Category: science studies

Categories
exam readings museums science communication science studies

Exam reading: Science museums, the Internet, and uncertainty

More from the Handbook of Public Communication of Science & Technology. First, a look at science museums by Bernard Schiele:

Summary: Discusses the historical development of rationales and forms of science museums, as well as consistent purpose (preservation & education) and philosophy (reality is independent of our representations, reality is independent of language, truth is the precise representation of reality, and knowledge is objective.) 16th cen.: beginnings of collections; focus on the correspondence between man and nature; “cabinets of curiosity” & geographic collections. 18th–19th cen.: natural sci. museums with focus on classification (began to organize by non-geographic themes); museums as research centers (tied to growth in collections & development of sciences in 19th cen.); dioramas as spectacle. 19th-20th cen.: science & technology museums; experiment displays (physics & chemistry); achievements of industrial revolution, educational/democratic spirit; showcase “pure” science (sci. thinking & discovery.) 20th cen.: science centers; shift in focus to community (raise interest in sci. literacy & mediate between sci. institutions and the public), interactivity (active learning), and evaluation (of exhibits by pedagogic models); visitor at center of design (use all possible media); new emphasis on risk & uncertainty with progress; focus on science spinoffs, not “pure” science. Ends by discussing the emphasis of the public as museum actors, rather than the museum as a science showcase: broad changes in participation (talks, exhibits, animation) and community relationships (public questions decisions (Enola Gay), reflects broader social questioning of institutions).

Comments: Though Schiele emphasizes continued focus on modernist standards for interpretation & objective knowledge, I have heard of cases where museums offer a more social constructionist/all interpretations are subjective slant to exhibits. Also, recent cases where political/funding decisions may have (at least in the eyes of the public) influenced interpretive materials (Smithsonian (?) Arctic exhibit; Koch-funded Hall of Human Origins).

Links to: Holton (science/anti-science)

Next, how the Internet is changing science communication, by Brian Trench:

Summary: The Internet makes professional and public communication more “porous” and facilitates public access to scientific information; many professional activities are also mediated by the Internet, which facilitates both cooperation and fragmentation/specialization. Public impacts include diffusion of information beyond scientific communities (via news, PR, discussion groups) and new access to previously “hidden” professional processes (professional organization communications, pre-publications, professionals’ discussions, etc.) One major development is the journal open access movement (“revolt” against journal costs, desire to have publicly-funded research results freely available); there are questions about maintaining peer review quality and possible public misinterpretation of non-vetted results. Another development is research institutions hiring science writers, which can lead to journalists being left out of sci. comm. efforts. A third development is communications by individual scientists: blogs, podcasts, etc.- there are various motivations for these efforts, including social commentary, “coffee room chatter.” A primary problem for the public is differentiating between sources of information. For professionals, the questions are how much public scrutiny to invite and how much vetting of new information to do (e.g., developing standards that help people make decisions about source credibility.) Finally, the public is interested in areas of high uncertainty, and explaining that this is a normal part of science is a challenge.

Comments: Trench writes that few institutions with an online presence take advantage of the interactive possibilities of the Internet; this situation seems to be changing to some extent (though numbers are still probably small.)

And last, Alan Irwin tackles the problem of communicating about risk and uncertainty:

Summary: Begins by discussing three (coexisting, not stepped) models of thinking about science: “1st-order” (deficit model), “2nd-order” (engagement/dialogue), and “3rd-order” (the relationship between the first two.) With respect to risk communication, the current trend from deficit communications to dialogue represents a critique of past practices (e.g., the BSE/mad cow example in Great Britain.) The BSE example points to a need for openness to foster trust, recognition of uncertainty, and trust in the public’s ability to respond rationally to scientific problems. The three orders are related to general cultural philosophies. 1st-order focus is on the government’s role in minimizing uncertainty and bringing rationality to society (culture of modernity). 2nd-order thinking involves the need to revitalize institutions in light of risk-related challenges, the need for transparency and mutual trust, and the idea that some interest groups have valuable things to add to discussion. 3rd-order thinking is about considering effects of societal science and technology-related decisions; basically, putting issues into a wider social context and critically evaluating current approaches to communication.

