Science and society - a new era for science communication in the context of sustainable development

• Autorzy: Krzeczkowska Małgorzata , Slabon Adam

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.2478/cdem-2023-0007

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The high degree of interest in scientific topics (science and research) has been observed especially since the pandemic. This includes the ongoing transition of the chemical industry toward sustainability because the accompanied changes have to be coordinated in dialogue with society. Parallelly, there is increasing interest in science communication in general, as well as the increasing need for its proper understanding. How we communicate is probably today as important as what we communicate. The purpose of this study is to explore how society perceives science, research, scientific results, and their role in the modern world. The method used in the study was a diagnostic survey, and the data was collected using an online questionnaire. This study used a quantitative method. The results showed that science communication needs to be developed much more with special attention paid to the economic, social, and political context. The results analysed and integrated in this article could provide substantive suggestions and help develop science communication.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

science communication; society; teaching; scientific research

PL

komunikacja naukowa; społeczeństwo; nauczanie; badania naukowe

• Wydawca: Towarzystwo Chemii i Inżynierii Ekologicznej
• Czasopismo: Chemistry-Didactics-Ecology-Metrology
• Rocznik: 2023
• Tom: R. 28, NR 1-2
• Strony: 121--134
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 39 poz., rys., wykr.

Twórcy

autor

Krzeczkowska Małgorzata

• Department of Chemistry Education, Faculty of Chemistry, Jagiellonian University, ul. Gronostajowa 2, Kraków, Poland

• https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0913-709X

autor

Slabon Adam

• Chair of Inorganic Chemistry, University of Wuppertal, 42119 Wuppertal, Gaußstrasse 20, Germany

