From Deficit to Dialogue, and Then What?
A Critical Reconstruction of Public Understanding of Science Studies
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52712/issn.1850-0013-822Keywords:
deficit model, etnographic-contextual approach, epistemic interaction, asymmetric agentsAbstract
This paper presents a critical analysis of the current research programmes in the field of Public Understanding of Science: the well-known public deficit model, and the ethnographic-contextual approach. I begin by examining their respective contributions to the definition of the main interests and questions that shapes the scene, and I will challenge the widespread view that considers that the original frame has been superseded once and for all. Contrary to this belief, I will argue that its persistence as a major focus of conceptual debates has led the discipline to a standstill, consequence of carrying on ascribing cognitive deficit the status of an unsolved problem. Against this, I will propone an alternative approach that assumes the epistemic asymmetry between experts, publics and interface agents as an objective initial condition of the interactions through which scientific knowledge can be socially shared. The paper closes suggesting a set of original questions that arises from this shift, which may contribute to the development of a new agenda for future research.
Downloads
References
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE (1993): Benchmarks for Scientific Literacy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
BAUER, Martin e Ingrid SCHOON (1993): “Mapping variety in public understanding of science”, Public Understanding of Science, nº 2, pp. 141-155.
BAUER, Martin, Nick ALLUM y Steve MILLER (2007): “What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda”, Public Understanding of Science, nº 16, pp. 79-95.
BODMER, Walter et al. (1985): The Public Understanding of Science, Londres, The Royal Society.
BRONCANO, Fernando (2006): Entre ingenieros y ciudadanos. Filosofía de la técnica para días de democracia, Barcelona, Montesinos.
CAMARA HURTADO, Montaña y José A. LÓPEZ CEREZO (2007): “Dimensiones de la cultura científica”, en FECYT: Percepción Social de la Ciencia y la Tecnología en España - 2006, Madrid, FECYT, pp. 39-64.
DIERKES, Meinholf y Claudia VON GROTE (eds.) (2003): Between Understanding and Trust. The Public, Science and Technology, Londres, Routledge.
DURANT, John et al. (2003): “Two Cultures of Public Understanding of Science and Technology in Europe”, en M. Dierkes y C. von Grote (eds.) (2003): ob.cit., pp. 131-156.
DURANT, John, Geoffrey EVANS y Geoffrey THOMAS (1989): “The public understanding of science”, Nature, vol. 340, nº 6, pp. 11-14.
DURANT, John, Geoffrey EVANS y Geoffrey THOMAS (1992): “Public understanding in Britain: the role of medicine in the popular representation of science”, Public Understanding of Science, nº 1, pp. 161-182.
EINSIEDEL, Edna (2003): “Understanding ‘Publics’ in the Public Understanding of Science”, en M. Dierkes y C. von Grote (eds.) (2003): ob.cit., pp. 205-216.
EINSIEDEL, Edna (2007): “Editorial: Of publics and science”, Public Understanding of Science, nº 16, pp. 5-6.
EPSTEIN, Steven (1995): “The construction of Lay Expertise: AIDS activism and the forging of credibility in the reform of clinical trials”, Science, Technology and Human Values, vol. 20, nº 4, pp. 408-437.
EUROPEAN COMISSION (2005): Europeans, Science and Technology, Special Eurobarometer 224 / Wave 63.1, disponible en: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb_special_en.htm (último acceso: 20 de enero de 2010).
EVANS, Geoffrey y John DURANT (1995): “The relationship between knowledge and attitudes in the public understanding of science in Britain”, Public Understanding of Science, nº 4, pp. 57-74.
GASKELL, George et al. (2006): “Introduction”, en European Comission: Europeans and Biotechnology in 2005: Patterns and Trends, Special Eurobarometer 244b / Wave 64.3, disponible en: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb_special_en.htm (último acceso: 20 de enero de 2010).
