Though there have been several indicator systems to monitor the status quo of science and technology and of scientific literacy, few are especially designed for science culture, especially for its social dimension. Furthermore there is little agreement on how to measure it. In a previous study, an indicator system, SCI (Science Culture Indicators), had been developed to monitor the status quo of the science culture of a nation at both individual and social dimensions. The purpose of this study was to explore a practical way to measure and compare local cities’ social foundation of science culture by revising and standardizing the social dimension of SCI and by applying it to five metropolitan cities in Korea. Despite some limits, the results of this study appear not only to reflect the cities’ current situations but also to show the strength and weakness of their social foundation of science culture.
AllumNSturgisPTabouraziDBrunton-SmithI (2008) Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: A meta-analysis. Public Understanding of Science17(1): 35–54.
2.
BauerMWPetkovaKBoyadjievaP (2000) Public knowledge of and attitudes to science: Alternative measures thatmayend the “science war.”Science, Technology, & Human Values25(1): 30–51.
3.
BauerMWAllumNMillerS (2007) What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science16(1): 79–95.
4.
BurnsTWO’ConnorDJStocklmayerSM (2003) Science communication: A contemporary definition. Public Understanding of Science12(2): 183–202.
5.
CorriganDDillonJGunstoneR (eds) (2007) The Re-Emergence of Values in Science Education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
6.
DeBoerGE (2000) Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching37(6): 582–601.
7.
DurantJREvansGAThomasGP (1989) The public understanding of science. Nature340: 11–14.
8.
EdwardsC (2004) Evaluating European public awareness of science initiatives. Science Communication25(3): 260–271.
9.
European Commission (EC) (2005a) Special Eurobarometer 224: Europeans, Science and Technology. Brussels: European Commission.
10.
European Commission (EC) (2005b) Special Eurobarometer 225: Social Values, Science and Technology. Brussels: European Commission.
11.
FalkJH (2001) Free-Choice Science Education: How We Learn Science Outside of School. New York: Teachers College Press.
12.
GodinBGingrasY (2000) What is scientific and technological culture and how is it measured? A multidimensional model. Public Understanding of Science9(1): 43–58.
13.
JegedeOJ (1997) School science and the development of scientific culture: A review of contemporary science education in Africa. International Journal of Science Education19(1): 1–20.
14.
JenkinsEWPellRG (2006) The Relevance of Science Education (ROSE) Project in England: A Summary of Findings. Leeds: Centre for Studies in Science and Mathematics Education, University of Leeds.
15.
KimH-S (2007) PEP/IS: A new model for communicative effectiveness of science. Science Communication28(3): 287–313.
16.
Korea Science Foundation (KSF) (2006) Report of Public Understanding of Science and Technology. Seoul: Korea Science Foundation.
17.
LaugkschRC (2000) Science literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education84(1): 71–94.
18.
LaugkschRCSpargoPE (1996) Construction of a paper-and-pencil Test of Basic Scientific Literacy based on selected literacy goals recommended by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Public Understanding of Science5(4): 331–359.
19.
MillerJD (1998) The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding of Science7(3): 203–223.
20.
MillerJD (2004) Public understanding of, and attitudes toward, scientific research: What we know and what we need to know. Public Understanding of Science13(3): 273–294.
21.
Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism (MCST) (2002) The Development of Cultural Index 2002. Seoul: Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism.
22.
National Institute of Science and Technology Policy (NISTEP) (2004) Science and Technology Indicators: 2004, A Systematic Analysis of Science and Technology Activities in Japan. Tokyo: NISTEP.
23.
National Science Foundation (NSF) (2006a) Science and Engineering Indicators 2006: Volume 1. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
24.
National Science Foundation (NSF) (2006b) Science and Engineering Indicators 2006: Volume 2. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
25.
PardoRCalvoF (2002) Attitudes toward science among the European public: A methodological analysis. Public Understanding of Science11(2): 155–195.
26.
RennieLJ (2007) Learning science outside of school. In: AbellSKLedermanNG (eds) Handbook of Research on Science Education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 125–167.
RothWMLeeS (2002) Scientific literacy as collective praxis. Public Understanding of Science11(1): 33–56.
29.
SchreinerCSjobergS (2006) The Relevance of Science Education (ROSE). Oslo: University of Oslo.
30.
ShuklaRBauerMW (2009) Construction and validation of “science culture index.” Results from comparative analysis of engagement, knowledge and attitudes to science: India and Europe. Working Paper No. 100. London: Royal Society.
31.
SnowCP (1959) The Two Cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32.
SolomonJ (1997) School science and the future of scientific culture. In: LevinsonRThomasJ (eds) Science Today: Problem or Crisis?London: Routledge, 151–162.
33.
SongJ (2010) Rethinking the context and social foundation of science education. In: LeeYJ (ed.) Handbook of Research in Science Education in Asia. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 155–169.
34.
SongJChoS (2004) Yet another paradigm shift? From minds-on to hearts-on. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education24(1): 129–145.
35.
SongJChoiJKimHChungMLimJChoS (2008) Developing the indicator system for diagnosing the national status quo of science culture. Journal of Korean Association for Science Education28(4): 316–330.
36.
StocklmayerSMGoreMMBryantC (eds) (2001) Science Communication in Theory and Practice. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
37.
TreiseDWeigoldMF (2002) Advancing science communication: A survey of science communicators. Science Communication23(3): 310–322.
38.
TurnerS (2008) School science and its controversies; or whatever happened to scientific literacy?Public Understanding of Science17(1): 55–72.
39.
UNDP (2007/2008) Human Development Report 2007/2008. New York: United Nations Development Programme.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
