This study examines the conflation of terms such as “knowledge” and “understanding” in peer-reviewed literature, and tests the hypothesis that little current research clearly distinguishes between importantly distinct epistemic states. Two sets of data are presented from papers published in the journal Public Understanding of Science. In the first set, the digital text analysis tool, Voyant, is used to analyze all papers published in 2014 for the use of epistemic success terms. In the second set of data, all papers published in Public Understanding of Science from 2010–2015 are systematically analyzed to identify instances in which epistemic states are empirically measured. The results indicate that epistemic success terms are inconsistently defined, and that measurement of understanding, in particular, is rarely achieved in public understanding of science studies. We suggest that more diligent attention to measuring understanding, as opposed to mere knowledge, will increase efficacy of scientific outreach and communication efforts.
AllumNSibleyESturgisPet al. (2014) Religious beliefs, knowledge about science and attitudes towards medical genetics. Public Understanding of Science23(7): 833–849.
2.
BaskaradaSKoroniosA (2013) Data, information, knowledge, wisdom (DIKW): A semiotic theoretical and empirical exploration of the hierarchy and its quality dimension. Australasian Journal of Information Systems18(1): 5–24.
3.
Bruine de BruinWBostromA (2013) Assessing what to address in science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America110(3): 14062–14068.
4.
BurgeTW (1979) Individualism and the mental. Midwest Studies in Philosophy4: 73–121.
5.
BurnsTWO’ConnorDJStocklmayerSM (2003) Science communication: A contemporary definition. Public Understanding of Science12(2): 183–202.
6.
BuysLAirdRvan MegenKet al. (2014) Perceptions of climate change and trust in information providers in rural Australia. Public Understanding of Science23(2): 170–188.
7.
ElginCZ (2006) From knowledge to understanding. In: HetheringtonS (ed.) Epistemology Futures, pp. 33–42. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8.
ElginCZ (2007) Understanding and the facts. Philosophical Studies132(1): 33–42.
9.
EngdahlELidskogR (2014) Risk, communication and trust: Towards an emotional understanding of trust. Public understanding of science23(6): 703–717.
10.
FankhauserPKnappenJTeichE (2014) Exploring and visualizing variation in language resources. In: Proceedings of the ninth international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC ’14), Reykjavik, 26–31 May, pp. 4125–4128. Reykjavik: European Language Resources Association.
11.
FangX (2014) Local people’s understanding of risk from civil nuclear power in the Chinese context. Public Understanding of Science23(3): 283–298.
12.
GrimmS (2012) The value of understanding. Philosophy Compass7(2): 103–117.
13.
HineC (2014) Headlice eradication as everyday engagement with science: An analysis of online parenting discussions. Public Understanding of Science23(5): 574–591.
14.
JaspalRNerlichB (2014) When climate science became climate politics: British media representations of climate change in 1988. Public Understanding of Science23(2): 122–141.
15.
JasanoffS (ed.) (2004) States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis.
16.
JasanoffS (2014) A Mirror for Science. Public Understanding of Science23(1): 21–26.
17.
JeeBDUttalDHSpiegelAet al. (2015) Expert–novice differences in mental models of viruses, vaccines, and the causes of infectious disease. Public understanding of science24(2): 241–256.
18.
KaponS (2014) Bridging the knowledge gap: An analysis of Albert Einstein’s popularized presentation of the equivalence of mass and energy. Public Understanding of Science23(8): 1013–1024.
19.
KahanDMJenkins-SmithHBramanD (2011) Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of Risk Research14(2): 147–174.
20.
KvanvigJ (2009) The value of understanding. In: HaddockAMillarAPritchardDH (eds) Epistemic Value, pp. 95–112. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
21.
LachDSanfordS (2010) Public understanding of science and technology embedded in complex institutional settings. Public Understanding of Science19(2): 130–146.
22.
LudwigD (2014) Extended Cognition in Science Communication. Public Understanding of Science23(8): 982–995.
23.
McCrightAMDunlapER (2011) The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001–2010. The Sociological Quarterly52(2): 155–194.
24.
MarambaIDDaveyAElliottMNRobertsMRolandMBrownFet al. (2015) Web-based textual analysis of free-text patient experience comments from a survey in primary care. JMIR Medical Informatics. 3(2):e20.
25.
MielbyHSandøePLassenJ (2013) The role of scientific knowledge in shaping public attitudes to GM technologies. Public Understanding of Science22(2): 155–168.
26.
MillerJD (1983) Scientific literacy: A conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus112(2): 29–48.
27.
MoghariyaDPSmardonRC (2014) Rural perspectives of climate change: A study from Saurastra and Kutch of Western India. Public understanding of science23(6): 660–677.
28.
NisbetMCScheufeleDA (2009) What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany96(10): 1767–1778.
29.
PaisleyWJ (1998) Scientific literacy and the competition for public attention and understanding. Science Communication20(1): 70–80.
30.
RanneyMAClarkD (2016) Climate change conceptual change: Scientific information can transform attitudes. Topics in Cognitive Science8: 49–75.
31.
RobertsMRReidGSchroederMet al. (2013) Causal or spurious? The relationship of knowledge and attitudes to trust in science and technology. Public Understanding of Science22(5): 624–641.
32.
RecanatiF (1997) Can we believe what we do not understand?Mind & Language12(1): 84–100.
33.
Roser-RenoufCStenhouseNRolfe-ReddingJMaibachEWLeiserowitzA (2015) Engaging diverse audiences with climate change: Message strategies for global warming’s six Americas. In: HansenACoxsR (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Environment and Communication, pp. 368–386. New York: Routledge.
SheinPPLiY-YHuangT-C (2014) Relationship between scientific knowledge and fortune-telling. Public Understanding of Science23(7): 780–796.
37.
SnowCEDibnerKA (eds) (2016) Science Literacy: Concepts, Contexts, and Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
38.
SperberD (1997) Intuitive and reflective beliefs. Mind & Language12: 67–83.
39.
ThomasGDurantJ (1987) Why should we promote the public understanding of science?Scientific Literacy Papers1: 1–14.
40.
VandermoereFBlanchemancheSBiebersteinAet al. (2011) The public understanding of nanotechnology in the food domain: The hidden role of views on science, technology, and nature. Public Understanding of Science20(2): 195–206.
41.
von GroteGDierkesM (2000) Public understanding of science and technology: State of the art and consequences for future research. In: DierkesMvon GroteG (eds) Between Understanding and Trust: The Public, Science and Technology, pp. 24–248. London: Routledge.
42.
WibeckV (2014) Social representations of climate change in Swedish lay focus groups: Local or distant, gradual or catastrophic?Public Understanding of Science23(2): 204–219.
43.
WynneB (1992) Public understanding of science research: New horizons or hall of mirrors?Public Understanding of Science1(1): 37–43.
44.
WynneB (1995) Public understanding of science. In: JasanoffSMarkleGEPetersenJCPinchT (eds) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, pp. 361–393. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
45.
ZagzebskiL (1994) The inescapability of gettier problems. The Philosophical Quarterly44(174): 65–73.
46.
ZagzebskiL (2001) Recovering understanding. In: SteupM (ed.) Knowledge, Truth, and Duty: Essays on Epistemic Justification, Responsibility, and Virtue, pp. 110–111. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
47.
ZiaAToddAM (2010) Evaluating the effects of ideology on public understanding of climate change science: How to improve communication across ideological divides?Public Understanding of Science19(6): 743–761.
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.
