Date post: | 04-Jun-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | maxim-lamarca |
View: | 220 times |
Download: | 0 times |
of 20
8/13/2019 The Evolution of Public Understanding of Science %28LSERO Version%29.Doc
1/20
Martin W. Bauer
The evolution of public understanding ofscience - discourse and comparativeevidenceArticle (Accepted version)(Refereed)
Original citation:Bauer, Martin W. (2009) The evolution of public understanding of science - discourse andcomparative evidence. Science, technology and society, 14 (2). pp. 221-240. ISSN 0971-7218
DOI: 10.1177/097172180901400202
2009 SAGE Publications
This version available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/25640/Available in LSE Research Online: September 2010
LSE has developed LSE Research Online so that users may access research output of theSchool. Copyright and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individualauthors and/or other copyright owners. Users may download and/or print one copy of anyarticle(s) in LSE Research Online to facilitate their private study or for non-commercial research.You may not engage in further distribution of the material or use it for any profit-making activitiesor any commercial gain. You may freely distribute the URL (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk) of the LSEResearch Online website.
This document is the authors final manuscript accepted version of the journal article,incorporating any revisions agreed during the peer review process. Some differences betweenthis version and the published version may remain. You are advised to consult the publishersversion if you wish to cite from it.
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/researchAndExpertise/Experts/[email protected]://sts.sagepub.com/http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/097172180901400202http://www.uk.sagepub.com/http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/25640/http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/25640/http://www.uk.sagepub.com/http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/097172180901400202http://sts.sagepub.com/http://www2.lse.ac.uk/researchAndExpertise/Experts/[email protected]8/13/2019 The Evolution of Public Understanding of Science %28LSERO Version%29.Doc
2/20
1
TheEvolutionofPublicUnderstandingofScience
DiscourseandComparativeEvidence
MartinWBauer
LondonSchoolofEconomics,InstituteofSocialPsychology;
PapersubmittedtothejournalScience,TechnologyandSociety[6000words]
Abstract
PublicUnderstandingofScience(PUS)isafieldofactivityandanareaofsocialresearch.
Theevolutionof this fieldcomprisesboth thechangingdiscourseand thesubstantive
evidenceof
achanging
public
understanding.
i
In
the
first
part,
Iwill
present
ashort
account on how the discourse of PUS moved from Literacy, via PUS, to Sciencein
Society.Thisislessastoryofprogress,butoneoffalsepolemicsandthemultiplication
ofconcerns. Inthesecondpart, IwillshowsomeempiricalevidenceonhowPUShas
changedbydrawingonmassmediadataandlargescalecomparativesurveyevidence.I
concludebystressingthattheScienceSociety relationship isvariableboth indistance
betweenscienceandthewidersocietyandinthequalityofthisrelationship.
Socialpsychology
comes
to
this
field
of
societal
interest
not
by
conversion
from
anatural
sciencelabbench,butfromafocusoncommonsense,itsprocesses,structuresandfunctions.
Commonsensetakes inspiration frommanysources,andduringthe20th
centurysciencehas
become a very important, if not the most important inspiration of common sense. Thus the
problemofpublicunderstandingofsciencehingesonunderstandingcommonsense.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]8/13/2019 The Evolution of Public Understanding of Science %28LSERO Version%29.Doc
3/20
2
Like any social phenomenon, the public understanding of science is a matter of factual
description,butalsoofsocietaldiscourse.Theworldweliveandtakeforgrantedasnaturalis
raisedandsustainedthroughcommunication(seeLuckmann,1995).
Inaddressingtheevolutionofpublicunderstandingofscience(inshortPUS)Imustjuggletwo
balls:in
the
one
hand,
the
evolution
of
the
discourse,
in
the
other
the
empirical
evidence
of
changes inpublicunderstanding. Iwillendwithsomespeculationson the futureof research
intopublicunderstandingofscience. Iam inthesituationofanepidemiologistwho isasked:
arepeoplemoredepressedin2000thanwewerein1900?Heorsheispainfullyawarethatthe
definitionofdepressionhaschanged,andthatanychangeintherateofdepressionmightonly
reflectthechangeofdefinition.Itislikescoringagamewheretherulesfrequentlychange.
1.Evolution
of
discourse
Theacademic discussionsof publicunderstanding of science are increasingly reviewed. Iwill
basemystorylargelyonourrecentaccount(seeBauer,Allum&Miller,2007),mainlybasedon
theBritishexperienceoverthepast25+years:fromLiteracy,toPUS,toScienceinSociety.Each
of these phases is moved by a polemic, attributing a particular deficit, and encouraging
particular research questions and forms of interventions. Contrary to the rhetoric of
polemicists, this is not a narrativeof progress,butone of multiplicationofdiscourses. What
might look likeachronology in table1simply shows the relativeageofdiscourses; the later
doesnotentirelysupersedetheformer.
Scienceliteracy
Theideaofscientificliteracyseesscienceasanextensionofthequestforreading,writingand
numeracy.Furthermore, inademocracypeoplemakepoliticaldecisions;however,thepublic
voicecanonlybeeffectiveifcitizenscommandrelevantknowledge.Thus,ignorance,scientific
likepolitical,onlybreedsalienation,demagogyandextremism.
