe-hopping). Did not get a lot else accomplished, aside from bunny torture (took Noe to the vet- she is fine, just had arthritis acting up). I’ll post my reading summaries as I write them up. Here are two semi-related papers on the theme of communicating science:

First, Jan Riise’s “Bringing Science to the Public,” from Communicating Science in Social Contexts: New Models, New Practices, focuses on informal science events. (As a side note, Orlando has a monthly Science Cafe, but it always seems to be scheduled on a night I have class…)

Summary: Discusses the importance of scientists speaking to the public directly, in informal settings- events, “science cafes,” online. The location and venue of such interactions is important, e.g., cafes at coffeeshops, festivals and street events at various venues. These events can attract passers-by, they’re on neutral ground (less intimidation), and people don’t need to venture into formal settings. Different audiences might frequent different venues (older, educated folks at lectures, young adults at malls). Such events are becoming more common among scientists for two reasons: communication is becoming thought of as a negotiation, and it’s now considered an integral part of the scientific process. One key aspect is the face-to-face interactions between scientists and the public without mediation- opens up space for discussion. There is, however, a need for support and training for scientists for these events. Finally, different types of content are discussed: basic understanding, “fun” science (e.g., contests), academic-level science, science in culture (partner with arts & humanities content), and “new” discovery science.

Comments: Riise’s evidence is mainly anecdotal, and based in Sweden, but this is an area of active development in many regions. Mentions Internet comm. in passing, but doesn’t discuss it again.

Next,Matt Nisbet’s “Communicating Climate Change: Why Frames Matter for Public Engagement” applies some mass-media communication theory to science communication. His approach contrasts with sci. comm. researchers who are focused on increasing dialogue; mainly this is due to medium.

Summary: Nisbet’s focus is on increasing public engagement with science (specifically global warming), rather than public education. While traditional approaches to sci comm assume that wider coverage leads to wider understanding and engagement, research shows that people have selective interest in news (generally what’s salient for them personally.) GW in particular is a highly-partisan issue in the U.S., and barriers include its complexity and the fragmented nature of news media (e.g., easier to read just sources that agree with you.) Nisbet advocates framing GW in order to connect the issue with targeted groups- tailoring the message while remaining true to the science. Likens framing to creating interpretive storylines that allow people to connect a new issue with underlying mental models. For GW, liberal and conservative commentators/institutions frame the issue in different ways, maintaining the partisan divide (“Pandora’s Box,” public accountability vs. uncertainty, conflict, economics.) Each frame can include pro/neutral/anti positions, so it is possible to reframe or use frame in novel ways. The overall idea is to identify possible frames to unify partisan divide, and effect greater engagement by increasing issue salience.

Comments: Nisbet’s aim is to increase the salience of issues, rather than purely factual communication; this is different focus than some other authors, who take a more educational stance. He mentions critique of framing because it’s similar to political “spin,” but maintains that it’s a different process- perhaps because of “remaining true” to underlying science.) Framing here replaces the deficit model (assumption that more information is what is needed.)

Categories
exam readings pedagogy research methods/philosophy science studies

Exam reading: “The myth of scientific literacy”

Morris Shamos’ “Myth of Scientific Literacy” starts off with some grim estimates on the state of scientific literacy in the U.S.: maybe 5-7% of Americans are scientifically literate- able to not only understand science terminology and know some basic facts, but also understand how the scientific process works. While this book was published in 1995, the situation hasn’t changed much.

Summary: Shamos claims that U.S. educational policy (in many iterations) has been trying to increase general science literacy and increase numbers of science-career students, and failing at both. Science is difficult because it requires a non-commonsense mode of thought; deductive/syllogistic thinking (commonsense) can lead to correct conclusions from incorrect assumptions, and science rests on a combination of deduction, induction, quantitative reasoning, and experimentation. Through the history of science education, there has been debate over what to teach and why; Shamos suggests three levels of sci. literacy: cultural (understand some terminology), functional (know some facts), and “true” literacy (understand scientific process). “Science” education generally is focused on technology or natural history studies (not sci. process)- which would be OK for “science awareness,” but also need to add an understanding of the use of experts to assist in making societal decisions. Broad-based sci. literacy is hampered by several factors: mathematical illiteracy, lack of social incentives, science can be boring & hard to learn, and disparagement by public intellectuals (and others.) He especially cautions against movements to discredit rationalism as the best basis with which to relate nature to society through science.

Comments: On use of experts: failing to create a truly sci. literate citizenry (which Shamos suggests is impossible), he suggests a system of public science experts who help make decisions in a transparent way (with citizen watchdog groups.) Overall, wide-ranging discussion of science education, philosophy of science, and possible future models for science education (also incorporating adult ed, though he focuses on formal ed.)

Links to: Pellegrini (models of citizen-scientist expert interactions); Holton (“anti-science” forces)