A central issue to emerge from recent research into the public understanding of science concerns the methods of study adopted. A distinction is made here between the public understanding of science (meaning knowledge of scientific orthodoxy), and the public understanding of science (meaning what people take `science' to mean). This is used to consider the case of creation science, which is analysed using the method of discourse analysis developed initially by Gilbert and Mulkay. It is shown that creationists appear to employ similar discursive techniques and resources—supplemented by their alternative beliefs—to those used by orthodox scientists. Whilst acknowledging limitations of the creationist case, it is argued that it is sufficient to show the value of methods of study that are sensitive to possible contextual variations in the public understanding of science. It is suggested that more research of this nature is needed to determine the extent to which science is used as a resource of accounting, both alone and in conjunction with alternative discursive resources.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
This has now been completed in the form of a PhD thesis: Locke, S., 1994, Rationalisation or resource? A study of the use of scientists' discourse by the Creation Science Movement in Britain (University of Leicester).
2.
Gilbert, G. N. , and Mulkay, M., 1984, Opening Pandora's Box: a Sociological Analysis of Scientists' Discourse (Cambridge University Press).
3.
Wooffitt, R. , 1992, Telling Tales of the Unexpected: the Organization of Factual Discourse (Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf).
4.
Wallis, R. , 1979, On the Margins of Science: the Social Construction of Rejected Knowledge (University of Keele).
5.
Evans, G. , and Durant, J., 1989, Understanding of science in Britain and the USA. British Social Attitudes: Special International Report, edited by R. Jowell, S. Witherspoon, and L. Brook (Aldershot: Gower), pp. 105-119.
6.
The Royal Society , 1985, The Public Understanding of Science (London: Royal Society).
7.
and Zhang, Z., and Zhang, J., 1993, A survey of public scientific literacy in China. Public Understanding of Science, 2, 21-38.
8.
A comparable distinction is to be found in the literature on risk. See Hornig, S., 1993, Reading risk: public response to print media accounts of technological risk. Public Understanding of Science, 2, 91-109.
9.
Evans, G. , and Durant, J., 1989, Understanding of science in Britain and the USA. British Social Attitudes: Special International Report, edited by R. Jowell, S. Witherspoon, and L. Brook (Aldershot: Gower), p. 114.
10.
For ease of expression, in this paper, I use the terms `creationism/-ists' interchangeably with `creation science/scientists'. Strictly speaking the terms do not necessarily have to refer to the same groups, the former being much broader than the latter. See Toumey, C. P., 1991, Modern creationism and scientific authority. Social Studies of Science, 21, 681-699.
11.
Evans, G. , and Durant, J., 1989, Understanding of science in Britain and the USA. British Social Attitudes: Special International Report, edited by R. Jowell, S. Witherspoon, and L. Brook (Aldershot: Gower), p. 114. One presumes that by `cosmologists', they mean cosmologists in the Western scientific tradition.
12.
It is worth noting that Evans and Durant include a similar statement, `The earliest humans lived at the same time as the dinosaurs', with a `true or false' response option as part of the test of scientific `knowledge' in an earlier section of the same survey. See Evans, G., and Durant, J., 1989, Understanding of science in Britain and the USA. British Social Attitudes: Special International Report, edited by R. Jowell, S. Witherspoon, and L. Brook (Aldershot: Gower), p. 110.
13.
McKinley, A. , and Potter, J., 1987, Model discourse: interpretative repertoires in scientists' conference talk. Social Studies of Science, 17, 443-463.
14.
Potter, J. , and Wetherell, M., 1987, Discourse and Social Psychology (London: Sage), p. 150.
15.
Gilbert, G. N. , and Mulkay, M., 1984, Opening Pandora's Box: a Sociological Analysis of Scientists' Discourse (Cambridge University Press), p. 57.
16.
Gilbert, G. N. , and Mulkay, M., 1984, Opening Pandora's Box: a Sociological Analysis of Scientists' Discourse (Cambridge University Press), p. 56.
17.
Mulkay, M. , 1985, The Word & the World: Explorations in the Form of Sociological Analysis (London: Allen & Unwin).
18.
Numbers, R. L. , 1987, The creationists. Zygon, 22, 133-165.
19.
Bruce, S. , 1988, The Rise & Fall of the New Christian Right: Conservative Protestant Politics in America 1978-1988 (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
20.