The literacy ideaattributesaknowledgedeficittothepublic.Thisdeficitmodelofthepublic
callsfor
increased
efforts
in
science
education.
However,
it
also
plays
into
the
hands
of
technocraticattitudesamongdecisionmakers:anignorantpublicisnotqualifiedtotakepartin
decisions.
An influential concept of science literacy includes four elements: (a) knowledge of basic
textbookfactsofscience, (b)anunderstandingofmethodssuchasprobabilityreasoningand
experimentaldesign,(c)anappreciationofthepositiveoutcomesofscienceandtechnologyfor
8/13/2019 The Evolution of Public Understanding of Science %28LSERO Version%29.Doc
4/20
science, and (d) the rejection of superstitious beliefs such as astrology or numerology. This
became the basis of the biannual science indicator surveys of the US National Science
Foundation(NSF)fromthelate1970sonwards.
Table 1: Different paradigms, problems and solutions
Period Attribution Strategy
Diagnosis Research
ScienceLiteracy Publicdeficit Measurementofliteracy
Knowledge Education
1960s1980s
PublicUnderstanding
Public
deficit
Know
xattitude
Attitudes Attitudechange
19851990s Education
PublicRelations
ScienceinSociety Trustdeficit Participation
Expertdeficit Deliberation
1990s present Notionsofpublic
Crisisofconfidence Angelsmediators
Impactevaluation
The measurement of factual knowledge is the key problem of this paradigm. Knowledge is
measured by quizlike items. Respondents are asked to decide whether a statement of a
scientificfactistrue,falseorwhethertheydontknow.Someoftheseitemshavetravelledfar
acrosstheglobe,andhitthenewsheadlines.
Criticshavearguedthattheessenceofscienceismethodandnotfacts.Thereforeawarenessof
issueslikeuncertainty,peerreviewing,thesettlingofscientificcontroversies,andreplicationof
experimentsshouldbereflectedintheassessmentofliteracy.
Since the 1970s many countries have undertaken audits of adult scientific literacy: USA,
Canada,China,
Brazil,
India,
Korea,
Japan,
Bulgaria,
Switzerland,
Britain,
Germany
and
France
andEUgenerallythroughEUROBAROMETER.Theanalysisofthesedataremainsproblematic.A
possible problem of any comparison remains the fairness of the indicator. Countries have
differentsciencebases,andliteracyreflectsthesesciencebases.Theissueofunbiasedliteracy
measuresdeservesmoreattention(seeRaza,Singh&Dutt,2002).
3
8/13/2019 The Evolution of Public Understanding of Science %28LSERO Version%29.Doc
5/20
4
Thecritiqueofthe literacyideafocusesonseveral issues.Whyshouldsciencedeservespecial
attention? What about flowerbinding? What about history,accountancy or law? Arguments
aboundforthesocietalsignificanceofothersthanscientificknowledge.Thecasefor science
literacyhasrecentlyseenarenaissancewiththeOECDefforts(seePISA,2006).Its2006survey
in70+countriesassessedtheperformanceonscienceandmathematicsamongthepopulation
inprimary
education.
This
is
likely
to
reopen
the
debate
on
adult
literacy.
PublicUnderstandingofScience
Inthesecondhalfofthe1980s,newconcernsemergeunderthetitlepublicunderstandingof
science.This transition ismarkedby the influential reportof theRoyalSocietyofLondonof
1985.Like theprevious literacyphase, thediagnosis isthatofapublicdeficit.However,now
attitudestoscienceareforegrounded.Thepublicdoesnotshowsufficientsupportforscience;
andthis isofconcerntoscientific institutions.TheRoyalSocietytooktheviewofmanyof its
membersandassumedthatbetterknowledgewillbethedriverofpositiveattitudes;hencethe
axiom:the
more
you
know,
the
more
you
love
it.
This research agenda moved away from knowledge to that of attitudes. The concern for
scientific literacycarriedovertotesttheexpectation themoreyouknow,themoreyou love
it.However,theemphasisshiftedfromathresholdmeasuretothatofacontinuum:oneisnot
literateor illiterate,butmoreor lessknowledgeable.Andthecorrelationbetweenknowledge
andattitudebecomesthemainfocusofresearch.Buttheexpectationthatbetterknowledge
drives positive attitudes is not confirmed. Although overall there may be some relation, on
controversialissuesthereisnocorrelationatall.Wellandlesswellinformedcitizensaretobe
foundoneithersideofthecontroversy.Socialpsychology,thoughnottheRoyalSociety,knows
forsometimethatknowledgeitnotadriverofattitude,butaqualityindex:attitudes,whether
positiveor
negative,
that
are
based
on
knowledge
are
held
more
strongly
and
thus
resist
change.Wellinformedandlesswellinformedcitizensmakeuptheirmindsdifferently,butdo
notnecessarilycometodifferentconclusions.
