In the last decade, researchers have responded to a social demand for science to become more responsible and have a greater effect on society by looking for innovative ways to link science and lay people. The movement to democratize expert knowledge is growing. This movement is creating tools that are used for improving the scientific literacy of citizens. This article presents dialogues between researchers and lay people of low socioeconomic status and low educational level on the social impact of a Scientific Dialogic Gathering (SDG) as a tool for promoting scientific self-literacy that is being developed at an urban adult school in Spain. Based on a communicative and qualitative approach, an SDG encourages people of low socioeconomic status and low educational level to learn about the latest scientific breakthroughs on issues that interest them, such as health-related topics. Participants in a SDG, together with researchers and educators, discuss scientific articles in an egalitarian dialog. One of the main results of this experience is that SDGs are helping lay people to make better decisions in the face of the challenges of today’s society.
AielloE.JoanpereM. (2014). Social creation. A new concept for social sciences and humanities. International and Multidisciplinary Journal of Social Sciences, 3(3), 297–313. https://doi.org/10.4471/rimcis.2014.41
2.
AlbeV. (2005). Students positions on a techno scientific controversial issue on mobile phone danger. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 5(3), 361–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2014.956037
3.
AntonakisJ. (2017). On doing better science: From thrill of discovery to policy implications. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.01.006
4.
AubertA.VillarejoB.CabréJ.SantosT. (2016). La Verneda Sant Martí adult school: A reference for neighborhood popular education. Teachers College Record, 118(4), 1–32.
5.
BauerM. W. (2009). The evolution of public understanding of science—Discourse and comparative evidence. Science, Technology and Society, 14(2), 221–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/097172180901400202
6.
BeckU.GiddensA.LashS. (1994). Reflexive modernization: Politics, tradition and aesthetics in the modern social order. Polity Press.
7.
BerkmanN. D.DewaltD. A.PignoneM. P.SheridanS. L.LohrK. N.LuxL.. . . BonitoA. J. (2004). Literacy and health outcomes (Summary, Evidence Report/Technology Assessment: Number 87). Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/epcsums/litsum.htm
8.
BourdieuP. (1979). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. Routledge.
9.
BradyJ.LingL.Kuay-KengY.Huann-shyangL. (2016). A science for citizenship model: Assessing the effects of benefits, risks, and trust for predicting students’ interest in and understanding of science-related content. Research in Science, 47(5), 965–988. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9535-9
10.
DuranM.HoftM.MedjahedB.LawsonD.OradyE. (Eds.). (2016). STEM learning. IT integration and collaborative strategies. Springer.
11.
FlechaR.Soler-GallartM.SordéT. (2015). Social impact: Europe must fund social sciences. Nature, 528(7581), Article 193. https://doi.org/10.1038/528193a
12.
García-YesteC.GairalR.MuntéA.PlajaT. (2018). Dialogic literary gatherings and out-of-home child care: Creation of new meanings through classic literature. Child & Family Social Work, 23, 62–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12384
13.
García-YesteC.PadrósM.MondéjarE.VillarejoB. (2017). The other women in dialogic literary gatherings. Research on Ageing and Social Policy, 5(2), 181–202. https://doi.org/10.4471/rasp.2017.2660
14.
HabermasJ. (1984). The theory of communicative action. Beacon Press.
15.
HazelkornE.CharlyR.YvesB.ConstantinosC.LigiaD.MichelG.Welzel-BreuerM. (2015). Science education for responsible citizenship [Report to the European Commission of the expert group on science education]. European Commission.
16.
JackB. M.LeeL.YangK. K.LinH. S. (2017). A science for citizenship model: Assessing the effects of benefits, risks, and trust for predicting students’ interest in and understanding of science-related content. Research in Science Education, 47(5), 965–988. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9535-9
17.
KristjansonP.HarveyB.Van EppM.ThorntonP. (2014). Social learning and sustainable development. Nature Climate Change, 4(1), 5–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2080
18.
LlopisA.VillarejoB.SolerM.AlvarezP. (2016). Politeness and interactions in dialogic literary gatherings. Journal of Pragmatics, 94(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.01.004
19.
McNeillK. (2011). Elementary students’ views of explanation, argumentation, and evidence, and their abilities to construct arguments over the school year. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(7), 793–823. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20430
20.
MertonR. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. University of Chicago Press.
21.
MolinaS. (2015). Alba, a girl who successfully overcomes barriers of intellectual disability through dialogic literary gatherings. Qualitative Inquiry, 21(10), 927–933. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800415611690
22.
OwenR.MacnaghtenP.StilgoeJ. (2012). Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy, 39(6), 751–760. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scs093
23.
PriceA. M.PetersonL. (2016). Scientific progress, risk, and development: Explaining attitudes toward science cross-nationally. International Sociology, 31(1), 57–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580915614593
24.
RealeE.AvramovD.CanhialK.DonovanC.FlechaR.HolmP.. . . Van HorikR. (2018). A review of literature on evaluating the scientific, social and political impact of social sciences and humanities research. Research Evaluation, 27, 298–308. https://doi.org/org/10.1093/reseval/rvx025
25.
RudolphJ. L.HoribeS. (2016). What do we mean by science education for civic engagement?Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53, 6805–6820. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21303
26.
SadlerT. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536. https://doi.org/0.1002/tea.20009
27.
SchweizerD. M.KellyG. J. (2005). An investigation of student engagement in a global warming debate. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(1), 75–84. https://doi.org/10.5408/1089-9995-53.1.75
28.
Science Europe. (2013). Increasing access to science results: Science Europe adopts principles.
29.
SilkK. J.NazioneS.NeubergerL.SmithS.AtkinC. (2012). Investigating the impact of message format, involvement, scientific literacy, and education on attitude toward reducing cancer risk through regulation. Journal of Cancer Education, 27(1), 172–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-011-0287-y
30.
SolerM. (2015). Biographies of “invisible” people who transform their lives and enhance social transformations through dialogic gatherings. Qualitative Inquiry, 21(10), 839–842. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800415614032
31.
Valero-MatasJ. A.Valero-OteoI.CocaJ. R. (2017). El Desencuentro entre Ciencia y Educación; Un Problema Científico-Social [The Disagreement Between Science and Education: A Scientific-Social Problem]. International Journal of Sociology of Education, 6(3), 296–322. https://doi.org/10.17583/rise.2017.2724
32.
WalkerK. A. (2003). Students’ understanding of the nature of science and their reasoning on socio scientific issues: A web-based learning inquiry [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of South Florida.
ZeraiA.PerezJ.WangC. (2017). A proposal for expanding endarkened transnational feminist praxis: Creating a database of women’s scholarship and activism to promote health in Zimbabwe. Qualitative Inquiry, 23(2), 107–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780041666057
