Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Since 2000, the UK government has funded surveys aimed at understanding the UK public’s attitudes toward science, scientists, and science policy. Known as the Public Attitudes to Science series, these surveys and their predecessors have long been used in UK science communication policy, practice, and scholarship as a source of authoritative knowledge about science-related attitudes and behaviors. Given their importance and the significant public funding investment they represent, detailed academic scrutiny of the studies is needed. In this essay, we critically review the most recently published Public Attitudes to Science survey (2014), assessing the robustness of its methods and claims. The review casts doubt on the quality of key elements of the Public Attitudes to Science 2014 survey data and analysis while highlighting the importance of robust quantitative social research methodology. Our analysis comparing the main sample and booster sample for young people demonstrates that quota sampling cannot be assumed equivalent to probability-based sampling techniques.

Keywords

public opinion public understanding of science survey methodology

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alves

Y-K

(2014) Accuracy evaluation of the unified p-value from combining correlated p-values. PLoS ONE 9(3): e91225. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0091225

American Psychological Association (APA) (2009) Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 6th edn. Washington, DC: APA.

APA Presidential Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice (2006) Evidence-based practice in psychology. American Psychologist 61(4): 271–285. Available at: https://www.apa.org/practice/resources/evidence/evidence-based-statement.pdf

Baker

Brick

Bates

Battaglia

Couper

Dever

. (2013) Report of the AAPOR task force on non-probability sampling. American Association for Public Opinion Research. Available at: http://www.aapor.org/AAPORKentico/AAPOR_Main/media/MainSiteFiles/NPS_TF_Report_Final_7_revised_FNL_6_22_13.pdf

Bauer

(2009) The evolution of public understanding of science—Discourse and comparative evidence. Science Technology & Society 14(2): 221–240. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1177/097172180901400202

Clark

(2014a) Engaging the public in science and engineering, 12 March. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/engaging-the-public-in-science-and-engineering–3 (accessed 18 August 2014).

Clark

(2014b) Engaging the public in science and engineering—Making informed science policy decisions, 12 March. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/engaging-the-public-in-science-and-engineering-3/supporting-pages/making-informed-science-policy-decisions (accessed 18 August 2014).

Dai

H (Daisy)

Leeder

Cui

(2014) A modified generalized Fisher method for combining probabilities from dependent tests. Evolutionary and Population Genetics 5: 32. Available at: http://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2014.00032

Falk

Osborne

Dierking

Dawson

Wenger

Wong

(2012) Analysing the UK science education community: The contribution of informal providers. London: Wellcome Trust. Available at: http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/stellent/groups/corporatesite/@msh_peda/documents/web_document/wtp040860.pdf

10.

Fang

Wit

(2008) Test the overall significance of p-values by using joint tail probability of ordered p-values as test statistic. In: Tang

Ling

Zhou

Cercone

(eds) Advanced Data Mining and Applications. Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 435–443. Available at: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-88192-6_41

11.

Fisher

(1932) Statistical Methods for Research Workers. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd.

12.

Good

(1955) On the weighted combination of significance tests. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B: Methodological 17(2): 264–265.

13.

Graphic Science (2014) What can we learn from the Public Attitudes to Science 2014 survey? 23 June. Available at: http://www.creststar.org/blog/what-can-we-learn-public-attitudes-science-2014-survey

14.

Guignard

Wilquin

J-L

Richard

J-B

Beck

(2013) Tobacco smoking surveillance: Is quota sampling an efficient tool for monitoring national trends? A comparison with a random cross-sectional survey. PLoS ONE 8(10): e78372. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0078372

15.

Hou

C-D

(2005) A simple approximation for the distribution of the weighted combination of non-independent or independent probabilities. Statistics & Probability Letters 73(2): 179–187. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.spl.2004.11.028

16.

Ipsos MORI (2014a) Public Attitudes to Science 2014: Main Report (Version 2). Available at: https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/pas-2014-main-report.pdf

17.

Ipsos MORI (2014b) Public Attitudes to Science 2014: Technical Report (Version 1.3). Available at: http://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/pas-2014-technical-report.pdf

18.

Irwin

(1995) Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development. London, UK: Routledge.

19.

Jensen

Holliman

(2015) Norms and values in UK science engagement practice. International Journal of Science Education—Part B: Communication and Public Engagement. Epub ahead of print 21 January. DOI: 10.1080/21548455.2014.995743.

20.

Jensen

Wagoner

(2009) A cyclical model of social change. Culture & Psychology 15(2): 217–228.

21.

Krippendorf

(2013) Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology, 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

22.

Lewenstein

(1992) The meaning of ‘public understanding of science’ in the United States after World War II. Public Understanding of Science 1(1): 45–68. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/1/1/009

23.

Miller

(1992) Toward a scientific understanding of the public understanding of science and technology. Public Understanding of Science 1(1): 23–26. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/1/1/005

24.

Miller

(2001) Public understanding of science at the crossroads. Public Understanding of Science 10(1): 115–120. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/10/1/308

25.

Neuendorf

(2002) The Content Analysis Guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

26.

Office of Science and Technology and Wellcome Trust (2000) Science and the public: A review of science communication and public attitudes to science in Britain. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/32583/wtd003419.pdf

27.

Silman

(2013) PAS 2014: Adopting the gold standard, 19 October. Available at: http://www.creststar.org/blog/pas-2014-adopting-gold-standard

28.

Smith

(2008) Is Random Probability Sampling Really Much Better than Quota Sampling (Unpublished Manuscript). Available at: http://ebookbrowsee.net/is-random-probability-sampling-really-much-better-than-quota-sampling-doc-d57750014

29.

Stephenson

(1979) Probability sampling with quotas: An experiment. Public Opinion Quarterly 43(4): 477–496.

30.

Stocklmayer

Bryant

(2012) Science and the Public—What should people know? International Journal of Science Education—Part B: Communication and Public Engagement 2(1): 81–101. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.543186

31.

Task Force on Non-Probability Sampling (2013) Executive Summary. American Association for Public Opinion Research. Available at: http://www.aapor.org/AAPORKentico/AAPOR_Main/media/MainSiteFiles/FINALLayman_TaskforceonNonprobabilitySampling07-21-13_withLOGO.pdf

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.

0.00 MB

0.35 MB