PUS research extended its concepts, methods and data. Attitudes to science may be part of
general political sophistication, a public resource not specific to science. The polemic over
public deficits also stimulated complementary data streams, such as qualitative discourse
analysesandmassmediamonitoring,whichreveallongtermtrendssuchasthemedicalisation
ofsciencenewsoverthelast30years(seeBauer,1998).
PUShadarationalistandarealistagenda.Fortherationalist,attitudesarisefrominformation
processingwitharationalcore. It isassumedthat ifpeoplehadallthe information,andwere
ableto
understand
probabilities,
they
would
be
more
supportive
of
science.
The
battle
for
the
publicisabattleformindswithmoreinformationandthecorrectstatisticalreasoning(i.e.risk
perception).
Fortherealist,attitudesareemotionalrelationswiththeworld.Howemotionsmayrelateto
rationality is a vexing question. Realists understand emotions with the logic of advertising.
Thus, the battle for the public mind becomes a battle for hearts. How to attract public
8/13/2019 The Evolution of Public Understanding of Science %28LSERO Version%29.Doc
6/20
5
attention?Theissuebecomesoneofsexingupevidence.Thepublicistheconsumerwhoisbe
seduced.Inthislog,thereislittledifferencebetweenscientificnewsandwashingpowder.
The critique of PUS again focused on the deficit models of knowledge or attitude: Negative
attitudesareneitheranexpressionof lackofknowledgenorofgoodjudgment.However,the
attribution of a publicdeficitexpresses the timidity or even institutional neuroticism (Brian
Wynne),the
diffuse
anxieties
and
condescendence
of
scientific
actors
vis
vis
the
public.
The
publicdeficitmodelis infactaselffulfillingprophecy:thepublic,apriorideficient,cannotbe
trusted.Mistrustonthepartofscientificactorswillbepaidback inkindwithpublicmistrust.
Negativepublicattitudesthenconfirmtheassumptionamongscientists:thepublicisnottobe
trusted.Thiscircularitycalledforsoulsearchingamongscientificactors.
ScienceinandofSociety
ScienceinSociety reversed the deficit idea: not with the public, but with the scientific
institutionsandtheiractorswhohavelostthetrustofthepublic.Evidenceofnegativeattitudes
toscience
during
the
BSE
crisis
(early
1990s),
the
debate
over
GM
food
(late
1990s),
and
diverse
social research led to the diagnosis of a crisis of confidence in the famous House of Lords
report of 2000. Science and technology stand in a relationship with society. A crisis of trust
indicatesabreachofcontractthatneedspatchingup.Falseconceptionsofthepublicoperate
among scientists and in policymaking, i.e deficit concepts of the public; and thesemisguide
communicationeffortsandinterventionsandalienatethepublicstillfurther.
Many ScienceinSociety activists are committed action researchers who do not separate
analysis from intervention. The aim is to change science policy. This agenda, academically
grounded as it may be, often ends up as political consultancy. Advice is offered on how to
rebuild public trust. Public deliberation and participation is the Lords road to rebuild trust.
Eventmaking
is
advocated:
hearings,
citizen
juries,
deliberative
opinion
polling,
consensus
conferencing, tables rondes,scopingexercises, science festivals,andnationaldebatesand so
forth.Astheseeventsarecostlyandrequireknowhowtoorganise,theybecometheremitof
private angelsratherthancivilservantsoracademics. Angelsareageoldgobetweens,but
herenotbetweenheavenandearthbutbetweenadisenchantedpublicandtheinstitutionsof
science, industry and policy making. Thus, an industry emerges that exudes confidence by
apparentlyknowinghowtoovercomethiscrisisofpublictrust.
The ethos of public participation was soon complemented by an ethos of evaluation. In the
utilitarian spirit of modern politics sooner or later the question arises: and what do these
scienceeventsbring(effectiveness)?Whatistheirvalueformoney(efficiency)?Arethereany
unintendedconsequences
that
are
better
avoided?
Ironically,toevaluateparticipatorypolicymakersreturntotraditional ideasofpublic literacy
of science research, running the risk of the reinventing the wheel of literacy, attitudes,
interests, and media attention, albeit this time for a different car, namely the evaluation of
publicdeliberation.The reentryofPUSvia thebackdoorofevaluation research is ironicbut
8/13/2019 The Evolution of Public Understanding of Science %28LSERO Version%29.Doc
7/20
6
unavoidable.Ispendmuchofmypublicspeakingremindingpeopleofwhatwealreadyknowin
ordertoavoidtheinefficienciesofreinventionthewheel.
2.Evidence
of
change
in
public
understanding
Inthiscontext,assessingtheevidenceofchangesinPUSbecomeshighlyrelevant.Iwillpresent
twokindsofdatastreams.Firstly,there istheevidenceforchanges inthepublicattentionto
sciencetakeninmassmediamonitoringoveralongerperiodoftime.Secondly,Iwillreporton
large scale comparisons for scientific literacy, attitudes and interest, across very different
contextsandovertime,from1989to2005inEurope.