Comments: Irwin points out that scientific progress and transparency aren’t mutually exclusive; this relationship is one of the things that 3rd-order thinking should address. Public engagement shouldn’t be an end unto itself, but should be part of that broader discussion of social implications.

Categories
exam readings science communication science studies

Exam readings: Public communication of science & dialogue

Here are summaries for two more chapters from the Handbook of Public Communication of Science & Technology. First, Massimiano Bucchi’s overview of science communication theory provides a good framework for this book, and is something I’ll definitely revisit for my exam:

Summary: Discusses several models of sci. comm., which has arisen as a specialist field as science has become institutionalized and specialized. Bucchi presents a 4-level model for diffusion of ideas (continuity model), and then discusses three models for communication. In his continuity model, texts or ideas go through 4 levels (within a discipline, between disciplines, pedagogic, then popular), though they can jump levels (sometimes deliberately, to “shortcut” the usual process as new metaphors at the popular level are introduced to influence other scientists) or move in the opposite direction (again, metaphors @ popular level). At each step, uncertainty is removed & ideas become facts.

From http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/SPT/v8n3/hessenbruch.html

Bucchi dislikes idea of comm. as transfer between contexts (b/c of selective perception, non-linearity of comm., active transformation of ideas affecting sci. process); prefers idea of comm. as dialogue between specialist & popular discourses (with models & metaphors as “boundary objects”). (1) The traditional “deficit” model is 1-way and views media as an imperfect channel and public as passive (but able to understand once ideas are “translated”). The role of the scientist is to channel info to media (through press releases, celebrity scientists, prestigious journals). Public has an assumed deficit of knowledge b/c of scientific illiteracy (ability to reason scientifically; concept is countered by “different ways of knowing” idea (science=facts; lay=facts + values, trust, practical applications)). (2) “Dialogue” model includes citizen involvement as a way to enrich discussion (e.g., medicine.) (3) “Participation/co-production” model involves fora to set policy (involve multiple constituencies); this model links to broader discussion of science in society, e.g., non-academic institutions (NGOs, corporations) generating knowledge, open access vs. owned knowledge.

Comments: Continuity model will probably be useful. Another key concept is that different models could be applicable in different situations (deficit model the default in areas of low public interest); depends on level of public salience & mobilization, institutional/expert credibility, and the perceived level of controversy among scientists. Opening “black box” for public discussion leads to conflict and doesn’t fit into rhetoric of knowledge economy, so may be resisted by govt.; but public is not going to want to participate in drawn-out process in many cases. Modeling is fluid (e.g., public needs may change with new info or connection to new controversy) not static.

Connected to this is Edna Einsiedel’s chapter on public participation and dialogue:

Summary: Einsiedel focuses on the recent “participation explosion” in policy decision-making (esp. environment & health stakeholder participation). Public engagement can serve as quality control and create greater/more authentic democracy, but requires access to information, meaningful participation in decision-making, and access to judicial redress in case of problems. For her, a “deficit vs. dialogue” model is too simple- it’s a continuum including public feedback, participation, determining solutions, etc. Historical motivations include limits to expertise, controversies, social movements, and greater recognition of uncertainty. She identifies 4 trends: formalized forms of engagement (e.g., expert panels), increasing frequency of dialogue/participation planning, timing occurring throughout process (not just at end), and content of discussions expanding to include a broad range of values. There are a few main theoretical/normative frameworks for participation: deliberative democracy, technology assessment, deconstruction of “expertise,” and institutional contexts. One key problem is evaluating the process (what type of assessments to use); Einsiedel suggests including both “interested” (e.g., envtl. groups) and “disinterested” (e.g., unaffiliated citizens) parties in order to make sure that a range of views is expressed.

Comments: It seems that dialogue models are highly touted, but Einsiedel suggests that (like usability testing in tech design) organization of these fora can be driven by the need to legitimate decisions that have already been made or pay lip service to public airing of views. This is probably another reason to include organized pressure groups.