Shermer, M. B. , 1991, Science defended, science defined: the Louisiana creationism case. Science, Technology & Human Values, 16, 517-539.
21.
Nelkin, D. , 1979, Science, technology and political conflict: analyzing the issues. Controversy: Politics of Technical Decisions, edited by D. Nelkin (London: Sage), pp. 9-22.
22.
Godfrey, L. R. , 1983, Scientists Confront Creationism (London: W. W. Norton).
23.
Hess, D. J. , 1993, Science in the New Age: the Paranormal, its Defenders and Debunkers, and American Culture (London, Madison WI: University of Wisconsin Press).
24.
So Eileen Barker has informed me by private letter.
25.
Turner, C. E. A. , 1982, A Jubilee of Witness for Creation against Evolution by CSM/EPM 1932-1982. Pamphlet 232 (Portsmouth: Creation Science Movement).
26.
Barker, E. , 1985, Let there be light: scientific creationism in the twentieth century. Darwinism & Divinity: Essays on Evolution and Religious Belief, edited by J. Durant (Oxford: Basil Blackwell), pp. 181-204.
27.
Private communication.
28.
Locke, S., 1994, Rationalisation or resource? A study of the use of scientists' discourse by the Creation Science Movement in Britain (PhD thesis, University of Leicester).
29.
Gish, D. T. , 1975, Creation, Evolution and Public Education. Pamphlet 210, edited by C. E. A. Turner (Portsmouth: Creation Science Movement), pp. 3-4.
30.
Cooper, W. R. , 1986, Miocene Man (revised edition). Pamphlet 234 (Portsmouth: Creation Science Movement), p. 1.
31.
Cooper, W. , and Bowden, M., 1985, More on `Miocene Man'. Pamphlet 244 (Portsmouth: Creation Science Movement), pp. 1-2.
32.
Cooper, W. , and Bowden, M., 1985, More on `Miocene Man'. Pamphlet 244 (Portsmouth: Creation Science Movement), p. 3.
33.
Cooper, W. R. , 1986, Miocene Man (revised edition). Pamphlet 234 (Portsmouth: Creation Science Movement), p. 2.
34.
Locke, S., 1994, Rationalisation or resource? A study of the use of scientists' discourse by the Creation Science Movement in Britain (PhD thesis, University of Leicester), Chap. 5.
35.
Wakeley, C. P. G. , 1980, A Surgeon Looks at Evolution. Pamphlet 223 (Portsmouth: Creation Science Movement), pp. 3-4.
36.
Curtis, D. , 1991, Dinosaurs. Pamphlet 275 (Portsmouth: Creation Science Movement), p. 4.
37.
Raup, D. M. , 1983, The geological and paleontological arguments of creationism. Scientists Confront Creationism, edited by L. R. Godfrey (London: W. W. Norton), pp. 147-162. Emphases added.
38.
Durant, J. , Evans, G., and Thomas, G., 1992, Public understanding of science in Britain: the role of medicine in the popular representation of science. Public Understanding of Science, 1, 161-182.
39.
Nelkin, D. , 1979, Controversy: Politics of Technical Decisions (London: Sage).
40.
See Gilbert, G. N., and Mulkay, M., 1983, In search of the action. Accounts & Action: Surrey Conferences on Sociological Theory and Method 1, edited by G. N. Gilbert and P. Abell (Aldershot: Gower), pp.8-34.
41.
Lessl, T. M. , 1988, Heresy, orthodoxy and the politics of science. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 74, 18-34.
42.
Barker, E. , 1985, Let there be light: scientific creationism in the twentieth century. Darwinism & Divinity: Essays on Evolution and Religious Belief, edited by J. Durant (Oxford: Basil Blackwell), pp. 181-204.
43.
For example, it has been suggested to me, by Mike Hawkins, that the uniqueness of science may rest precisely in its exclusion of any criteria of validation apart from empirical and rational ones. Creationism, with its appeal to a moral authority, would be excluded from science for this reason alone, regardless of the adequacy or otherwise of any empirical claims made. To pursue this issue further would require extensive study of the kinds of contingent criteria scientists make use of, to see if any of these are viewed as moral arguments by the actors themselves. This is not a task for the present paper. however.
44.
Evans, G. , and Durant, J., 1989, Understanding of science in Britain and the USA. British Social Attitudes: Special International Report, edited by R. Jowell, S. Witherspoon, and L. Brook (Aldershot: Gower), pp. 105-119.
