Hearing-impaired children’s chances of integrating into hearing society largely depend on their parents, who need to learn vast amounts of science knowledge in the field of hearing. This study characterized the role played by science knowledge in the lives of nonscientists faced with science-related decisions by examining the interactions between general science knowledge, contextual science knowledge in the field of hearing, and parents’ advocacy knowledge and attitudes. Based on six semi-structured interviews and 115 questionnaires completed by parents of hearing-impaired children, contextual science knowledge emerged as the only predictor for having slightly better advocacy attitudes and knowledge (5.5% explained variance). Although general science knowledge was the best predictor of contextual knowledge (14% of explained variance), it was not a direct predictor of advocacy knowledge and attitudes. Science knowledge plays some role in the lives of hearing-impaired families, even if they do not list it as a resource for successful rehabilitation.
AjzenIJoyceNSheikhSCoteNG (2011) Knowledge and the prediction of behavior: The role of information accuracy in the theory of planned behavior. Basic and Applied Social Psychology33(2): 101–117.
2.
AlperSSchlossPJSchlossCN (1995) Families of children with disabilities in elementary and middle school: Advocacy models and strategies. Exceptional Children62(3): 261–270.
3.
Amit AharonANehamaHRishponSBaron-EpelO (2017) Parents with high levels of communicative and critical health literacy are less likely to vaccinate their children. Patient Education and Counseling100(4): 768–775.
4.
ArnonSReichelN (2009) Closed and open-ended question tools in a telephone survey about “the good teacher.’’Journal of Mixed Methods Research3(2): 172–196.
5.
BalcazarFEKeysCBBertramJFRizzoT (1996) Advocate development in the field of developmental disabilities: A data-based conceptual model. Mental Retardation34(6): 341–351.
6.
Baram-TsabariASegevE (2011) Exploring new web-based tools to identify public interest in science. Public Understanding of Science20(1): 130–143.
7.
BassC (2012) Learning theories & their application to science instruction for adults. The American Biology Teacher74(6): 387–390.
8.
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.
9.
BesnoyKDSwoszowskiNCNewmanJLJonesPByrneC (2015) The advocacy experiences of parents of elementary age, twice-exceptional children. Gifted Child Quarterly59(2): 108–123.
10.
BourdieuP (1986) The force of law: Toward a sociology of the juridical field. Hastings Law Journal38: 805–853.
11.
BrommeRGoldmanSR (2014) The public’s bounded understanding of science. Educational Psychologist49(2): 59–69.
12.
BrossardDLewensteinBV (2010) A critical appraisal of models of public understanding of science. In: KahlorLeeAnnPatriciaStout (eds) Communicating Science: New Agendas in Communication. New York: Routledge, pp. 11–39.
13.
ClaussenSOsborneJ (2013) Bourdieu’s notion of cultural capital and its implications for the science curriculum. Science Education97(1): 58–79.
14.
CootsJJ (1998) Family resources and parent participation in schooling activities for their children with developmental delays. The Journal of Special Education31(4): 498–520.
15.
DillmanDASinclairMDClarkJR (1993) Effects of questionnaire length, respondent-friendly design, and a difficult question on response rates for occupant-addressed census mail surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly57(3): 289–304.
16.
DuquetteCFullartonSOrdersSRobertson-GrewalK (2010) Insider, outsider, ally, or adversary: Parents of youth with learning disabilities engage in educational advocacy. International Journal of Special Education26(3): 124–141.
17.
DuquetteCOrdersSFullartonSRobertson-GrewalK (2011) Fighting for their rights: Advocacy experiences of parents of children identified with intellectual giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted34(3): 488–512.
18.
DurantJREvansGAThomasGP (1989) The public understanding of science. Nature340(6228): 11–14.
19.
EdwardsAElwynGHoodKRoblingMAtwellCHolmes-RovnerMet al. (2003) The development of COMRADE—A patient-based outcome measure to evaluate the effectiveness of risk communication and treatment decision making in consultations. Patient Education and Counseling50(3): 311–322.
20.
European Commission (2005) Europeans, Science and Technology. Brussels: European Commission.
21.
FeinsteinNW (2012) Making sense of autism: Progressive engagement with science among parents of young, recently diagnosed autistic children. Public Understanding of Science23(5): 592–609.
22.
FeinsteinNWAllenSJenkinsE (2013) Outside the pipeline: Reimagining science education for nonscientists. Science340(6130): 314–317.
23.
FitzpatrickEAngusDDurieux-SmithAGrahamIDCoyleD (2008) Parents’ needs following identification of childhood hearing loss. American Journal of Audiology17(1): 38–49.
24.
FitzpatrickFL (ed.) (1960) Policies for Science Education. New York: Bureau of Publications; Teachers College, Colombia University.
25.
GrayDE (1994) Lay conceptions of autism: Parents’ explanatory models. Medical Anthropology16(1–4): 99–118.
26.
HiltonSHuntKPetticrewM (2007) Gaps in parental understandings and experiences of vaccine-preventable diseases: A qualitative study. Child: Care, Health and Development33(2): 170–179.
27.
IrwinAMichaelM (2003) Science, Social Theory and Public Knowledge. Mcgraw-Hill: Open University Press.
28.
IrwinAWynneB (1996) Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29.
JerolmackCKhanS (2014) Talk is cheap: Ethnography and the attitudinal fallacy. Sociological Methods & Research43(2): 178–209.
30.
KahanDM (2014) Climate-science communication and the measurement problem. Advances in Political Psychology36: 1–43.
