Del déficit al diálogo, ¿y después?
Una reconstrucción crítica de los estudios de comprensión pública de la ciencia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52712/issn.1850-0013-822Palavras-chave:
modelo del déficit, enfoque etnográfico-contextual, interacción epistémica, agentes asimétricosResumo
En este artículo se expone un análisis crítico de los principales programas de investigación vigentes en el campo de Comprensión Pública de la Ciencia: el basado en el modelo del déficit cognitivo del público y el enfoque etnográfico-contextual. En primer término describiré sus respectivas aportaciones a la definición de los intereses y problemas que conforman el escenario disciplinar, y discutiré la interpretación -actualmente extendida- que juzga definitivamente superado al enfoque fundacional. Argumentaré, por el contrario, que su persistencia como eje de los debates conceptuales ha conducido a la disciplina a un punto de estancamiento, de estabilización en una fase de controversia, producto de continuar asignando al déficit cognitivo entidad como categoría problemática. Frente a ello propondré una aproximación alternativa, que parte de considerar a la posición de asimetría epistémica entre expertos, públicos e interfaces como una condición inicial objetiva de las interacciones mediante las cuales se comparte socialmente el conocimiento científico. Para finalizar, esbozaré un núcleo de interrogantes originales suscitados por ese desplazamiento como contribución a las iniciativas en curso de renovación de la agenda disciplinar.
Downloads
Referências
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
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Licença
Copyright (c) 2025 CC Attribution 4.0
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Todas os números de CTS e seus artigos individuais estão sob uma licença CC-BY.
Desde 2007, a CTS proporciona acesso livre, aberto e gratuito a todos seus conteúdos, incluídos o arquivo completo da edição quadrimestral e os diversos produtos apresentados na plataforma eletrônica. Esta decisão é baseada no entendimento de que fornecer acesso livre aos materiais publicados ajuda a ter uma maior e melhor troca de conhecimentos.
Por sua vez, em se tratando da edição quadrimestral, a revista permite aos repositórios institucionais e temáticos, bem como aos sites pessoais, o autoarquivo dos artigos na versão post-print ou versão editorial, logo após da publicação da versão definitiva de cada número e sob a condição de incorporar ao autoarquivo um link direcionado à fonte original.
