태터데스크 관리자

도움말
닫기
적용하기   첫페이지 만들기

태터데스크 메시지

저장하였습니다.


'PEP'에 해당되는 글 1건

  1. 2008.04.15 PEP/IS
2008.04.15 15:44

PEP/IS

PEP/IS
A New Model for Communicative
Effectiveness of Science
Hak-Soo Kim
Sogang University, Seoul, Korea
Public engagement with a problem or an issue relative to science (PEP/IS) is
suggested as an alternative and complementary model for understanding
the communicative effectiveness of science. PEP/IS is conceptualized as the
process of individual and collective problem solving in relation to science
and exemplified with South Korean exploratory data. Finally, further steps
for improving PEP/IS and related research capability are suggested with
communicative effectiveness being anticipated.
Keywords: communicative effectiveness; consequentiality; engagement;
PEP/IS; public; public understanding of science; problem vs. issue; impression;
reflexivity
Scientific knowledge and its applications are exploding. They represent
significant evidence of human civilization, especially the progress of the
20th century. It has been argued that we should understand science and appreciate
its value so that we might attain a citizenry of the age of science (Cohen
1952). There is a sense that everyone should learn about science—somehow.
Educational and awareness initiatives to produce learning, flourish around the
world (Schiele 1994). However, public knowledge about science, its
processes and products, is lacking. Is understanding of science also lacking?
distribution.
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
Downloaded from http://scx.sagepub.com at Sogang University on April 7, 2008
288 Science Communication
Science learning programs typically take the point of view of a message
sender (scientist, teacher, or journalist) and the perspective of learning theory
(McGuire 1985). Message receivers are conceived of as attending with interest
to the message, comprehending its content, and then—perhaps—adopting
a positive attitude toward science that will be reflected in subsequent actions.
This is the dominant communication strategy and the reigning behavioral
theory (e.g., Bauer, Durant, and Evans 1994).
The communication strategy and behavioral theory are incomplete. Public
science–relevant communication is not limited to receiving messages from or
about the science establishment. And message receivers do more than learn.
They form impressions, for example, and may use them (as understandings)
as a basis for action. Also, those impressions may not have their origin in
received messages. Problems may evoke them, as people look about for solutions
(and may have an exaggerated notion of science’s ability to furnish
them). Conversation with others, perhaps those facing the same problem,
adds more to the communication picture, and inevitably to related behaviors
(other than learning).
In all this—impressions and learning, problems encountered, collective
behavior—we see a complement to the message and/or learning picture of
the public’s understanding of science. And we see the need for a model that
conveys these additional considerations, which adds to our conceptions of
public and understanding.
In principle, we can not avoid facing problems as long as we live in this
“indeterminate” universe. To survive in it, we must engage with the most
urgent problems by starting to transform them into problematic situations
and trying to solve them (Dewey 1938). Some problems, unemployment for
example, are more individual, whereas others, global warming for example,
are more collective. A problem such as the energy shortage can be either,
depending on what persons see about it. If they see it relative to paying the
sharply increased gasoline price, it might be an individual’s problem; if
they see it relative to lack of the world’s fossil fuel resources, it might be a
collective problem.
Solving the problem of energy shortage could bring up the issue of constructing
a nuclear power plant, which also tends to engage us highly.
However, the issue usually pertains to controversy over solutions to the
problem rather than the problem itself (Carter, Stamm, and Heintz-Knowles
1992; Kim, Carter, and Stamm 1996). So, we might get to engage by review
with the initial problem of energy shortage via the issue, given more informative
communication.
Whatever (individual or collective) problematic situation we begin to
engage with, the process of problem solving is not simple from problem
distribution.
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
Downloaded from http://scx.sagepub.com at Sogang University on April 7, 2008
definition to solution. We often leave the problematic situation without
paying further attention to it, trying to define it, and/or making efforts to
construct its solution. The full process of engagement for problem solving
is enormously demanding. If the problem is collective, problem solving
needs collective engagement. Thus, we see the importance of the process of
engagement behavior.
Science seems to lend itself to problem solving. For example, the problem
of energy shortage seems to need scientific knowledge and research
from many disciplines (e.g., physical, environmental, and economic sciences)
to define the problem and construct its solution. Here, we look at
how the public is likely to relate to science, that is, the potential of public
engagement with a problem or an issue relative to science (PEP/IS). This
view may shed new light on how to improve communicative effectiveness
of science. It may also explain why “direct” dissemination of scientific
information to the public struggles to improve public understanding of
science (PUS) or scientific literacy, which is the traditional criterion for
science communication with the public.
