What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda

Abstract

This paper reviews key issues of public understanding of science (PUS) research over the last quarter of a century. We show how the discussion has moved in relation to large-scale surveys of public perceptions by tracing developments through three paradigms: science literacy, public understanding of science and science and society. Naming matters here like elsewhere as a marker of “tribal identity.” Each paradigm frames the problem differently, poses characteristic questions, offers preferred solutions, and displays a rhetoric of “progress” over the previous one. We argue that the polemic over the “deficit concept” voiced a valid critique of a common sense concept among experts, but confused the issue with methodological protocol. PUS research has been hampered by this “essentialist” association between the survey research protocol and the public deficit model. We argue that this fallacious link should be severed to liberate and to expand the research agenda in four directions: contextualizing survey research, searching for cultural indicators, integrating datasets and doing longitudinal analysis, and including other data streams. Under different presumptions, assumed and granted, we anticipate a fertile period for survey research on public understanding of science.

A service, rather than a threat, to the credibility of science

“…He assumes that this failure to hold what he considers to be the obviously correct view must be due to public ignorance or misunderstanding [8]. The results of this survey can instead be read as evidence that people are taking the time and effort to reflect properly on a question that is complicated and interest laden.…”

‘I have faith in science and in God’: Common sense, cognitive polyphasia and attitudes to science in Nigeria

“…But such surveys have been interpreted as the 'cognitive deficit approach' which contrasts scientists against less informed lay people (Wynne, 1982;Ziman, 1991). Bauer et al (2007) suggested a reframing of the knowledgeattitude problem recognising that information matters not only as the ability and motivation to process it (see also Sturgis and Allum, 2004), but also as a marker of quality of the attitude.…”

Naming is framing: the public understanding of scientific names

“…Central to the foundation of the public understanding of science approach in science communication is experts' assumption that unfavourable attitudes can be countered by providing knowledge, an assumption that remains popular today (Ahteensuu, 2012;Bauer, 2016). Educating the public, however, has proved ineffective in creating more favourable public attitudes (Bauer, Allum, & Miller, 2007). Another view that remains popular among experts is that people remain ignorant (or unknowledgeable) because they are too passive or too lazy to take an interest in science (Ahteensuu, 2012;Bucchi, 2008).…”

“…Second, the deficit model continues to remain popular among technical experts and policymakers (Kerschner & Ehlers, 2016). Consequently, much current science communication is still influenced by the deficit model (Miller, 2001;Bauer, Allum, & Miller, 2007;Durant, 1999;Bauer, 2016). …”

“…The deficit model has become very controversial (Bauer et al, 2007;Durant, 1999;see also Bauer, 2016). Those who object believe that it is undemocratic not to accept people's opinions but rather to call for education when the public hold different beliefs.…”