TheFigure1showsthecoverageofscienceandtechnology intheBritishpressbetween1946
and1992(seeBaueretal,2006).Thisisastudywecompletedinmid1990sandsinceseekto
update.Among
other
things
we
asked
ourselves
how
much
science
coverage
there
was,
and
howdoesnewsrelatetoscience,positivelyornegatively.Thefigureshowsthatthepresenceof
scienceinthepublicisnotaconstant,norisitsevaluation.
Therearetwokindsofintensityfigures:oneistheestimateofabsolutenumbersofarticles,the
otherrelativetothenewsspacewhichexpandedenormouslysincethe1940swhentherewas
paperrationing.Publicattentionpeakedintheearly1960s,declinedintothe1970s,andseems
to recover since. The moving average is like a heat indicator of science. The relative figures
clearlymarkthepeakintheearly1960s,whichasitseemshasnotbeenrecoveredsince.
Figure 1: Science and technology in the British Press, 19461992: intensity and
evaluation(source:Baueretal,2006).
8/13/2019 The Evolution of Public Understanding of Science %28LSERO Version%29.Doc
8/20
-6.00
-5.00
-4.00
-3.00
-2.00
-1.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
1946
1950
1954
1958
1962
1966
1970
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
meanevalsco
re
index
Evaluationequallyfluctuates;however,notentirelyparalleltonewsintensity.Onlyinthe1950s
doesmuch
news
also
mean
good
news.
Here
we
are
in
the
post
war
era
and
its
enthusiasm
for
atomsforpeaceandtherolloutofcivilnuclearpowerthatcarriespublicopinion. Inthe2nd
halfofthe1960s,theBritishpressturnsmorescepticalandremainsso,onlytorecoveratrend
towardsmorepositivetoneintothe1990s.Itmightwellbethatthisshowstheinfluenceofthe
RoyalSocietys1985appealtomorecoverageandmorepositivecoverageonthepartofthe
massmedia.
Figure 2: Intensity of Biotech news in the British Press, 19732002: intensity and
evaluation(source:Bauer,2007;Gaskell&Bauer,2006).
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
100.00
1 1 1
1
1 1
evaluationstd
index1999=100
Salience
UKeval-std
The Figure 2 shows what happened since the 1970s: biotechnology news (answering to
keywords like genetics, genes,cloning,biotechnologyetc.) ina singleBritish newspaper (see
bar chart). Coverage reaches its peak in 1999 with the Great Food Debate over genetically
7
8/13/2019 The Evolution of Public Understanding of Science %28LSERO Version%29.Doc
9/20
8
modifiedcropsandderivedfoodstuffs.Ourscoreshowsmorethan1600referencesinadaily
paper inoneyear.Thiswasanewsevent, thoughnotat the levelofwar (Iraq)or terrorism
(NorthernIreland;911inNewYork;or705inLondon).
The line graphic shows the tone of the news, deviating from the overall positive average. It
showshighly
positive
news
in
the
early
1980s,
then
with
rising
news
intensity
the
declining
enthusiasmofcommentary.After1996,withthearrivalofgmcropsandDollythesheep,the
newsbecomesrathererratic,butstaysoverallwithamorescepticaltone. Thesetwographics
suggestisthefollowing:
TheflowofsciencenewsinBritishsociety,andprobablyelsewhereisnotaconstant
Theevaluationtoneofsciencenewsisequallynotaconstant.
Negativenewsisnotanexpressionofantiscientificcomplex:overallsciencenewsand
geneticnews
do
not
run
in
parallel.
They
do
from
1946
to
the
1970s;
since
they
part
ways. General science news becomes more positive again; biotechnology news is
treatedmoresceptical.
Contrary toassumptionsofanaturalcycleofpublicattention,sciencenewsdoesnot
move from initiallynegativenewsandpublicoutcry tomoreconsiderateandpositive
newswithtime(e.g.Haldane,1925).Tothecontrary:initialhype,aswithnewgenetics,
giveslaterwaytomoreconsideredcoverage.
IndustrialandPostindustrialPUS
Letusnowturntotheevidenceofchangingpublicunderstandingofsciencethatemergesfrom
comparativesurveyresearch.Someyearsago(seeBaueretal,1994)wantedtoputtorestthe
debatesovertheknowledgeattitudemodeloftheRoyalSociety:themoreyouknow,themore
youloveit.Thiswasnotsomuchafalseobservation,butonethatwasnotuniversallyvalid.We
calledourmodelthepostindustrialmodelofPUS:asasocietymoveslongtheaxialtransition
froman industrialtoapostindustrialandknowledge intensiveeconomy,thedistributionand
relationbetweenpeoplesknowledge,theirinterestsandattitudestosciencefalldifferently.
Figure3:ThecorrelationbetweenknowledgeandattitudetoscienceacrossIndiaand
Europe(source:NCAER2004&Eurobarometer2005).
8/13/2019 The Evolution of Public Understanding of Science %28LSERO Version%29.Doc
10/20
y = -0.1172x21.0966x - 1.4524 +
R20.2196 =
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0
Know
Att
iA
ArecentcollaborationwithIndiancolleaguesallowsustothroughtestthisidea.Wearedealing
with large scale observations of knowledge and attitudes in very different socioeconomic
contexts:30,
000
interviews
in
23
Indian
states
and
32,
000
interviews
across
32
Europe
states
andbeyond.Thisdatabaseallowsustomeasureboth literacyandattitudesand relate these
twomeasuresasnationalindicators.