First, we review how PUS, the traditional perspective, has been treated
in previous studies. Second, we explicate PEP/IS conceptually. Third, we
illustrate how PEP/IS has guided a survey in South Korea. Finally, we suggest
some practical steps to take in accomplishing PEP/IS, mainly in regard
to communicative effectiveness.
PUS Reconsidered
The dominant concept of PUS takes basically the information provider’s
point of view, according to Kim et al. (1996). It concerns the scientist’s sufficiency
of scientific knowledge relative to the public’s deficiency of it.
This is also called the deficit model: that the public lacks scientific knowledge
and appreciation (Wynne 1991; Ziman 1991). The public is implicitly
expected to equip itself with scientific literacy, the major components of
which are a basic scientific vocabulary, and some level of understanding of
scientific methodology and of scientific (and technological) impacts on
society (Miller 1983). These are assumed to be useful and necessary for a
citizen to cope with daily life in modern society, mainly for decision
making (e.g., on policy issues), rather than problem solving, by individual
or collective means. Thus, the flow of scientific information will be basically
unidirectional from the scientist to the public, which is illustrated in
Figure 1 as the unidirectional information flow model.
Kim / Communicative Effectiveness 289
distribution.
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
Downloaded from http://scx.sagepub.com at Sogang University on April 7, 2008
The information flow from scientists to the mediators (Path 1a), mainly the
mass media, has been studied mostly in terms of media portrayals of science.
Nelkin (1995), for example, argued that the American press showed a remarkable
consistency in portraying science as magic, as a revolution, and as a solution.
Also, Dunwoody (1986) found the media much less critical in their
coverage of science than in coverage of other topics, perhaps because of their
dependence on one another and scientists as their information sources. Science
coverage in newspapers has steadily increased but not changed much in terms
of content. Content is mostly health-related topics, with some natural sciences
(Pellechia 1997). Typically, coverage is bits and pieces, lacking methodological
details and contextual factors (Burnham 1987; Evans et al. 1990), perhaps
because media aim to “celebrate” scientific findings with “wonder and application
appeals” while their sources aim to “validate” their observations of
“facts” (Fahnestock 1993, 20). Yet scientists often deeply deplore inaccurate or
omitted media coverage of science (Pulford 1976; Tankard and Ryan 1974).
Information flow from the mediators, mainly mass media, to the public
(Path 1b) stipulates that the public can and does consume key content in
media portrayals of science and technology . . . somehow. This content
includes knowledge of and attitudes toward science and technology. Studies
show that print media are the major source of the public’s health information
(Meissner, Potosky, and Convissor 1992) and appreciation of energy
conservation (McLeod, Glynn, and Griffin 1987). Television, newspaper,
and interpersonal channels contribute positively to understanding of global
290 Science Communication
Mediators
1a 1b
Scientists 2 Public
Figure 1
The Unidirectional Information Flow Model
distribution.
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
Downloaded from http://scx.sagepub.com at Sogang University on April 7, 2008
warming causes, effects, and solutions, but each to understanding of a different
aspect (Stamm, Clark, and Eblacas 2000). Nisbet et al.’s (2002)
analysis of the National Science Board’s (NSB) Science and Engineering
Indicators 1999 report finds that viewers of television, unlike readers of
newspapers, have lesser knowledge of and greater reservations about
science. And the NSB’s 2004 report (National Science Board 2004) shows
that the American public continues to learn about the latest developments
in science and technology primarily from television (44 percent), with print
media (16 percent), and the Internet (9 percent) far behind. Irrespective of
a particular medium’s role, the public’s exposure to science and technology
through mass media is still assumed to be quite omnipotent, directly
enhancing much knowledge of and positive attitudes toward science and
technology (Miller 1986, 2004; Nelkin 1995). However, as we review
below, there is little evidence to support this assumption.
The failure of the expected effects from unidirectional information flow
through mediators has led, out of desperation, to “direct” efforts to diffuse
scientific information to the public (Path 2). Numerous initiatives to facilitate
that flow have been introduced by scientific communities, governments, parliaments,
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and lay publics in Europe
and the United States (Clark and Illman 2001; Edwards 2004). Recently a
new term civic scientist has arisen on the political agenda, courtesy of former
U.S. President Bill Clinton’s science advisor Neal Lane (1999). He
asked scientists to step into their communities to engage in active communication
with citizens so that those citizens might know and appreciate
science better.