• https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4452-1831

Bibliografia

• [1] Hart PS, Erik CN. Boomerang effects in science communication: how motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Comm Res. 2012;39(6):701-23. DOI: 10.1177/0093650211416646.
• [2] Priest S. Communicating climate change and other evidence-based controversies. In Priest SH, Goodwin J, Dahlstrom MF, editors. Ethics and Practice in Science Communication. Chicago; London: The University of Chicago Press; 2018. pp. 54-73. ISBN: 9780226540603.
• [3] Funk C, Hefferon M, Kennedy B, Johnson C. Trust and Mistrust in Americans’ Views of Scientific Experts. Pew Research Center Web Site. 2019. Available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/science/wpcontent/uploads/sites/16/2019/08/PS_08.02.19_trust.in_.scientists_FULLREPORT.pdf.
• [4] Delaney N. Science Communication - Achievements in Horizon 2020 and Recommendations on the Way Forward. European Commission Web Site; 2020. Available from: https://apre.it/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/KI0420259ENN.en_.pdf.
• [5] Leshner AI. Trust in science is not the problem. Issues Sci Technol. 2021;37(3):16-8. Available from: https://issues.org/trust-in-science-is-not-the-problem-engagement-leshner/.
• [6] Hendriks F, Kienhues D, Bromme R. Trust in Science and the Science of Trust. In: Blöbaum B, editor. Trust and Communication in a Digitized World. Models and Concepts of Trust Research. Springer; 2016. pp. 143-59. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-28059-2_8.
• [7] Gundersen T. Scientists as experts: A distinct role? Stud Hist Philos Sci A. 2018;67:52-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2018.02.006.
• [8] Peters HP. Scientists as public experts. In: Bucchi M, Trench B, editors. Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. London: Routledge; 2014. pp. 131-46. DOI: 10.4324/9780203483794.
• [9] Seethaler S, Evans JH, Gere C, Rajagopalan RM. Science, values, and science communication: Competencies for pushing beyond the deficit model. Sci Comm. 2019;41(3):378-88. DOI: 10.1177/1075547019847484.
• [10] Brown CP, Propst SM, Woolley M. Report: Helping researchers make the case for science. Sci Comm. 2004;25(3):294-303. DOI: 10.1177/1075547003262599.
• [11] Jensen, P. Who’s helping to bring science to the people? Nature. 2005;434(7036):956. DOI: 10.1177/0963662510383632.
• [12] Jensen E. The problems with science communication evaluation. J Co-op Organ Manage. 2014;13(01),C04. DOI: 10.22323/2.13010304.
• [13] Jensen P, Croissant Y. CNRS researchers’ popularisation activities: A progress report. J Sci Comm. 2007;6(3),A01. DOI: 10.22323/2.06030201.
• [14] Jensen P, Kreimer P, Rouquier JB, Croissant Y. Scientists who engage with society perform better academically. Sci Public Policy. 2008;35(7):527-41. DOI: 10.3152/030234208X329130.
• [15] Critchley CR. Public opinion and trust in scientists: the role of the research context, and the perceived motivation of stem cell researchers. Public Underst Sci. 2008;17(3):309-27. DOI: 10.1177/0963662506070162.
• [16] Medvecky F. Fairness in knowing: Science communication and epistemic justice. Sci Eng Ethics. 2018;24(5):1393-408. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-017-9977-0
• [17] Medvecky F, Leach J. The ethics of science communication. J Sci Commun. 2017;6(04). DOI: 10.22323/2.16040501.
• [18] Trench B, Miller S. Policies and practices in supporting scientists’ public communication through training. Sci Public Policy. 2012;39(6):722-31. DOI: 10.1093/scipol/scs090.
• [19] Webler T. Why risk communicators should care about the fairness and competence of their public engagement process. In: Arvai JL, Rivers L, editors. Effective Risk Communication. Earthscan; 2013. pp. 121-41. ISBN: 9780203109861.
• [20] Wu T. Is the first amendment obsolete? Mich L Rev. 2018;117(547):548-9. DOI: 10.36644/mlr.117.3.first.
• [21] Eysenbach G. Credibility of health information and digital media: New perspectives and implications for youth. In: Metzger MJ, Flanagin AJ, editors. Digital Media, Youth, and Credibility. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 2008. pp. 123-54. DOI: 10.1162/dmal.9780262562324.123.
• [22] Allgaier J. Science and environmental communication on YouTube: strategically 496 distorted communications in online videos on climate change and climate engineering. Front Commun, Sec Sci Environ Communication. 2019;4:2-15. DOI: 10.3389/fcomm.2019.00036.
• [23] Besley JC, Nisbe M. How scientists view the public, the media and the political process. Public Underst Sci. 2013;22(6):644-59. DOI: 10.1177/0963662511418743.
• [24] Borchelt RE. Communicating the future: report of the research roadmap panel for public communication of science and technology in the twenty-first century. Sci Comm. 2021;23(2):194-211. DOI: 10.1177/1075547001023002006.
• [25] Brossard D, Scheufele DA. Science, new media, and the public. Science. 2013;339(6115):40-1. DOI: 10.1126/science.1232329.
• [26] Owen R, Macnaghten P, Stilgoe J. Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Sci Public Policy. 2012;39:751-60. DOI: 10.1093/scipol/scs093.
• [27] Owens S. Commentary. ‘Engaging the public’: Information and deliberation in environmental policy. Environ Plann. 2000;32(7):1141-8. DOI: 10.1068/a3330.
• [28] Bray B, France B, Gilbert JK. Identifying the essential elements of effective science communication: What do the experts say? Int J Sci Educ Part B. 2012;2(1):23-41. DOI: 10.1080/21548455.2011.611627.
• [29] Lorono-Leturiondo M, Davies SR. Responsibility and science communication: scientists’ experiences of and perspectives on public communication activities. J Responsible Innov. 2015;5:170-85. DOI: 10.1080/23299460.2018.1434739.
• [30] Stilgoe J, Lock SJ, Wilsdon J. Why should we promote public engagement with science? Public Underst Sci. 2014;23(1):4-15. DOI: 10.1177/0963662513518154.
• [31] Weingart P, Joubert M. The conflation of motives of science communication - causes, consequences, remedies. J Sci Comm. 2019;18(3):Y01. DOI: 10.22323/2.18030401.
• [32] Young N, Matthews R. Experts’ understanding of the public: Knowledge control in a risk controversy. Public Underst Sci. 2007;16(2):123-44. DOI: 10.1177/0963662507060586.
• [33] Bowater L, Yeoman K. Science Communication: A Practical Guide for Scientists. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2012, ISBN: 9781118406663.
• [34] Regmi PR, Waithaka E, Paudyal A, Simkhada P, van Teijlingen E. Guide to the design and application of online questionnaire surveys. Nepal J Epidemiol. 2016;6(4):640-4. DOI: 10.3126%2Fnje.v6i4.17258.
• [35] O’Connor C, Murphy M. Going viral: doctors must tackle fake news in the COVID 19 pandemic. National Center for Biotechnology Information, BMJ 2020;369:m1587. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.m1587.
• [36] Kappel K, Holmen SJ. Why science communication, and does it work? A taxonomy of science communication aims and a survey of the empirical evidence. Front Commun. 2019;4(55). DOI: 10.3389/fcomm.2019.00055.
• [37] Tagliabue F, Galassi L, Mariani P. The “pandemic” of disinformation in COVID-19. SN Compr Clin Med. 2020;2:1287-9. DOI: 10.1007/s42399-020-00439-1.
• [38] Frontasyeva M, Kamnev A. Ecology and society. Impacted ecosystems. Part I. Chem Didact Ecol Metrol. 2018; 23(1-2):7-29. DOI: 10.1515/cdem-2018-0001.
• [39] Kramarová L, Prokša M. Pupils’ preconceptions about heat, temperature and energy. Chem Didact Ecol Metrol. 2020;25(1-2):79-91. DOI: 10.2478/cdem-2020-0005.

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MNiSW, umowa nr SONP/SP/546092/2022 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki i promocja sportu (2024).