TheresultsconfirmwhatwasinitiallyobservedacrossEuropeinaglobalcontext.Movingalong
thescaleofeconomicdevelopment,asindicatedbyGDPpercapita,peoplearegenerallymore
knowledgeableofscience,notleastbecauseeducationisthekeydriverofscientificliteracyand
economicdevelopment. Ifwecompare literacy levelswithaggregateattitudestoscience(see
Figure 3: two attitude items combined: S&T make our lives more comfortable, easier, and
healthier;Scientists
should
be
allows
to
experiment
on
animals),
we
find
the
non
linear
relationshipwhichwepredicted.Indialiesgenerallyontheleftsideofthedevelopmentscale,
Europeontherighthandside.As IndianStatesmoveuptheknowledgescale,sodopositive
attitudes; while in Europe more knowledge comes together with more sceptical attitudes.
Overall we can model this with an inverted Ushape relationship between knowledge and
attitudes.Itseemsthatsomewhereonthisaxialtransitiontheinversionoccurs:belowacertain
level knowledge drives positive attitudes, beyond that point, knowledge drives sceptical
attitudestowardsscience.Thisisonlycrosssectionalevidence,comparingEuropeanandnon
Europeancontexts.AconclusivetestofthepostindustrialPUShypothesis,adynamicmodel,
requireslongitudinal
evidence
in
any
one
of
these
contexts.
Figure4: thecorrelationbetweenGDPandendorsing the mythof science (source:
Eurobarometer2005)
9y = -2E-05x + 3.5346
R2 = 0.53
2.40
2.60
2.80
3.00
3.20
3.40
3.60
3.80
4.00
scient
ificideology
8/13/2019 The Evolution of Public Understanding of Science %28LSERO Version%29.Doc
11/20
10
EUROBAROMETER 63.1 (2005) included four propositions, each one of them expressing a
philosophicalpostulateofscience.Peoplewereaskedtoagreeordisagreewitheachofthem:
science isomnipotent,partofthesolutionnottheproblem,willonedayprovideacomplete
worldpicture,andshouldhavefullautonomy.Statistically,theseitemsformaconsistentscale,
positioningpeople
with
regard
to
and
ideology
and
myth
of
science.
Byplottingtheaveragescoresofscientificideologywefindanegativecorrelationwithlevelof
socioeconomic development across Europe. As economic development and science literacy
increases, belief in scientific ideology decreases (correlation is r = 0.74). The negative
correlationbetweenknowledgeandthemythofsciencealsoholdsatthe individual level (no
shownhere).InEuropeancountrieslowontheGDPscale,thecorrelationbetweenknowledge
andmythofscience ispositive themore literatethemoreyousubscribetothe ideologyof
science.As
you
move
to
the
higher
end
the
GDP
scale,
this
correlation
becomes
ever
more
negative:themoreyouknow,thelesslikelyyousubscribetoaviewthatscienceisomnipotent,
alwayspartofthesolution,willofferacompleteworldpicture,andshouldhavenoconstraints.
Ouranalysisofthesamedataalsoshows(notshownhere),thattherejectionofanideologyof
sciencegoestogetherwithautilitarianviewofscience:itdependsontheconsequences,case
bycase?
These comparisons show that for once and with regard to public understanding of
science, the Royal Societys 1985 view is not universally true, but particular. The
operationalaxiom
the
more
you
know,
the
more
you
love
it
might
be
correct
in
the
context of a developing and industrial society. But in the knowledge intensive post
industrial context this is no longer the case, rather: familiarity might breed (some)
contempt[oratleastascepticalloyalty].
8/13/2019 The Evolution of Public Understanding of Science %28LSERO Version%29.Doc
12/20
Furthermore, the educated publics of Europe are more and more sophisticated as to
theirimageofscience.Citizensarelessimpressedbyviewsofsciencewhichamountto
a modern myth of science. The more knowledgeable people are, the less they are
inclinedtoideologicalviewsofscience;theyassumeamoreutilitarianassessment.
Changesacross
Europe:
1989
to
2005
Whatistheevidenceoflongitudinalchange?IhaverecentlyembarkedtoconstructaEuropean
databaseofallcomparablesurveysofpublicunderstandingsincethe1970s.iiThisdatabasewill
allowus to lookat fourwavesofquestionsasked in12Europeancountries four times since
1989.Eachsurveycollected1000 interviewsacrossEU12andwehaveabout60comparable
questions.
Wecannowconstructagecohortsacross thesedifferentsurveys (technically speaking these
are quasicohorts because constructed expost). This means we regroup for each survey the
respondentsborn inaparticularperiodofEuropeanhistory.Acohort isdefinedasenteringa
systematthesametime.Thisgivesusavirtualviewofhistoricaldevelopmentsacrossdifferent
generationsandtheirexperiences.