This path was initiated in the United Kingdom as early as 1985. The Royal
Society published a report titled The Public Understanding of Science, in
which it stressed that the public’s scientific ignorance might arouse fear and
disfavor of science (Bodmer 1985). The report’s outcome was the creation of
COPUS, a tripartite committee from the Royal Society, the Royal Institution,
and the British Association for the Advancement of Science, which focused
on improving public understanding of scientific efforts. Ten years later, a
U.K. Office of Science and Technology report went further, strongly recommending
that scientists should specify their past and future communication
activities with the public in their research proposals to get public funds
(Wolfendale 1995). Fifteen years after the Bodmer report, the U.K. House of
Lords (2000) report, Science and Society, continued to call for more dialogue,
discussion, and debate between scientists and the public. Finally, more than
one half of British scientists were found to have participated in at least one
Kim / Communicative Effectiveness 291
distribution.
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
Downloaded from http://scx.sagepub.com at Sogang University on April 7, 2008
activity a year to communicate their research to the nonscientist public
(Wellcome Trust 2001).
In spite of many efforts to bring scientists and the public closer together
via communication, mediated or not, unidirectional information flow seems
inadequate or incomplete for the problem (Miller 2001). The measurement
of PUS began to be conducted as early as 1958 by the University of
Michigan Institute for Social Research, and from 1973 and regularly from
1979 with Jon Miller’s efforts by the U.S. National Science Board under the
name of Science Indicators (later: and Engineering). And it was also assimilated
into the U.K. survey in 1988 (Durant, Evans, and Thomas 1989), and
thereafter in Eurobarometer surveys. However, their findings continue to
show the “deficit model” to apply: The public has a low level of understanding
of science.
The typical PUS measurement consists of three major sectors: the public’s
interest in science; the public’s knowledge of scientific content (vocabulary,
concepts, and methods); and the public’s attitudes toward science in general,
the impacts of science, the scientific community itself, or a policy issue
regarding science (Bauer et al. 1994; Miller 1998, 2004; Pardo and Calvo
2002). This measurement approach corresponds with a tradition in social
science research on learning that posits a correlation among interest, knowledge,
and attitude (e.g., Petty, Ostrom, and Brock 1981; Taylor 1998).
However, PUS studies have usually found high interest and low knowledge,
along with varied attitudes: “curvilinear” attitudes (Bauer et al. 1994, 180),
“chaotic” attitudes (Durant et al. 2000, 149), or “ambivalent or critical” attitudes
(Pardo and Calvo 2002, 157) in relation with knowledge.
How low is knowledge? The proportion of scientifically literate adults has
been estimated at twelve percent (1995) for the United States, ten percent
(1992) for Britain, eight percent (1992) for Denmark and the Netherlands,
five percent (1992) for the European Union, four percent (1989) for Canada,
and only three percent (1991) for Japan (Miller 1998; Miller and Pardo
2000). According to Miller’s (2004) recent analysis, it now reaches seventeen
percent (1999) for the United States, mainly due to a general expansion of
college education and its science courses. Still, only 13 percent of adults
knew that a molecule is composed of atoms, even though both are popular
journalistic terms. However, Americans had very high interest in scientific
discoveries and new technologies, highly positive attitudes toward science,
strong support for the government’s investment in basic research, and high
regard for the scientific community.
These irregular, and unexpected, relationships among interest, knowledge,
and attitude bring the theory and methods of PUS communication and assessment
into question. PUS researchers, however, seem to hold to the belief that
292 Science Communication
distribution.
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
Downloaded from http://scx.sagepub.com at Sogang University on April 7, 2008
the basic concepts and their relationships are still valid, despite invalidating
observations. Factor analysis shows that the items used to survey the public
were found to share no significant dimension. As one possible solution, Pardo
and Calvo (2002) argued that new items should be systematically introduced
to obtain internal consistency of their constructs. Alternative PUS measures
were suggested to include knowledge of the activities of the scientific institution
such as teamwork, mutual criticism and checking of scientists, attitudes
toward the nature (independence, autonomy, objectivity, policy
neutrality, etc.) of science, trust in science, and efficacy on science policy, or
even political knowledge (Bauer, Petkova, and Boyadjieva 2000; Kallerud
and Ramberg 2002; Sturgis and Allum 2004).
No matter how we measure the traditional PUS notion, the findings
seem to cast doubt on our expectation of effective unidirectional information
flow from scientists to the public, and thus of more effective communication
about science. If so, we might need to question the applicability of
the concepts of interest, knowledge, and attitude, and of their hypothesized
relationships, which for so long have been assumed to describe and direct
human behavior.
