How Do People Think About the Science They Encounter in Fiction? Undergraduates investigate responses to science inThe Simpsons

Abstract

In this study, students and staff involved in an undergraduate science communication course investigated people's responses to a science-rich episode of the animated sitcom The Simpsons. Using focus groups, we sought to find out if and how the episode influenced our 34 participants' perceptions of science, but our results problematised the very notion of influence. People's responses to the science in the episode varied widely, and sometimes in contradictory ways, from some participants seeing no science at all in the episode to others seeing science as the ideological focus of the entire story. Participants' discussions were shaped and influenced by a myriad of factors, including their relationship to science and their personal and religious beliefs, but also historical discourses, political discourses, experiences watching other television programmes and other factors. We draw on the work of Roman Ingarden to suggest that people fill in or 'concretise' the ambiguities and gaps in a fiction text in ways specific to their personal, social, geographical and temporal context, resulting in different interpretations of the text's meaning with each fresh viewing. We conclude that a deficit model which assumes that people absorb fiction's content in a linear, passive and credulous manner is an inappropriate characterisation of how people process the science in fiction.

Popular culture and genetics; friend, foe or something more complex?

“…Here researchers and policy makers have raised concerns that exposure to science in popular culture leads to inaccurate beliefs (Marsh et al, 2003). As an example in 2000 the US National Science Foundation suggested that “fictional media have corroded the public's critical thinking skills and have hindered scientific literacy” (Kirby, 2000, p.262) and in 2010 the President of the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies stated that Australians' “worrying science literacy levels demonstrates that students have perhaps been learning about science through Jurassic Park instead of through the education system” (quoted in Orthia et al, 2012, p.150). Science in film has come under particular criticism.…”

How does science fiction television shape fans' relationships to science? Results from a survey of 575 ‘Doctor Who’ viewers

“…The rationale is sometimes practical: to explore how fiction can be used as a communication tool, particularly in health promotion which increasingly uses fiction to deliver health messages [Brodie et al, 2001;Davin, 2003;Hether et al, 2008;Howe, Owen-Smith and Richardson, 2002;Levy, 2015;Pelto and Singh, 2010;Smith, Downs and Witte, 2007]. Researchers have also investigated fiction's impact on audience engagement with climate change [Leiserowitz, 2004;Lowe et al, 2006]; genetic research [Donkers and Orthia, 2016;Kitzinger, 2010;Reid, 2012]; gender and science careers [Simis et al, 2015;Steinke et al, 2012]; and science more broadly, including understandings of the nature of science [Jackson, 2013;Li and Orthia, 2013;Li and Orthia, 2016;Myers and Abd-El-Khalick, 2016;Orthia, Dobos et al, 2012]. Some conclude fiction can be effective for imparting scientific information if it is relevant to the audience [e.g.…”

“…Levy, 2015;Smith, Downs and Witte, 2007]; it can influence attitudes towards matters like climate change or cloning, but not particularly strongly [Donkers and Orthia, 2016;Leiserowitz, 2004;Lowe et al, 2006;Reid, 2012]; it can sometimes shape characterizations of scientists and might role-model scientist careers, but there is sparse evidence [Li and Orthia, 2016;Simis et al, 2015;Steinke et al, 2012]; and it can sometimes awaken people's interest in science [Jackson, 2013;Li and Orthia, 2013]. Most studies suggest audiences process fictive content critically, fully aware it is fiction, and use it as a discursive resource to enrich discussions about science, rather than absorbing its messages wholesale [Green, 2019;Kitzinger, 2010;Orthia, Dobos et al, 2012]. Consequently, it seems that different people respond to a given text differently.…”

“…Many have taken the form of 'immediate reception' studies, evaluating the immediate impact of viewing or reading a fiction text, often in an artificial viewing/reading environment [e.g. Orthia, Dobos et al, 2012;Reid, 2012]. Some have followed up weeks or months later, to see if any impact was retained [Donkers and Orthia, 2016;Lowe et al, 2006], but only a few studies have analyzed the impact on participants of a fiction text they had become familiar with over a longer period [Davin, 2003;Li and Orthia, 2013;Li and Orthia, 2016;Smith, Downs and Witte, 2007].…”

Beyond Teaching and Learning: Bringing Together Science and Society with and through Movies

“…Hopefully, this trend will be underpinned by research on its effectiveness. Such research is still scarce and fragmented as excellently reviewed by Orthia et al (5), and opens a whole new field for science educators and communicators.…”