We defined five cohort groups: Roaring 1920s, War&Crisis, Baby Boomers, Gen X and New
Order (seeappendix).Foreachofourvariablesknowledge, interestandattitudewecan
nowtracethevirtualtrajectorythroughfivegenerationsandcomparethesein12EUcountries.
Figure5:
Knowledge
of
science
and
generational
cohorts
(source:
Eurobarometer)
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
new ordergen XbabyboomCrisis&WarRoaring 20s
>19771963-761950-621930-49
8/13/2019 The Evolution of Public Understanding of Science %28LSERO Version%29.Doc
13/20
interestedinthemorerecentgenerations,astheycarrythetorchofthefuture.Theordering
between the countries seems to be rather different in GenerationX and New Order. For
exampleinItaly,thereisasignificantdeclineinscientificknowledgefromthegenerationofthe
1960s to that of the 1980s. In the UK, it seems that the Baby Boomers are the leaders in
scientific
literacy,
not
to
be
rivalled
by
later
generations.
Figure6:Interestinscienceandgenerationalcohorts(source:Eurobarometer)
'very interested in new scientific discoveries'
-0.60
-0.50
-0.40
-0.30
-0.20
-0.10
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
new ordergen XbabyboomCrisis&WarRoaring 20s
>19771963-761950-621930-4919771963-761950-621930-49
8/13/2019 The Evolution of Public Understanding of Science %28LSERO Version%29.Doc
14/20
13
Portuguese are on a bumper ride, the New Order with less positive attitudes than their
predecessors.OntheotherhandtheFrenchare inseculardeclinewiththeirpositiveviewof
science,thewargenerationbeingthemostpositiveofall.
These data show us diverse trajectories of PUS across the Europe EU12 with the following
conclusions:
Data integration carries enormous potential to create indicators of cultural, inter
generationaldynamics.
Thisdynamicsislikelytobedifferentindifferentcontextswhichwouldsuggestthatwe
aretappingintoascientificculturewithaspecificdynamicthatneedstobeexplained.
Knowledgeisoverallincreasingacrossthegenerationsinallcontexts;whiletheliteracy
ofdifferentgenerationsrankorderdifferentlyacrossdifferentcountries.
Interest isconvergingacrossgenerations.Somecountriesshowsseculardecline,while
othersecularincreaseinscientificinterest.
Attitude to science shows very diverse intergenerational dynamics in the different
countries.
3.Mappingtosocietalconversationofscience:distancesand
topography
Thepaperendswithsomespeculationonwherethisallmightleadtoandcometogether.The
publicunderstandingof sciencealwayshadadoublenature. It ison theonehanda fieldof
activityofoutreachfromsciencetothepublic.Thisincludestraditionalactivitieslikelecturing,
writing popular books and organising science museums, to making radio and television
8/13/2019 The Evolution of Public Understanding of Science %28LSERO Version%29.Doc
15/20
14
programmes,tomorerecentsciencecentres,cafescientifique,andconsensusconferencesand
deliberativeforumsoncontroversialmatters. Itseemsthatthisfieldofactivityhasexpanded
considerably over the last 10 or more years, internationally. On the other hand, public
understanding of science is a small field of social scientific research full of common sense
speculations.
After
all,
it
is
rather
difficult
to
step
out
of
common
sense
and
to
be
scientific
aboutcommonsense.
Facedwiththetaskofdescribingtheevolutionofpublicunderstandingofscience,onefacesan
evolutionwithtwostrands:Firstly,theevolutionofdiscoursefromScienceLiteracytoScience
& Society with its polemic over the notion of public deficits; secondly, the evidence on
substantivechangesinthepublicsrelationtoscience.
The presence of science in public conversations, as indicated by media presence, is not a
constant. It comes in waves, one in the 1950s and 1960s, and again since the 1990s to the
present.
The survey evidence shows that the public understanding of science might be significantly
different inan industrialdevelopingcontextandaknowledgeintensivedevelopedcontext. In
thelattermoreknowledgedoesnotbringmoresupportforscience,ratherutilitarianscrutiny,
andanendtowidespreadbeliefsinideologyandmythsofwhatsciencemightbe.
Contrary to the tenants of the public deficit idea, I do not consider a sceptical public as a
problem,ratherasaresourcethatneedstobemaintainedandinvestedin.Thisisparticularly
importantasevermorescienceconducted intheprivatesector,withinacommercial logic. In
thiscontext,
acritical
public
is
an
asset
rather
than
aproblem
for
the
future
of
science
(see
Bauer,2008;Bauer&Gregory,2007).
Buttoestablishwhatproportionofthepubliciscriticalofscience,andtospreadworryabout
this, has not been my purpose today. My main point is to demonstrate the viability of
indicatorsofpublicunderstandingof science,both in thecontextof largescale international
comparisons,butalso longitudinallyover time.Such indicatorsare importanttomapoutthe
changingrelationsbetweenscienceandsociety,whichisbothahistoricalandaglobalvariable.