Conceptualizing PEP/IS
The bulk of research on PUS seems to have taken the traditional definitions
of the public, understanding, and science; that is, the public was considered
mostly as the aggregate of people, whether the attentive (interested
and informed) public or the interested (but uninformed) one for scientific
matters (Miller 1986); understanding primarily as knowledge preceded by
interest and followed by attitude; science as scientific vocabulary, concepts,
methods, impacts on society, policy issues, or even the scientists as workers.
It is clear that we need to attempt a new broader conceptualization of
those concepts, as we try to produce a new measurement tool.
The first concept that we should review from PUS is understanding
because the others relate to it. Typically the concept of understanding is
viewed as a product of behavior rather than as a process of it. Its usual measurement
components, especially knowledge and attitude, are observed as
postcommunication products, whether through mediators or directly from
scientists. If defined as something else, understanding ends up seen as interpretation,
various and often imprecise. Thus the question remains: What is
the process?
In fact, PUS researchers have already raised the need to focus on the
behavioral process involved in understanding. Miller (1998) urged us “to
Kim / Communicative Effectiveness 293
distribution.
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
Downloaded from http://scx.sagepub.com at Sogang University on April 7, 2008
learn more about the magnitude and dynamics of these [PUS measures]
adult learning processes” (p. 221). Bauer et al. (1994) consider “the mode
and the intensity of public debate” (p. 181) as crucial mediators. Ziman
(1991) pointed out that “scientific knowledge is not received impersonally,
as the product of disembodied expertise, but comes as part of life” (p. 104).
Michael (1992), Irwin and Wynne (1996), and Wynne (1991, 1993, 1995),
critical of traditional PUS research that “decontextualizes” the public’s
understanding, have argued that the public is highly reflexive, negotiatory,
constructive, and reconstructive of science, based on its usefulness in context,
not just taking what science imposes irrespective of social institutional
factors. They stressed the public’s “reflexivity” in every context but do not
show its clear (e.g., sequential) structure. Emphases on process and potentially
significant circumstances do not get us into explicating the process
itself conceptually, however.
The concept of “engagement” in PEP/IS brings us closer to a perspective
on behavioral process. It starts by taking the public’s point of view (e.g., the
information consumer’s—but not solely as a communication receiver). This
contrasts with the information producer’s point of view, on which is based our
traditional notion of science popularization, scientific literacy, or public
understanding of science. Prewitt (1983) said that “the public probably knows
more about science than scientists know about the public” (p. 63). Kim et al.
(1996) considered PEP/IS to be the key to explicating the public’s relationship
with people, institutions, and policies of science.
Explicating the concept of engagement gets a hand from Carter’s
(1990a, 1990b, 2003) behavioral theory. It posits that behavior as process
has a structure of its own, independent of, but interdependent with, a body.
We can speak of the molecular structure of a behavioral step just as we can
of a body. Behavior’s molecular structure consists of various modes of
relating, which would help us to specify what engagement might comprise.
A simple model of behavior’s structural features (relatings) consists of four
basic act components in sequence (Carter 1990a; Kim 2003), as in Figure 2.
Engagement could, but might not, carry on all the way through the
sequence of those acts. For example, we make a minimal engagement
294 Science Communication
Exposing Focusing Attention Cognizing Moving
Figure 2
A Processual Model of Behavior
distribution.
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
Downloaded from http://scx.sagepub.com at Sogang University on April 7, 2008
through exposing ourselves to the environs. Further engagement takes place
when we focus our attention on something in particular, which may or may
not lead to cognizing (thinking).1 Moves may or may not take us further
into engagement. Full engagement is difficult for communicators to accomplish
by themselves, however much they achieve exposure and focal attention
to many (scientific) things. People think whatever they want to think
about whatever they want to do. Then there are a variety of barriers, from
timidity and ignorance to taxing and threatening circumstances, which
stand in the way of productive moves.
A personal history of engagement can be quite a bit more complex, as cognitions
along with memory come to affect later exposure and focal attention—
as well as moves. Also, engagement has quality and quantity. An important
part of that quality is whether it comes about with other members of the public,
as it might by conversation or discussion, such that coexposure, cofocal attention,
and others are not mere aggregate notions, but collective ones.
The difficulty of engagement is deplored in many arenas. For example,
Paisley (1998) identified at least forty-five topical literacies in journals,
including sexual or historical literacy and computer or statistical literacy.
They all claim a share of public attention and understanding. Bennet (1998)
pointed out the sharp decrease of civic engagement with institutional politics,
notably elections. He attributed it to increased economic pressure and
individualized lifestyles, whereas Cappella and Jamieson (1997) saw it as
due to media cynicism toward government and politics.