Categories
exam readings genres science studies

Exam readings: Popular science books and journalism

I’m starting in on my next list of readings, on science communication (for exam 2). Yes, I’m still prepping for exam 1. So yep, I’m busy…

The next few summaries will all be chapters from Handbook of Public Communication of Science & Technology, which is overall a fairly thorough overview of the field. I’ll be posting them a few at a time, starting with some material on genres of science communication.

First, “Popular Science Books” by Jon Turney:

Summary: Turney describes the historical development of the genre of popular science books, which he defines as books “intended to convey non-fiction truths” to non-specialists; the level of technicality can vary widely in this genre. According to Turney, books are versatile, cheap, allow extended exposition, and have cultural cachet. The book form is a cultural constant, and has developed over time, having evolved from specialist journals within scientific disciplines. Early attempts at popularization were highly technical (e.g., Newton’s Principia). A few books have been both technically important and popular (Origin of Species), but there has been a divergence between straightforward science and exposition in the genre. Widespread higher education starting in the 1970s has led to a boom in the field. Both scientists and non-scientists are popularizers. The study of popularization has several foci: political impacts of pop sci books, how they depict science, and the rhetoric/explanation of complex concepts. Recently, there has been more consciousness within the scientific community of how popularizations are received; this has led to both increased critique of these books and more scientists writing their own books.

Comments: While Turney is (over?) optimistic about the future of the book (from the perspective of a humanities program), it seems to be the case that there’s a renaissance in pop sci publishing right now. The book format lends itself to narrative development, suggesting that it’s good for storytelling about discoveries and people.

Next, “Science Journalism” by Sharon Dunwoody:

Summary: Dunwoody focuses on mass media, as the main post-formal education sources of science information (especially the Internet.) She outlines the history of science journalism: in the late 19th century, magazines, when popularization was part of the job of scientist; in the 20th century specialization and professionalization led to negative opinions of popularizers form professional societies; by the 1980s, began to see specialized science writers/journalists, esp. in space race and environment (though only ~2% of stories about science issues.) Today, the science writing field is print-oriented (including online media), with the majority of stories about biomedical issues (“news you can use”). Coverage on TV reinforces themes of certainty and “sacredness” of science. Journalistic norms: episodic (hard to discuss process), news pegs, mainstream ideas presented (either scientific or editorial establishment), and scientists as “white knights”/problem-solvers. She also identifies several trends in the field: the shift to the Internet requires new skills (timeliness, multimedia, competing narratives), scientists with media training can influence journalists, and need to be responsive to audience desires in face of declining readership and shifting media use. Another issue is appropriate training: both formal sci. journalism training and years on the job make journalists effective.

Comments: Identifies key problem areas from science perspective; these are areas of discussion among scientist media commentators. First, objectivity and balance: when reporters can’t judge competing science claims, the default is to offer more than one viewpoint (thus giving both viewpoints validity- e.g., global warming). Second, accuracy, which is typically related to level of detail and omission of detail: while scientists read articles as scientists & focus on what’s missing, the public actually does tend to pick up on the main messages.

Categories
identity research methods/philosophy science studies

More on science, culture, and feminism

In my post yesterday about Donna Haraway’s book, “Cyborgs, simians, and women,” I talked about how it called for a rethinking of how primate research and human culture shape one another. More importantly, I argued that science doesn’t have to be anti-feminist just because it’s science. Here’s a timely example:

To illustrate how powerful the influence of culture can be for primate societies consider the most extreme example of a sexually coercive species: savanna baboons. Males have been known to viciously maul a female that has rejected their advances and the level of male aggression is strongly correlated with their mating success. However, in a unique natural experiment Stanford primatologist Robert Sapolsky observed what developed when the largest and most aggressive males died out in a group known as Forest Troop (because they were feeding at the contaminated dump site of a Western safari lodge). In the intervening years Forest Group developed a culture in which kindness was rewarded more than aggression and adolescent males who migrated into the troop adopted this culture themselves.

Read the rest of this post- it’s a great example of how scientific tools and methods are not necessarily tied to maintaining traditional, oppressive social frameworks, as suggested by Haraway.