This is very much the future of survey research in PUS. Surveys are ultimately, despite their
reputationastheGoldStandardofsocialresearch,justsnapshotsintime.Ifweareseriously
interesteddynamicsandprocesses,weneedtoconsiderrepeatedmeasuresandadvocatethe
survivalofsuchmeasuresinatimeofshortmemoryandshiftingagendas,butwealsoneedto
consider complementary data streams such as media monitoring and discourse mappings
(Bauer,Shukla&Allum,2007).
8/13/2019 The Evolution of Public Understanding of Science %28LSERO Version%29.Doc
16/20
15
It might be informative to go back toa classical text in the sociology of knowledge by Fleck
(1935)onthe makingofascientific fact.Flecksuggestedan imageofconcentricspheresof
science,similartoaplanetarysystemofacentreandcirculatingperipheries(seefigure8).With
thiscoreperipherymodelofscience,Fleckintimatesthatanesotericcentreofscientificactivity
is
surrounded
by
concentric
exoteric
genres
of
public
communication
such
as
handbooks
and
textbooks, popular science productions, mass media coverage of science and everyday
conversations. As we move from the esoteric to the exoteric spheres, things get simplified,
moreconcrete,andmorecertain injudgement,exactlywhatoneexpectspopular science to
do:tellushowthingsareorhowtheyarenot,theknownknownsandtheknownunknowns!
Flecksclaimsthatscientistsdependontheseexotericcirclesnotonlyforsociallegitimacybut
also forepistemicreassurance. Publiccommunication istheelixirof lifeofscience.Thusthe
publicopinionofscienceisnotanepiphenomenonofscientificactivitythatcanbeconsidered
ordismissedatawhim.Tocontrary it isacrucialfeatureof itsoperationsandaconditionof
continuity.It
is
also
important
to
recognise
that
this
Eso
Exo
relationship
cannot
be
accounted
forasmutualdeficits.Firstand foremost, relationshipsarecharacterisedby relativedistance
andqualityofconversations.Andthistopographymustbeourresearchfocus.
8/13/2019 The Evolution of Public Understanding of Science %28LSERO Version%29.Doc
17/20
Esoteric
core
Exoteric=PUS,publicopinion
Handbookcodification
Gradientof
Simplification
Iconicity,Concreteness
Certaintyofattitude&judgement
16
proliferation of scientific events. How do these events scale up from local activities to the
Figure8:concentricsphereofsciencecommunication(afterFleck,1935)
ThustheproblemofPUSresearchforthefuturewillbetomaptheesotericexotericdistanceof
the public conversation from science. To make this an informative exercise this must be an
internationalexercisebasedoncomparabledatastreams,likeEurobarometerhasachievedto
someextentacrossEurope.AtaconferenceinNovember2007attheRoyalSocietyinLondon,
an internationalteamofresearchersbeganto inventorytheexistingdatabasesandtoassess
theircomparability.
We
have
even
attempted
to
construct
aCultural
Indicator
of
Science
giving each country an index value similar to the Human Development Index (see Shukla &
Bauer,2007).Theideaofmeasuringaculturaldistancebetweenscienceandthepublic isnot
anentirelynew idea,butemerges fromdiscussionswith Indiancollagues (seeRaza,Singh&
Dutt,2002). Intimesuchmeasuresofdistancewillmakeusefultoolstoevaluatethecurrent
[controversialreception]
Pathofepistemic
legitimation
AEsoExodistancemetric? Politics
State
Economy
markets
citizens
education
consumers
Students
8/13/2019 The Evolution of Public Understanding of Science %28LSERO Version%29.Doc
18/20
17
ofrelationships,butdotheyreallyachievewhattheysetouttoachieve?This isaneminently
Likeotherrelationships,sciencesocietyisnotjustamatterofdistance,butalsooneofquality.
References
[for an extended list of references on the topic, see Bauer (2008) and Bauer, Allum & Miller
auer MW (2008) Survey research and the public understanding of science, in: M Bucchi & B
auer MW (2008) Paradigm change for Science Communication: Commercial Science needs a
auer MW (2007) The public career of genes trends in public sentiment from 1946 to 2002,
scientificcultureofthenationanditsconversations?Dotheyincreaseordecreasethescience
societydistance?Theseeventsaredesignedtodecreasedistanceandtocreateacertainquality
empirical question. Good intentions are no substitute for outcome monitoring. Like for any
strategicaction,
there
are
potential
unintended
negative
consequences
that
deserve
attention
(Weingart,2001).
Weneedtoexploreinsomedetailhowdifferentgroups,maybe inequidistancefromscience,
relate to its achievements and propositions. Here the analysis of generational cohorts in
differentcontextsmightbe theway forward.Knowledgematters,butdifferently indifferent
contexts.AhighlyeducatedpersoninIndia,TurkeyorBrazilmightrelatedifferentlytoscience
thanahighlyknowledgeablepersoninSweden,GermanyorItaly. Itwillbeakeyproblemfor
future
research
on
the
public
understanding
of
science
to
compare
the
social
representations
of
science across different milieus and historical contexts with all the available tools of social
researchandwiththenecessaryreserveofjudgment.