Constructivism in education typically reflects students’ difficulty of engagement
in learning, especially of science and mathematics (Matthews 2000;
Phillips 2000). For example, a constructivist perspective suggests a “problemcentered
learning” model in which a task regarding science or mathematics is
faced by student groups and solved by their cooperative communication under
a teacher’s minimal facilitation (Wheatley 1991). All this seems to imply the
importance of engagement but fails to show the process of it.
The second concept that we should review is public. It is, first of all,
ambiguous. It might indicate an aggregate of individuals, a collectivity concerned
with a common problem, or a collectivity concerned with a common
issue. The first, an aggregate of individuals, is our ordinary (and dictionary)
meaning of public. The second and third collectivities differ because they
presage the possibility, if not the existence, of people coming together in
their relating to scientific matters. Indeed, in the collectivity cases, engagement
to produce the collectivity itself has to occur along with, if not before,
engagement with their concerns. That is to say, a sequence of coexposing,
cofocusing attention, cocognizing, and comoving, which is an extension of
Kim / Communicative Effectiveness 295
distribution.
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
Downloaded from http://scx.sagepub.com at Sogang University on April 7, 2008
Figure 2, might produce a certain level of collectivity and of collective
engagement (Kim 1999, 2003).
Mass media seem to be quite effective for coexposing, less so for our
cofocusing attention. Yet Chaffee and Schleuder (1986) found that media
“exposure” does not increase knowledge; however, media “attention” does
help it a lot. When the media are effective in bringing about cofocused
attention to a common problem, as for example, the war in Iraq, we begin
to see collective engagement with that agenda, a variety of cognitions, and
some moves being made. However, this is a scattering of engagements,
even on events of great importance.
The public is clearly not a monolithic behavioral entity, so we had best
start with engagement as an individual challenge and take it from there,
keeping in mind the potential for two kinds of collectivities. Constituting an
engaged public will differ according to whether there is a common problem
or a common issue. Cognizing, especially, will differ. “Issues” usually
imply alternatives, and decision making. “Problems” might not have any
solutions (hence alternatives) yet. Relevant communication must take note.
Engagement may already be farther down the road for issues than for problems.
Purely informative content could well be lost on those dealing with
issues. Partisanship, re issues, puts people on the move.
The frequent mention of the issue-oriented public as an ideal collectivity
(Blumer 1966; Carey 1995), and in conjunction with the concept of the
public sphere (Habermas 1992), seems to be inferior to a problem-solving
public that involves collective constructive engagement for problem solving
(Kim 2003). However, in any case, it becomes important to construct
the public as a collectivity, not an aggregate.
Third, we should review the concept of science. It looks too broad and
abstract to secure validity. Just what is the public supposed to relate to? An
establishment? A method? Only rarely might the public try to be directly
engaged, possibly only if pressed to take a test in school. And in that case,
public understanding of science may be an impossible communication goal
in the first place. This seems to require us to look for a different direction for
engagement relative to science, to come back to a behavioral perspective taking
the public’s point of view. We might better ask: How and how far can we
take individual and collective engagement with respect to science?
Problem solving is supposed to be the most prominent and basic condition
for all kinds of life to survive and advance in this indeterminate, partially
ordered world (Carter 2003; Dewey 1938). As we face a problem, we
must engage with it. When we are exposed to many problems at a time as
in our daily life, we must select the most urgent one, focus our attention on
296 Science Communication
distribution.
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
Downloaded from http://scx.sagepub.com at Sogang University on April 7, 2008
it (Carter et al. 1973), think about it, and make moves to solve it. Similar
engagement can apply to issues, whose resolving might best be pursued by
first reviewing the problem solving that has got us this far. Premature decision
making is all too frequent.
Engagement with problems or issues looks to be a good bet to bring
about engagement with science because ordinary persons or society tend to
consider and (currently) demand science as providing practical or useful
benefits via problem solving (see Lubchenco 1998; Pielke and Byerly
1998). Michael (1992) and Wynne (1989) showed that a public’s problematic
situation makes a difference in that public’s engaging with science. For
example, UK Cumbria sheep farming after the Chernobyl fallout was found
to let those farmers be highly engaged (reflexively) with scientific knowledge
in their problem-solving context. However, citizens volunteering in a
radon survey for the home rarely engaged with science. The so-called
science shop activity in which the university helps community problem
solving was also found to be productive, as the university and the lay communities
could reformulate the latter’s original problem into a shared problematic
situation (Irwin 1995; Zaal and Leydesdorff 1987). Recently, Karl
and Turner’s (2002), Lee and Roth’s (2003), and Roth and Lee’s (2002)
studies show that community engagement with local problems (e.g., on
creek watersheds) could be critical to bringing collaborative problem solving
with relevant scientists. In short, Grote and Dierkes’s (2000) critique of
traditional PUS points out that “it is the contexts of use that enable a public
to take an active part in constructing the relevance of science and technology
and in using them” (p. 354).
