This paper discusses how insights from constructivist studies on the place of context, reflexivity, and framing in studies of public understanding of science may be applied within a survey framework. By emphasizing the role that images or ideologies of science play in science policy discourse, surveys are conceptualized as a means to map the social pervasiveness of such ideologies. It is argued that survey results may contribute to a broadening of the framework of science policy, if questions that explicitly reflect civic perspectives on science are included in survey questionnaires. An experiment with three non-standard questions in a Norwegian survey in 1999 on public understanding of science is seen to provide some empirical support for the viability of this approach.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
B. Wynne , “Public understanding of science,” in Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, eds. S. Jasanoffet al., (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1995). Passage quoted from p. 382.
2.
B. Wynne , “Public understanding,” p. 380.
3.
A. Irwin and B. Wynne, “Introduction,” in Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology, eds. A. Irwin and B. Wynne (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). Passage quoted from p. 10.
4.
B. Wynne , “Public uptake of science: A case for institutional reflexivity,”Public Understanding of Science2, no. 4 (1993): Passage quoted from p. 325.
5.
B. Wynne , “Public Uptake,” p. 324.
6.
B. Wynne , “Public understanding.”
7.
A. Irwin and B. Wynne, “Conclusions,” in Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology, eds. A. Irwin and B. Wynne (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). Passage quoted from p. 216.
8.
H. Brooks , The Government of Science (Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press, 1968).
9.
A. King , Science, and Policy: The International Stimulus (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1974). Main instruments in the construction of science as a separate object for political action were the development of systems for mapping national science (or research and development, or R & D) resources and the establishment of dedicated science policy institutions, such as research councils and science and technology policy advisory bodies.
10.
B. Wynne , “Knowledges in context,”Science, Technology, and Human Values, 16, No. 1 (1991): Passage quoted from p. 112.
11.
B. Wynne , “Knowledges in context.”
12.
M. Michael , “Lay discourses of science: science-in-general, science-in-particular, and self,”Science, Technology, and Human Values, 17, No 3 (1992): 313-333.
13.
H. Nowotny , P. Scott, and M. Gibbons, Re-Thinking Science. Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2000). Passage quoted from p. 193.
14.
D. Fairclough , Discourse and Social Change (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1992).
15.
M. Baueret al. , “Public knowledge of and attitudes to science: alternative measures that may end the science wars,”Science, Technology and Human Values, 25, No. 1 (2000): 30-51.
16.
Baueret al. , “Public knowledge,” p. 31.
17.
Baueret al. , “Public knowledge,” p. 34.
18.
see also: Andrew Jamison and Per Østby, eds., Public Participation and Sustainable Development. Comparing European Experiences (Aalborg: Aalborg University Press, 1999).
19.
Elzinga and Jamison, “Changing policy agendas in science and technology”, 575.
20.
Prior to this 1999 survey, Norway had conducted parallel surveys to the Eurobarometer surveys (see note 25) on biotechnology in 1993 and 1996 (as it did later for its 1999 follow-up). No general survey on the model used by the US since the early 1970s had been conducted until then in Norway. Interviewers from Statistics Norway (SSB) carried out this first general survey in March 1999. A random sample of 2000 persons between 16 and 79 years of age was drawn in two stages. Computer assisted, personal interviews of about 20 minutes were conducted with the net sample of 1260 persons. This survey was initiated by the Norwegian Institute for Studies in Research and Higher Education (NIFU) and financed by the Research Council of Norway.
21.
Eurobarometer has performed, as part of its general program of opinion surveys in EU member countries, surveys of public perceptions of biotechnology in 1993, 1996 and 1999. An analysis of its results, along with other empirical research on European and North-American opinion on biotechnology, may be found in Biotechnology 1996-2000: The Years of Controversy, eds. G. Gaskell and M. Bauer (London: National Museum of Science and Industry, 2001).
22.
J. Durantet al. , “Two cultures of public understanding of science and technology in Europe,” in Between Understanding and Trust. The Public, Science and Technology, eds. M. Dierkes and C. von Grote (Amsterdam: Harwood Academic, 2000) 131-156; passage quoted from pp. 138-139.
23.
M. Lund , T. H. Nielsen, and K. K. Skjåk, Norwegian Attitudes to Biotechnology, Parallel Surveys to Eurobarometers in 1993, 1994, and 1999 (Bergen: NSD Rapport 118, 2000).
24.
and in I. Ramberg, T. H. Nielsen and E. Kallerud, Befolkningens forhold til forskning, vitenskap og teknologi. Resultater fra en norsk intervjuundersøkelse (The Population's Relationship with Research, Science and Technology. Results from a Norwegian Survey) (Oslo: NIFU Rapport 2/2001, 2001).
25.
In the 1999 survey, an index of knowledge was constructed on the basis of the number of correct answers given to three separate batteries of knowledge items, 21 items in total. Included were items on scientific constructs (11 questions, e.g.: “Are electrons smaller than atoms?”“Do lasers work by focusing sound waves?”“Do antibiotics kill viruses as well as bacteria?”), and scientific method (two questions about statistical probability and scientific testing) that are usually used in surveys of public understanding of science, as well as eight items adapted from The International Social Survey Programme's on Attitudes towards the Environment (1993). These include items on more applied or contextual issues, such as radiation and radioactive waste, the greenhouse effect and cancer caused by pesticides in food. An index of knowledge was constructed assigning each correct answer one point. The total score variable was recoded into four categories. More incorrect and don't know answers were given to the items on scientific constructs. The results from the aggregate index based on all 21 items do not, however, deviate strongly from knowledge indexes based on narrower sets of knowledge items.
26.
A fourth item not relevant for this analysis was also part of this set of items.
27.
It can be argued that results from the attitude items of public understanding of science surveys are particularly sensitive to the phrasing of the questions, since they concern marginal issues on which few have a specific and well thought through position beforehand. The phrasing of these questions in terms of alternative positions in an imaginary debate may stimulate reflection, and hence be a viable alternative standard Likert-items for eliciting attitudes.
28.
The results from item 1 (trustworthiness of science) form a somewhat deviant pattern compared to that of the socio-political index when cross-tabulated with the knowledge/literacy indicator. Even though the most knowledgeable group (score 18-21) has the most critical views on trustworthiness, the least knowledgeable group (scores 0-5) on the other hand shows a relative high degree of trust (24 percent) compared to the rather low emphasis on socio-political embeddedness for the same group (17 percent).
29.
H. Peter Peters , “From information to attitudes. Thoughts on the relationship between knowledge about science and technology and attitudes towards technologies,” in Between Understanding and Trust. The Public, Science and Technology, eds. M. Dierkes and C. von Grote (Amsterdam: Harwood Academic, 2000), 281.
30.
Jon Miller , “The measurement of civic scientific literacy,”Public Understanding of Science7, No. 3 (1998): 203-223.
