Attitudes towards science among Spanish citizens: The case of critical engagers

Abstract

Using data obtained from Spanish surveys on the public perception of science, this article presents a critical review of current practices of population profile segmentation, including the one-dimensional representation of perceived risks and benefits and of the systematic underestimation of critical attitudes to the social impact of science and technology. We use discriminant analysis to detect a somewhat hidden cluster in the Spanish population which we call ‘critical engagers’. These individuals are critically and socially responsible and are not reticent about expressing concern regarding scientific-technological change. While they hold an overall positive attitude towards change of this kind, they are at the same time well aware of the risks posed by particular fields of application. We highlight the academic interest and political value of these individuals, attributing to this population a mature and intelligent stance which may well be employed in enhancing the relationship between science and society.

Keywords

critical engagers risk/benefit perception scientific culture

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bauer

(2008) Paradigm change for science communication: Commercial science needs a critical public. In: Cheng

Claessens

Gascoigne

Metcalfe

Schiele

Shi

(eds) Communicating Science in Social Contexts: New Models, New Practices. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 7–25.

Bauer

(2009) The evolution of public understanding of science – Discourse and comparative evidence. Science, Technology & Society 14(2): 221–240.

Bauer

Howard

(2013) The Culture of Science in Modern Spain: An Analysis of Public Attitudes across Time, Age Cohorts and Regions. Madrid: BBVA Foundation.

Bauer

Allum

Miller

(2007) What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science 16: 79–95.

BBVA Foundation (2012) Estudio Internacional de ‘Cultura Científica’ de la Fundación BBVA (BBVA Foundation international study of ‘Scientific Culture’). Madrid: BBVA Foundation.

Binder

Cacciatore

Scheufele

Shaw

Corley

(2012) Measuring risk/benefit perceptions of emerging technologies and their potential impact on communication of public opinion toward science. Public Understanding of Science 21: 830–847.

Callon

Rabeharisoa

(2008) The growing engagement of emergent concerned groups in political and economic life: Lessons from the French association of neuromuscular disease patients. Science, Technology & Human Values 33: 230–261.

Cámara Hurtado

López Cerezo

(2012) Political dimensions of scientific culture: Highlights from the Ibero-American survey on the social perception of science and scientific culture. Public Understanding of Science 21(3): 369–384.

Cámara Hurtado

López Cerezo

(2014) Cultura Científica y Percepción del Riesgo. In: Laspra

Muñoz

(eds) Culturas Científicas e Innovadoras. Progreso social (Scientific culture and risk perception / Scientific and innovative cultures. Social Progress). Buenos Aires: Eudeba.

10.

Cámara Hurtado

López Cerezo

(2015) La población española ante el riesgo y las aplicaciones de la ciencia. El caso de los procientificos moderados, FECYT Percepción Social de la Ciencia y la Tecnología en España 2014 (The Spanish population before risk and applications of science. The case of moderate pro-scientists / Social perception of science and technology in Spain 2014). Madrid: FECYT.

11.

Cohen

(1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edn. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

12.

Hair

Anderson

Tatham

Black

(1998) Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th edn. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

13.

House of Lords (2000) Science and Technology – Third Report. London: Stationery Office. Available at: https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldselect/ldsctech/38/3802.html (accessed 6 March 2014).

14.

Ipsos MORI (2014) Public Attitudes to Science 2014. Available at: https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/pas-2014-main-report.pdf (accessed 26 May 2015).

15.

Jasanoff

(2005) Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

16.

Jasanoff

(2014) A mirror for science. Public Understanding of Science 23: 21–26.

17.

Kahneman

(2011) Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

18.

Miller

(2004) Public understanding of, and attitudes toward, scientific research: What we know and what we need to know. Public Understanding of Science 13: 273–294.

19.

Miller

(2012) What colleges and universities need to do to advance civic scientific literacy and preserve American democracy. Liberal Education 98(4): 28–33.

20.

Miller

Pardo

Niwa

(1998) Public Perceptions of Science and Technology. Bilbao: Foundation BBV.

21.

Muñoz van Den Eynde

(2013) Diez Años de Encuestas de Percepción Social de la Ciencia y la Tecnología en España. ¿Ha Cambiado la Actitud de la Población? FECYT (Ten years of surveys of social perception of science and technology in Spain. There has been a change in the attitude of the population? / Social perception of science and technology in Spain 2012).

22.

Muñoz van Den Eynde

Luján

(2014) Sobre los determinantes de la percepción social de la ciencia. Una propuesta metodológica. In: Laspra

Muñoz

(eds) Culturas Científicas e Innovadoras. Progreso Social (In favour of more investment by central government). Buenos Aires: Eudeba, pp. 139–158.

23.

Pardo

Calvo

(2002) Attitudes toward science among the European public: A methodological analysis. Public Understanding of Science 11: 155–195.

24.

Petersen

(ed.) (1984) Citizen Participation in Science Policy. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.

25.

Poortinga

Pidgeon

(2003) Exploring the Dimensionality of Trust in Risk Regulation. Risk Analysis 23(5): 961–972.

26.

Seidl

Moser

Stauffacher

Krütli

(2013) Perceived risk and benefit of nuclear waste repositories: Four opinion clusters. Risk Analysis 33(6): 1038–1048.

27.

Shrader-Frechette

(1985) Science Policy, Ethics, and Economic Methodology. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.

28.

Slovic

(2000) The Perception of Risk. London: Earthscan.

29.

Spanish Foundation for Science and Technology (FECYT) (2015) Percepción Social de la Ciencia y la Tecnología en España 2002–2014 (Social perception of science and technology in Spain 2014). Madrid: FECYT.

30.

Sturgis

Smith

(2010) Assessing the validity of generalized trust questions: What kind of trust are we measuring? International Journal of Public Opinion Research 22(1): 74–92.

31.

Sturgis

Roberts

Smith

(2014) Middle alternatives revisited: How the neither/nor response acts as a way of saying ‘I Don’t Know’? Sociological Methods & Research 43(1): 15–38.

32.

Todt

Luján

(1997) Labelling of novel foods and public debate. Science and Public Policy 24: 319–326.

33.

Tourangeau

Rips

Rasinski

(2000) The Psychology of Survey Response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

34.

Wilsdon

Wynne

Stilgoe

(2005) The Public Value of Science. London: Demos.

35.

Wynne

(1993) Public uptake of science: A case for institutional reflexivity. Public Understanding of Science 2: 321–338.

36.

Wynne

(2014) Further disorientation in the hall of mirrors. Public Understanding of Science 23(1): 60–70.

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

0.28 MB