The act of cognizing in the process of engagement is particularly pertinent
because one of its functions is to produce an idea via relating (Carter 1978;
Carter and Stamm 1993, 1994; Kim 1986). Relating a problem or an issue to
science should be a central act of cognitive engagement. This kind of cognizing
seems to be the key to producing a useful level of public understanding
of science. It provides identification and attributions of significance. If we
have not succeeded in this engagement act of cognizing, beyond the prior acts
of exposing and focusing attention, we may have accomplished nothing of
PUS—unless it be by accident.
The PUS knowledge-attitude view rests on learning as the dominant
behavioral process for achieving understanding and support. However, the
major cognitive product of this newly conceptualized PEP/IS is likely to be
closer to an “impression” of science. This impression, if it is not merely
identificatory, originates from its consequentiality as seen by the public
(Carter et al. 1992).
Kim / Communicative Effectiveness 297
distribution.
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
Downloaded from http://scx.sagepub.com at Sogang University on April 7, 2008
The impression, an idea, consists of an association between science and
some other element(s) evoked in relation to it. The element could be an
object, attribute, or value that the public relates to science. The relation for
constituting the association can be inside-outside (e.g., spatial, logical
inclusion), before-after (e.g., temporal, sequential, logical sufficiency),
similarity (e.g., equal), or difference (e.g., opposition), to take the most
common cognitive relations that contribute to making ideas (Carter 1992;
Carter et al. 1992; Kim, Choi, and Jung 2000; Kim, Hong, and Park 2003).
This impression, an ideational product, differs from knowledge, attitude,
and image that neglect our self-informing or self-instructing capability. It is
often spontaneous; being consequential it will be salient; it is very situational;
and, it is quite capable of eliciting and directing a move.
Using this conceptualization, Kim et al. (1996) constructed and experimentally
tested the new PEP/IS model of measuring the public’s engagement
with problems and issues relative to science in Seoul, South Korea,
and in Seattle, Washington, United States. Then, Kim, Lee, and Hong
(2002) and Kim, Park, Park, and Hong (2003) conducted two further
national surveys of Korean adults (in 2001) and Korean youths (in 2003) for
suggesting policy implications to improve PEP/IS in Korea via communicative
effectiveness. This article covers part of those results.
Measures of PEP/IS
To demonstrate an alternative and a complement to traditional PUS measurement,
we have extracted parts of two national surveys done with adults
and youths in South Korea.2 We see how differently and how far Korean
youths and adults took (or could take) individual or collective engagement
with major social problems or issues3 relative to science. We explore the
following three questions:
1. Do Korean youths and adults have the same kinds and levels of “attentionfocused”
engagement with major social problems or issues? Might they
develop a collective public by cofocusing attention on the same problems
or issues?
2. Do Korean youths and adults advance to “cocognizing” engagement with
the same problems or issues on which they respectively cofocused attention?
Do problems or issues on which they cofocus attention match those
which they think science should solve or resolve?
298 Science Communication
distribution.
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
Downloaded from http://scx.sagepub.com at Sogang University on April 7, 2008
3. What impressions do Korean youths and adults hold of science as a product
of past engagement? Do those impressions reflect a product consistent
with our PEP/IS model?
To answer those questions, we present, first, measures of the public’s
engagement in relation to science, and then, its impressions of science.
These measures should show the state and potentiality of PEP/IS in South
Korea, and, above all, suggest how to improve communicative effectiveness
for PEP/IS.
To find the level of individual engagement for the aggregate public,
we asked each youth or adult to check three “personally” most important
problems (A in Table 1). To find the level of collective engagement, we
asked each youth or adult to check those problems she or he thinks are
“socially” serious (B in Table 1). And, we tried to find “potential” engagement
by asking what problems need more attention (C in Table 1). Finally,
we asked each youth or adult to check those problems she or he thinks are
up to science to solve (D in Table 1). We might need to note especially the
top three percentages (shaded) in each column of the table (and the following
tables)—problems that bring about or could bring about engagement.
