This paper finds that the Croatian public’s and the social elites’ perceptions of science are a mixture of scientific and technological optimism, of the tendency to absolve science of social responsibility, of skepticism about the social effects of science, and of cognitive optimism and skepticism. However, perceptions differ significantly according to the different social roles and the wider value system of the observed groups.The survey data show some key similarities, as well as certain specificities in the configuration of the types of views of the four groups – the public, scientists, politicians and managers. The results suggest that the well-known typology of the four cultures reveals some of the ideologies of the key actors of scientific and technological policy. The greatest social, primarily educational and socio-spatial, differentiation of the perceptions of science was found in the general public.
BakH.-J. (2001) “Education and Public Attitudes toward Science: Implications for the ‘Deficit Model’ of Education and Support for Science and Technology,” Social Science Quarterly82(4): 779–95.
2.
BauerM. W. (2003) “The Vicissitudes of ‘Public Understanding of Science’: From ‘Literacy’ to ‘Science in Society,’” in Science Meets Society: Conference held at Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, Lisbon, April 3 and 4, 2003, pp. 39–65. Lisbon: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian.
3.
BauerM. W.PetkovaK.BoyadjievaP. (2000) “Public Knowledge and Attitudes to Science: Alternative Measures that May End the ‘Science War,’” Science, Technology, & Human Values25(1): 30–51.
4.
BauerM. W.PetkovaK.BoyadjievaP.GornevG. (2006) “Long-Term Trends in the Public Representation of Science across the ‘Iron Curtain’: 1946–1995,” Social Studies of Science36(1): 99–131.
5.
BauerM. W.AllumN.MillerS. (2007) “What Can We Learn from 25 Years of PUS Survey Research? Liberating and Expanding the Agenda,” Public Understanding of Science16(1): 79–95.
6.
BecherT.TrowlerP. R. (2001) Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Culture of Disciplines. Buckingham and Philadelphia: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
7.
BourdieuP. (1991) “The Peculiar History of Scientific Reason,” Sociological Forum6(1): 3–26.
8.
BourdieuP. (2004) Science of Science and Reflexivity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
9.
ColeS. (1992) Making Science: Between Nature and Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10.
Crettaz von RotenF. (2004) “Gender Differences in Attitudes toward Science in Switzerland,” Public Understanding of Science13(2): 191–9.
11.
Da CostaA. F. (2004) “The Publics of Science in Portugal,” in Science Meets Society: Conference held at Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, Lisbon, April 3 and 4, 2003, pp. 15–26. Lisbon: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian.
12.
DurantJ.BauerM.GaskellG.MiddenC.LiakopoulosM.ScholtenL. (2000) “Two Cultures of Public Understanding of Science and Technology in Europe,” in DierkesM.von GroteC. (eds) Between Understanding and Trust: The Public, Science and Technology, pp. 89–107. London: Routledge.
ElkanaY. (1978) “Two-Tier-Thinking: Philosophical Realism and Historical Relativism,” Social Studies of Science8(3): 309–26.
15.
ElzingaA. (1984) “Scientism, Romanticism and Social Realist Images of Science,” in Essays on Scientism, Romanticism and Social Realist Images of Science, Report No. 143, pp. 1–49. Göteborg: Göteborg University, Institutionen for Vetenskapsteori.
16.
ElzingaA.JamisonA. (1995) “Changing Policy Agendas in Science and Technology,” in JasanoffS.MarkleG. E.PetersonJ. C.PinchT. (eds) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, pp. 572–97. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
17.
FuchsS. (1992) The Professional Quest for Truth: A Social Theory of Science and Knowledge. Albany: State University of New York Press.
FuchsS. (1996) “The Poverty of Postmodernism,” Science Studies9(1): 58–66.
20.
FuchsS. (1997) “A Sociological Theory of Objectivity,” Science Studies11(1): 4–26.
21.
GibbonsM.LimogesC.NowotnyH.SchwartzmanS.ScottP.TrowM. (1997) The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: SAGE.
22.
GonçalvesM. E.CastroP. (2003) “Science, Culture and Policy in Portugal: A Triangle of Changing Relationships?,” Portuguese Journal of Social Science1(3): 157–73.
23.
GonçalvesM. E.PatrícioM. T.Da CostaA. F. (1996) “Political Images of Science in Portugal,” Public Understanding of Science5(4): 395–410.
24.
HagendijkR. P. (2004) “The Public Understanding of Science and Public Participation in Regulated Worlds,” Minerva42: 41–59.
25.
HayesB. C.TariqV. N. (2000) “Gender Differences in Scientific Knowledge and Attitudes toward Science: A Comparative Study of Four Anglo-American Nations,” Public Understanding of Science9(4): 433–47.
26.
HodžićA. (2002) “Nastajanje političke elite u Hrvatskoj [The Making of the Croatian Political Elite],” in VujadinovićD.VeljakL.GoatiV.PavićevićV. (eds) Izmed-u autoritarizma i demokratije: Srbija, Crna Gora, Hrvatska. Institucionalni okvir, vol. I, pp. 95–118. Belgrade: CEDET.
27.
IngelhartR.BakerW. E. (2000) “Modernization, Cultural Change and the Persistence of Traditional Values,” American Sociological Review65(1): 19–51.
28.
IngelhartR.WelzelC. (2005) Modernization, Cultural Change and Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
29.
InönüE. (2003) “The Influence of Cultural Factors on Scientific Production,” Scientometrics56(1): 137–46.
30.
KallerudE.RambergI. (2002) “The Order of Discourse in Surveys of Public Understanding of Science,” Public Understanding of Science11(3): 213–24.
31.