(2007)]
BTrench (eds) Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology, London,Routledge, p111-130.
BCritical Public, in: D Cheng, M Claessens, T Gascoigne, J Metcalfe, B Schiele, S Shi (eds)Science Communication in Social Context, New York, PCST/Springer, chapter 1, p7-25.
B
New Genetics and Society, 26,1, 29-45.
Bauer M (1998) The medicalisation of science news: from the rocket-scalpel to the gene-
meteorite complex, Social Science Information, 37, 731-751.
8/13/2019 The Evolution of Public Understanding of Science %28LSERO Version%29.Doc
19/20
18
Bauer MW, R Shukla & N Allum (2007) International indicators of science and the Public.Technical summary of the proceedings of an international workshop held at the Royal Society5/6 November 2007, London, LSE: http://www.psych.lse.ac.uk/socialpsychology/events/seminars/2007-08/SummaryRoyalSocietyws2007_PUS.pdf
Bauer MW, N Allum, and S Miller (2007) What have we learnt from 25 years of PUS research
liberating and widening the agenda, Public Understanding of Science, 15,1, 1-17.
Bauer MW & J Gregory (2007) From journalism to corporate communication in post-warBritain, in: Bauer MW & M Bucchi (ed) Science, Journalism and Society: ScienceCommunication Between News and Public Relations, London, Routledge, p33-52
Bauer MW, Petkova K, P Boyadjieva, G Gornev (2006) Long-term trends in the representationsof science across the iron curtain: Britain and Bulgaria, 1946-95, Social Studies of Science, 36,1, 97-129
Bauer M, J Durant and G Evans (1994) European public perceptions of science, International
Journal of Public Opinion Research, 6, 2, 163-186
Fleck L (1979 [1935]) Entstehung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache, Frankfurt, Suhrkamp.
Gaskell G & MW Bauer (eds) (2006) Genomic & Society. Legal, Ethical and Social Dimensions,London, Earthscan
Haldane JBS (1925) Daedalus, or Science and the Future, London, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner& Co.
Luckmann T (1995) Der kommunikative Aufbau der sozialen Welt und der
Sozialwissenschaften, Annali de Sociologia, 11, 45-71.
PISA, Programme for International Student Assessment (2006) Science Competencies for
Tomorrow's World, Paris, OECD
Raza, G, S Singh, and B Dutt (2002) Public, science and cultural distance, Science
Communicaiton, 23, 3, 292-309.
Shukla R & MW Bauer (2007) Science Culture Index Construction and Validation. A concept
paper; London & Delhi, LSE & NCAER.
Weingart P (2001) The loss of distance: science in transition, in: Allen GE and RM MacLoad
(eds)Science,HistoryandSocialActivism:atributetoEverettMendelsohn,Amsterdam,Kluver
AcademicPublishers,pp167184.
8/13/2019 The Evolution of Public Understanding of Science %28LSERO Version%29.Doc
20/20
19
Appendix
ThedefinitionandcharacterizationofagecohortsintheintegratedEurobarometerdatabase:
NewOrder,born>1977:this istheyoungestcohortofrespondents,growingupafter
theend
of
the
Cold
War
and
waking
up
to
the
rhetoric
of
the
new
world
order
and
the
finalvictoryofthecapitalistsstyleofeconomy,and livingthroughtherhetoricofanIT
andbiotech revolutionsofthe late20th
century.This isthegenerationofthePCand
interneteuphoriaof19952000.
GenerationXisthegenerationbornbetween1963and1976.Theyaretheoutcomeof
thebirthcontrol revolutionandgrowup through theoilcrisisof the1970s,and the
nuclearissuesofthe1980s,theantinuclearprotest,nucleararmamentdebatesandthe
StarWarsinitiative.
Babyboomers
are
born
between
1950
and
1962.
They
grow
up
in
the
optimism
and
modernisation drive of the postwar period. They witness the longest period of
economicprosperityinhistory.DuringthisperiodWesternsocietiesbecomesaffluent
and freeofmaterialconcerns.Thisgeneration istheprotestgenerationof the1970s,
with idealisticworldviews.Theyaremorescepticalwithregardtoprogressand its link
withscienceandtechnology.
War&crisiswerebornbetween1930and1949.ThisgenerationwitnessedWW2and
theformedtheimmediateafterwargenerationenteringtheColdWar.Thisgeneration
alsocarried
the
nuclear
enthusiasm
of
the
1950,
which
promised
ascientific
revolution
andenergytoocheaptometerintheatomicsociety.
The roaring 20s, finally is the generation born before 1930, growing up through the
buzzing period of the 1920s which ended in the big crash of 1929 and the economic
crisisthatfollowed.
iAn earlier version of this paper was presented as a public lecture on the occasion of the 20thanniversary of the
Science Day at the Spoleto Festival in Italy, 12 July 2005 sponsored by `Fondazione Sigma-Tau.iiThis is a project funded by the German data archive in Koln (GESIS) and integrates Eurobarometer surveys onperceptions of science from 1977 to 2005. The final database should be in the public domain later in 2009.