We found that a little more than ten percent of the Korean population,
youths and adults, are likely to engage with major social problems, individually
or collectively (Table 1: 1st row). However, youths and adults show quite
different problems in their engagement. For individual engagement, the youths
are most engaged with the problems of global warming, the college entrance
exam system, and war, whereas the adults are most engaged with the problems
of unemployment, elderly citizen support, and inflation (A in Table 1). For
collective engagement, the youths are more into corruption, the rich-poor gap,
labor-management conflict, and political unrest at the social level, whereas
the adults are more into unemployment, corruption, and the recession (B in
Table 1). This shows that the youths tend to quite individually engage with
some global problems such as global warming and war and to collectively
engage with economic and political problems, whereas the adults tend to individually
and collectively engage mainly with economic problems.
For potential engagement with problems that need more attention, the
youths and the adults seem ready to cofocus on such problems as the energy
shortage, water pollution, and global warming (C in Table 1). This suggests
that some problems are likely to establish a national collective public,
young and old, as they develop into hot agenda items. Of course, the adults
continue to need more attention on the problems of elderly citizen support
and unemployment.
Kim / Communicative Effectiveness 299
distribution.
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
Downloaded from http://scx.sagepub.com at Sogang University on April 7, 2008
Table 1
Public Engagement with Problems Relative to Science
(each cell a simple deviation from the corresponding
total mean on the first row)
D. Up to
A. Personal- B. Social- C. Need More Science
Importanta Seriousa Attentionb to Solveb
Problem Youth Adult Youth Adult Youth Adult Youth Adult
Total mean (%)c 11.1 10.2 11.1 10.3 13.7 17.6 14.7 16.8
Private information leak (%) 3.6 6.5 –2.9 –1.8 –3.5 2.1 6.8 7.5
Recession 3.1 10.4 7.6 15.9 –.5 3.1 –11.7 –8.5
Transportation problem –2.1 8.7 –.3 4.7 –3.9 7.1 11.5 8.0
Elderly citizen support –8.4 12.1 –5.6 13.5 –1.5 14.9 –7.2 –9.5
Climate change 0.4 –4.9 –5.4 –8.4 5.8 5.0 12.1 21.5
Corruption 4.4 1.7 15.1 16.6 –.4 4.7 –13.4 –12.4
Inflation –2.4 11.2 –1.8 4.0 –5.4 –.8 –10.2 –12.2
Water pollution 2.7 –.8 –.4 –1.6 11.1 7.1 31.1 25.5
AIDS –3.3 –8.3 –4.6 –7.9 4.1 –4.0 30.1 13.1
Rich-poor gap 8.6 5.4 10.4 10.4 5.0 5.7 –11.2 –11.4
Educational expenses –.4 5.3 –.9 –.9 –8.9 –6.4 –13.0 –13.1
Energy shortage 4.7 –3.9 –.9 –3.8 19.3 12.8 44.5 33.4
College entrance exam 9.4 –.2 1.4 –2.8 1.1 –4.5 –13.4 –12.7
Child and/or spouse abuse –2.1 –5.3 –6.1 –7.1 –6.5 –6.5 –13.5 –13.7
Global warming 9.7 –2.9 2.2 –4.7 19.8 4.0 33.1 27.6
Regional prejudice –7.8 –4.9 –4.8 –.9 –9.7 –5.9 –12.9 –12.5
Housing price jump –3.8 –1.9 –1.8 –6.6 –9.5 –8.6 –12.4 –13.6
Terrorism –6.4 –7.0 –5.3 1.6 –5.2 –4.5 –9.2 –7.4
Teen prostitution NA –2.4 NA 10.8 NA 5.2 NA –13.4
Unemployment NA 12.8 NA 22.0 NA 11.1 NA –8.1
Cancer NA 2.6 NA –6.6 NA –3.5 NA 23.2
Adult diseases NA 4.4 NA –7.1 NA –6.5 NA 7.5
Overdiet NA –5.9 NA –8.3 NA –11.6 NA –6.9
Species extinction NA –6.8 NA –8.1 NA 1.6 NA 9.6
Japan’s history distortion NA –3.2 NA 1.8 NA –2.0 NA –12.9
Red and/or green tide NA –9.9 NA –9.4 NA –8.6 NA 11.9
Health insurance crisis NA –1.7 NA –5.0 NA –6.0 NA –12.2
Information gap NA –3.2 NA –7.9 NA –4.0 NA 4.8
Teen pregnancy NA –6.6 NA –3.7 NA –.4 NA –12.0
300 Science Communication
distribution.
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
Downloaded from http://scx.sagepub.com at Sogang University on April 7, 2008
For “cocognizing” engagement that relates problem solving to science,
we found that youths and adults see major potential engagement in the
problems of energy shortage, global warming, and water pollution (D in
Table 1). On the other hand, we found some mismatches of engagement
between respondents’ individual- or social-engaged problems and what
they see as problems needing solutions from “science.” This seems to indicate
limited relevance of science and/or lack of communicative effectiveness
in making known scientific contributions to solving those problems.