31.
KahnemanD (2003) Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. The American Economic Review93(5): 1449–1475.
32.
KarabenickSAWoolleyMEFriedelJMAmmonBVBlazevskiJBonneyCRet al. (2007) Cognitive processing of self-report items in educational research: Do they think what we mean?Educational Psychologist42(3): 139–151.
33.
KelleU (2001) Sociological explanations between micro and macro and the integration of qualitative and quantitative methods. Historical Social Research1: 95–117.
KollmussAAgyemanJ (2002) Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior?Environmental Education Research8(3): 239–260.
36.
LasloEBaram-TsabariA (2013) Analysis of scientific literacy in reader comments to the coverage of animal experimentation in the hebrew online media. In openu.ac.il.
37.
LasloEBaram-TsabariALewensteinBV (2011) A growth medium for the message: Online science journalism affordances for exploring public discourse of science and ethics. Journalism12(7): 847–870.
38.
LaugkschRC (2000) Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education84(1): 71–94.
39.
LawsheCH (1975) A quantitative approach to content vaIidity. Personnel Psychology28(4): 563–575.
40.
LaytonDJenkinsEWMacgillS and Davey A (1993) An Inarticulate Science? Perspectives on the Public Understanding of Science and Some Implications for Science Education. Leeds: Leeds Media Services.
MillerJD (1998) The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding of Science7(3): 203–223.
44.
Ministry of science and technology (2016) Perceptions and attitudes of the Israeli public to science, technology and space.
45.
MostTIngberSHeled-AriamE (2012) Social competence, sense of loneliness, and speech intelligibility of young children with hearing loss in individual inclusion and group inclusion. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education17(2): 259–272.
46.
National Academies of Sciences Engineering (2016) Science Literacy (eds SnowCEDibnerKA). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
47.
National Science Board (2016) Science and Engineering Indicators 2016. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
48.
NelsonPACaressA-LGlennyA-MKirkSA (2012) “Doing the ‘right’ thing”: how parents experience and manage decision-making for children’s “normalising” surgeries. Social Science & Medicine74(5): 796–804.
49.
NeumeisterKSYsselNBurneyVH (2013) The influence of primary caregivers in fostering success in twice-exceptional children. Gifted Child Quarterly57(4): 263–274.
50.
NisbetMCGoidelRK (2007) Understanding citizen perceptions of science controversy: Bridging the ethnographic survey research divide. Public Understanding of Science16(4): 421–440.
51.
NohSDumasJEWolfLCFismanSN (1989) Delineating sources of stress in parents of exceptional children. Family Relations38(4): 456–461.
52.
NorthernJLDownsMP (2002) Hearing in Children (ed. JuletT). Riverwoods, IL: Lippincott Williams & Wilikins.
53.
OrrDBaram-TsabariA (2018) Science and politics in the polio vaccination debate on facebook: A mixed-methods approach to public engagement in a science-based dialogue. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education19(1). doi:10.1128/jmbe.v19i1.1500
54.
OrrDBaram-TsabariALandsmanK (2016) Debating the Polio vaccine on Facebook: The key role of social media in the public’s decision to vaccinate. Journal of Health Policy Research. 5(1): 453–457.
55.
OzL (2015) Ministry of Science poll for National Science Day 2015: Attitude and Knowledge among Israeli Public. The 6th Israeli Science Communication Conference. The Davidson Institute of Science Education, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel.
56.
PickardKEIngersollBR (2016) Quality versus quantity: The role of socioeconomic status on parent-reported service knowledge, service use, unmet service needs, and barriers to service use. Autism20(1): 106–115.
57.
ReschJAMirelesGBenzMRGrenwelgeCPetersonRZhangD (2010) Giving parents a voice: A qualitative study of the challenges experienced by parents of children with disabilities. Rehabilitation Psychology55(2): 139–150.
58.
RobertsDA (2007) Scientific literacy/science Literacy. In: AbellSLedermanN (eds), Handbook of research on science education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 729–780.
59.
RyderJ (2001) Identifying science understanding for functional scientific literacy. Studies in Science Education36(1): 1–44.
60.
ShkediA (2003) Words of Meaning: Qualitative Research-Theory and Practice. Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv university.
61.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2016) PISA 2015 Assessment and Analytical Framework. Paris: OECD.
62.
ToumeyCBesleyJBlanchardMBrownMCobbMEcklundEH (2010) Science in the Service of Citizens & Consumers: The NSF Workshop on Public Knowledge of Science. Columbia, SC: National Science Foundation.
63.
TrainorAA (2010) Diverse approaches to parent advocacy during special education home —School interactions: Identification and use of cultural and social capital. Remedial and Special Education31(1): 34–47.
64.
VaccariCMarscharkM (1997) Communication between parents and deaf children: Implications for social-emotional development. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry38(7): 793–801.
65.
WaandersCMendezJLWaandersJTDet al. (2007) Parent characteristics, economic stress and neighborhood context as predictors of parent involvement in preschool children’s education. Journal of School Psychology45: 619–636.
66.
WolfensbergerW (1977) A model for a balanced multicomponent advocacy/protective services schema. In: KopolowL.E.BloomH. (eds) Mental Health Advocacy: An Emerging Force in Consumer Rights. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, pp. 16–35.
67.
WynneB (1992) Misunderstood misunderstanding: Social identities and public uptake of science. Public Understanding of Science1(3): 281–304.
68.
ZimanJ (1991) Public understanding of science. Science, Technology & Human Values16(1): 99–105.
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.