Knorr-CetinaK. D. (1983) “The Ethnographic Study of Scientific Work: Towards a Constructivist Interpretation of Science,” in Knorr-CetinaK. D.MulkayM. (eds) Science Observed: Perspectives on the Social Study of Science, pp. 115–40. London: SAGE.
32.
Knorr-CetinaK. D.MulkayM. (1983) “Introduction: Emerging Principles in Social Studies of Science,” in Knorr-CetinaK. D.MulkayM. (eds) Science Observed: Perspectives on the Social Study of Science, pp. 1–17. London: SAGE.
33.
KrištofićB. (2005) “Inovacije u ‘društvu znanja’ [Innovations in the ‘Knowledge Society’],” in PrpićK. (ed.) Elite znanja u društvu (ne)znanja, pp. 93–120. Zagreb: Institut za društvena istraživanja u Zagrebu.
34.
LabusM. (2005) “Vrijednosne orijentacije i religioznost [Value Orientations and Religiosity],” Sociologija sela43(2): 383–408.
35.
LarsonE. J.WithamL. (1999) “Scientists and Religion in America,” Scientific American281(3): 88–93.
36.
LelasS. (1990) Promišljanje znanosti [Contemplating Science]. Zagreb: Hrvatsko filozofsko društvo.
37.
MaliF. (2009) “The Category of Scientific Objectivity in the Social Sciences,” in PrpićK. (ed.) Beyond the Myths about the Natural and Social Sciences: A Sociological View, pp. 247–74. Zagreb: Institute for Social Research.
38.
MertonR. K. (1974) The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
39.
MichaelM. (2002) “Comprehension, Apprehension, Prehension: Heterogeneity and the Public Understanding of Science,” Science, Technology, & Human Values27(3): 357–78.
40.
MillerJ. D. (2004) “Public Understanding of, and Attitudes toward, Scientific Research: What We Know and What We Need to Know,” Public Understanding of Science13(3): 273–94.
41.
NSF (National Science Foundation) (2002) Science & Engineering Indicators – 2002. Chapter 7. Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Public Understanding. Arlington: National Science Foundation. URL (consulted 14 February 2004): http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind04/pdf/c07.pdf
42.
PardoR.CalvoF. (2002) “Attitudes toward Science among the European Public: A Methodological Analysis,” Public Understanding of Science11(2): 155–95.
43.
PardoR.CalvoF. (2004) “The Cognitive Dimension of Public Perceptions of Science: Methodological Issues,” Public Understanding of Science13(3): 203–27.
44.
PardoR.CalvoF. (2006) “Mapping Perceptions of Science in End-of-Century Europe,” Science Communication28(1): 3–46.
45.
PrpićK. (2005) “Generational Similarities and Differences in Researchers’ Professional Ethics: An Empirical Comparison,” Scientometrics62(1): 27–51.
46.
PrpićK. (2007) “Changes in Scientific Knowledge Production and Research Productivity in a Transitional Society,” Scientometrics72(3): 487–501.
47.
RadinF. (2002) “Vrijednosne hijerarhije i strukture [The Hierarchies and Structures of Values],” in IlišinV.RadinF. (eds) Mladi uoči trećeg milenija, pp. 47–78. Zagreb: Institut za društvena istraživanja u Zagrebu – Državni zavod za zaštitu obitelji, materinstva i mladeži.
48.
RibasC.CáresJ. (1997) “Perceptions of Science in Catalan Society,” Public Understanding of Science6(2): 143–66.
49.
RimacI.ŠtulhoferA. (2004) “Socio-cultural Values, Economic Development and Political Stability as Correlates of Trust in the European Union,” in OttK. (ed.) Croatian Accession to the European Union, pp. 301–26. Zagreb: Institute of Public Finance – Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.
50.
SekulićD.ŠporerŽ. (2006) “Religioznost kao prediktor vrijednosnih orijentacija [Religiosity as a Predictor of Value Orientations],” Revija za sociologiju37(1–2): 1–19.
51.
SesardićN. (1991) Iz analitičke perspektive: ogledi o filozofiji, znanosti i politici [From Analytical Perspective: Essays on Philosophy, Science and Politics]. Zagreb: Sociološko društvo Hrvatske.
52.
SharfmanM. P.PinkstonT. S.SigerstadT. D. (2000) “The Effects of Managerial Values on Social Issues Evaluation: An Empirical Examination,” Business & Society39(2): 144–82.
53.
SlomczynskiK. M.Tomescu-DubrowI. (2006) “Representation of Post-Communist European Countries in Cross-national Public Opinion Surveys,” Problems of Post-Communism53(4): 42–52.
54.
ŠporerŽ. (2004) “Knowledge-based Economy and Social Capital in Central and Eastern European Countries,” in ŠvarcJ.LažnjakJ.ŠporerŽ.PolšekD. (eds) Transition Countries in the Knowledge Society: Socioeconomic Analysis, pp. 127–66. Zagreb: Institut društvenih znanosti Ivo Pilar.
55.
ŠtulhoferA. (2004) “Perception of Corruption and the Erosion of Social Capital in Croatia,” Politička misao41(5): 74–86.
56.
SturgisP.AllumN. (2004) “Science in Society: Re-evaluating the Deficit Model of Public Attitudes,” Public Understanding of Science13(1): 55–74.
57.
ŠvarcJ. (2009) Hrvatska u društvu znanja: prijepori i perspektive inovacijske politike [Croatia in a Knowledge Society: Controversies and Perspectives of the Innovation Policy]. Zagreb: Školska knjiga – Institut društvenih znanosti Ivo Pilar.
58.
WhitleyR. (1984) The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
