Using Latent Class Models to Explore Cross-national Typologies of Public Engagement with Science and Technology in Europe

Abstract

Public engagement with science and technology is a central theme in the field of Public Understanding of Science (PUS), particularly in Europe. Alongside public consultation exercises and similar activities aimed at generating engagement, there is a need for good survey indicators of the general climate for engagement with science and technology among the public. With internationally focused PUS studies increasing in prominence, such survey indicators should ideally characterise engagement in approximately the same way across a range of countries, to facilitate sensible cross-national analyses involving this construct.

This article presents cross-national analyses of two sets of questions posed in the Eurobarometer survey on public perceptions of biotechnology, conducted in 2002 in fifteen European countries. The items analysed capture a range of elements of the concept of engagement, both with science and technology, in general, and with biotechnology, in particular. Latent class models are used to explore typologies of types of engagement: substantively, to understand their content, and methodologically, to identify items which do not work well in these classifications. The analyses are also used to assess the statistical cross-national comparability of such typologies, and consequently to describe variations in levels of engagement across countries.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allum, N. , P. Sturgis , D. Tabourazi and I. Brunton-Smith (2008), ‘ Science Knowledge and Attitudes across Cultures: A Meta-Analysis ’, Public Understanding of Science, 17(1), pp. 35–54 .

Almond, G.A. (1950), The American People and Foreign Policy. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company .

Banthien, H. , M. Jaspers and A. Renner (2003), Governance of the European Research Area: The Role of Civil Society. Brussels: European Commission .

Bartholomew, D.J. and M. Knott (1999), Latent Variable Models and Factor Analysis. London: Arnold .

Bartholomew, D.J. , F. Steele , I. Moustaki and J.I. Galbraith (2002), The Analysis and Interpretation of Multivariate Data for Social Scientists. London: Chapman & Hall/CRC .

Bauer, M.W. , N. Allum and S. Miller (2007), ‘ What Can We Learn From 25 Years of PUS Survey Research? Liberating and Expanding the Agenda ’, Public Understanding of Science, 16(1), pp. 79–95 .

Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (2008), ‘Government Launches New Expert Resource Centre to Help Policy Makers Talk to the Public’, Press release, 29 May, London, Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, UK government , Crown Copyright, available at http://www.dius.gov.uk/news_and_speeches/press_releases/expert_resource, accessed on 20 July 2008.

Evans, G. and J. Durant (1995), ‘ The Relationship Between Knowledge and Attitudes in the Public Understanding of Science in Britain ’, Public Understanding of Science, 4(1), pp. 57–74 .

Gaskell, G., S. Stares, A. Allansdottir, N. Allum, C. Corchero, C. Fischler, J. Hampel, J. Jackson, N. Kronberger, N. Mejlgaard, G. Revuelta, C.Schreiner, H. Torgersen and W. Wagner (2006), ‘Europeans and Biotechnology in 2005: Patterns and Trends (Final report on Eurobarometer 64.3)’, A report to the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Research.

10.

Harkness, J. , F. van de Vijver and P.P. Mohler (2003), Cross-Cultural Survey Methods. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley .

11.

House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology (2000), Science and Society. London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office .

12.

Irwin, A. and B. Wynne (eds) (1996), Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .

13.

Jöreskog, K.G. and I. Moustaki (2001), ‘ Factor Analysis of Ordinal Variables: A Comparison of Three Approaches ’, Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36(3), pp. 347–87 .

14.

Kuha, J. (2004), ‘ AIC and BIC—Comparisons of Assumptions and Performance ’, Sociological Methods and Research, 33(2), pp. 188–229 .

15.

Lazarsfeld, P.F. and N.W. Henry (1968), Latent Structure Analysis. Boston: Houghton Mifflin .

16.

Miller, J.D. and L.G. Kimmel (2001), Biomedical Communications—Purposes, Audiences and Strategies. San Diego: Academic Press .

17.

Miller, J.D. and R. Pardo (2000), ‘Civic Scientific Literacy and Attitude to Science and Technology: A Comparative Analysis of the European Union, the United States, Japan, and Canada’, in M. Dierkes and C. von Grote (eds), Between Understanding and Trust: the Public, Science and Technology. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers .

18.

Miller, S. (2001), ‘ Public Understanding of Science at the Crossroads ’, Public Understanding of Science, 10(1), pp. 115–20 .

19.

Pardo, R. and F. Calvo (2002), ‘ Attitudes toward Science among the European Public: A Methodological Analysis ’, Public Understanding of Science, 11(2), pp. 155–95 .

20.

Pardo, R. and F. Calvo (2004), ‘ The Cognitive Dimension of Public Perceptions of Science: Methodological Issues ’, Public Understanding of Science, 13(3), pp. 203–27 .

21.

Pardo, R. , C. Midden and J.D. Miller (2002), ‘ Attitudes towards Biotechnology in the European Union ’, Journal of Biotechnology, 98(1), pp. 9–24 .

22.

Peters, H.P. (2000), ‘From Information to Attitudes? Thoughts on the Relationship between Knowledge about Science and Technology and Attitudes toward Technologies’, in M. Dierkes and C. von Grote (eds), Between Understanding and Trust—the Public, Science and Technology. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers .

23.

Pidgeon, N. , W. Poortinga , G. Rowe , T. Horlick-Jones , J. Walls and T. O’Riordan (2005), ‘ Using Surveys in Public Participation Processes for Risk Decision Making: The Case of the 2003 British GM Nation? Public Debate ’, Risk Analysis, 25(2), pp. 467–79 .

24.

Raza, Gauhar , Surjit Singh and Bharvi Dutt (2002), ‘ Public, Science, and Cultural Distance ’, Science Communication, 23(3), pp. 292–309 .

25.

Rowe, G. , T. Horlick-Jones , J. Walls and N. Pidgeon (2005), ‘ Difficulties in Evaluating Public Engagement Initiatives: Reflections on an Evaluation of the UK GM Nation? Public Debate about Transgenic Crops ’, Public Understanding of Science, 14(4),pp. 331–52 .

26.

Vermunt, J.K. and J. Magidson (2005), Technical Guide for Latent GOLD 4.0: Basic and Advanced. Belmont Massachusetts: Statistical Innovations Inc .

27.

Wellcome Trust (2005), Strategic Plan 2000–2005. Making a Difference. London, Wellcome Trust , available at http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/stellent/groups/corporatesite/@policy_communications/documents/web_document/wtd018878.pdf, accessed 20 July 2008.