HARDWIG, John (1985): “Epistemic dependence”, The Journal of Philosophy, vol. 82, nº 7, pp. 335-349.
HARDWIG, John (1991): “The role of trust in knowledge”, The Journal of Philosophy, vol. 88, nº 12, pp. 693-708.
HOUSE OF LORDS (2000): Science and Society. Third Report, Londres, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.
IRWIN, Alan y Mike MICHAEL (2003): Science, social theory and public knowledge, Maidenhead, Open University Press.
MICHAEL, Mike (1992): “Lay Discourse of Science: Science-in-General, Science-in-Particular, and Self”, Science, Technology and Human Values, vol. 17, nº 3, pp. 313-333.
MILLER, Jon (1998): “The measurement of civic scientific literacy”, Public Understanding of Science, nº 7, pp. 203-223.
MILLER, Jon (2004): “Public understanding of, and attitudes toward, scientific research: what we know and what we need to know”, Public Understanding of Science, nº 13, pp. 273-294.
MILLER, Steve (2001): “Public understanding of science at the crossroads”, Public Understanding of Science, nº 10, pp. 115-120.
PARDO, Rafael y Félix CALVO (2002): “Attitudes toward science among the European public: a methodological analysis”, Public Understanding of Science nº 11, pp. 155-195.
PARDO, Rafael y Félix CALVO (2004): “The cognitive dimension for public perceptions of science: methodological issues”, Public Understanding of Science, nº 13, pp. 203-227.
PETERS PETERS, Hans (2003): “From Information to Attitudes? Thoughts on the Relationship Between Knowledge about Science and Technology and Attitudes Toward Technologies”, en M. Dierkes y C. von Grote (eds.) (2003): ob.cit., pp. 265-286.
Realising our potential: a strategy for science, engineering and technology (1993) Londres, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.
RUTHERFORD, James y Andrew AHLGREN (1991): Science for All Americans, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
SHAPIN, Steven (1992): “Why the public ought to understand science-in-the-making”, Public Understanding of Science, nº 1, pp. 27-30.
THOMAS, Geoffrey y John DURANT (1987): “Why should we promote the Public Understanding of Science?” Scientific Literacy Papers, summer 1987, pp. 1-14
VON GROTE, Claudia y Meinholf DIERKES (2003): “Public Understanding of Science and Technology: State of the Art and Consequences for Future Research”, en M. Dierkes y C. von Grote (eds.) (2003): ob.cit., pp. 344-363.
WOLFENDALE, Arnold et al. (1995): Report of the Comitee to review the contribution of scientists and engineers to Public Understanding of Science, Londres, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.
WYNNE, Brian (1991): “Knowledges in contexts”, Science, Technology and Human Values, vol. 16, nº 1, pp. 111-121.
WYNNE, Brian (1992a): “Public understanding of science research: new horizons or hall of mirrors?”, Public Understanding of Science, nº 1, pp. 37-43.
WYNNE, Brian (1992.b): “Misunderstood misunderstanding: social identities and public uptake of science”, Public Understanding of Science, nº 1, pp. 281-304.
WYNNE, Brian (1993): “Public uptake of science: a case for institutional reflexivity”, Public Understanding of Science, nº 2, pp. 321-337.
WYNNE, Brian (1995): “The public understanding of science”, en S. Jassanoff, G. Markle, J. Peterson y T. Pinch (eds.): Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, Thousand Oaks, Sage, pp. 361-388.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 CC Attribution 4.0
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All CTS's issues and academic articles are under a CC-BY license.
Since 2007, CTS has provided open and free access to all its contents, including the complete archive of its quarterly edition and the different products presented in its electronic platform. This decision is based on the belief that offering free access to published materials helps to build a greater and better exchange of knowledge.
In turn, for the quarterly edition, CTS allows institutional and thematic repositories, as well as personal web pages, to self-archive articles in their post-print or editorial version, immediately after the publication of the final version of each issue and under the condition that a link to the original source will be incorporated into the self-archive.