Also, we measured collective engagement with controversial issues that
might have brought about the public’s coexposure and cofocused attention,
thus engagement with them (Table 2). To find the level of the Korean public’s
cocognizing engagement with issues,4 we asked each youth or adult to check
those issues that she or he thought are up to science to resolve (A in Table 2).
And, to find potential engagement, we asked each youth and adult to check
those issues she or he thought need more attention (B in Table 2) and those
which scientists should play a greater role in resolving (C in Table 2).
We found the Korean public (12.7 to 22.6 percent) to show larger cocognizing
engagement and potential engagement with issues than with
problems (10.2 to 17.6 percent). And, medical-related issues seem to bring
Kim / Communicative Effectiveness 301
Table 1 (continued)
D. Up to
A. Personal- B. Social- C. Need More Science
Importanta Seriousa Attentionb to Solveb
Problem Youth Adult Youth Adult Youth Adult Youth Adult
Juvenile delinquency 4.7 NA –1.9 NA 3.1 NA –13.9 NA
Racial discrimination –2.3 NA –4.1 NA 0.0 NA –12.2 NA
Severe acute respiratory –6.4 NA –6.4 NA –3.0 NA 30.3 NA
syndrome
Gender discrimination –1.4 NA –4.1 NA –3.2 NA –11.9 NA
Labor-management conflict –5.3 NA 8.1 NA –6.5 NA –13.5 NA
North Korea’s nuke –2.4 NA 3.6 NA –1.7 NA –1.0 NA
War 9.4 NA 6.9 NA 9.1 NA –5.7 NA
Internet misuse –3.3 NA –5.1 NA –3.4 NA –.5 NA
Political unrest –2.6 NA 7.6 NA –4.7 NA –13.2 NA
a. Three responses.
b. Multiple responses.
c. Total mean (%) = (the total sum of responses per problem) / (the number of problems × the
number of youth or adult respondents) × 100. NA = not applicable
distribution.
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
Downloaded from http://scx.sagepub.com at Sogang University on April 7, 2008
about more public engagement. The issues of cloning research limit, animal
experiments, and euthanasia are most likely to be seen as up to science to
resolve by the youths and the adults (A in Table 2).
For potential engagement with issues that need more attention generally
and those needing a greater role for scientists, youths and adults seem prepared
to get into the issues of cloning research limit and euthanasia (B and
C in Table 2). However, for the issue of animal experiments, the youths and
the adults seem to yield resolving it to science. They, themselves, do not
need to cofocus attention on it. Instead, the youths seem to need cofocused
302 Science Communication
Table 2
Public Engagement with Issues Relative to Science (each cell
a simple deviation from the total mean on the first row)
A. Up to C. Need
Science to B. Need More Scientists’
Resolvea Attentiona More Rolea
Issue Youth Adult Youth Adult Youth Adult
Total mean (%)b 18.5 20.0 22.6 22.0 13.7 12.7
New family headship system (%) –14.3 –14.6 –4.8 –4.8 –11.5 –10.3
Cloning research limit 38.7 36.8 42.9 17.5 52.1 37.0
Animal experiments 24.8 31.5 –.1 –9.0 12.5 13.7
Euthanasia 2.5 12.0 4.1 7.0 –1.0 6.5
Homosexual’s and/or –2.8 –8.1 4.4 –4.8 –3.4 –5.7
transsexual’s rights
Sunshine policy to North Korea –15.8 –14.0 –11.9 –3.2 –11.4 –9.3
Abortion –3.7 –3.7 1.9 1.2 –4.2 .6
National security law NA –15.4 NA –8.2 NA –10.0
Cremation site NA –7.2 NA –5.9 NA –6.9
Five-day-per-week work system NA –6.1 NA 2.6 NA –7.3
Public disclosure of sexual NA –11.5 NA 7.0 NA –8.6
misconduct with teen
Government workers union –17.0 NA –18.1 NA –11.5 NA
New educational information –2.2 NA –8.4 NA –4.5 NA
system
U.S. forces evacuation –12.3 NA –2.8 NA –10.9 NA
Continuation of land reclamation 2.2 NA –6.9 NA –5.2 NA
by drainage
a. Multiple responses.
b. Total mean (%) = (the total sum of responses per issue) / (the number of issues × the
number of youth or adult respondents) × 100.
distribution.
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
Downloaded from http://scx.sagepub.com at Sogang University on April 7, 2008
attention more on the issue of homosexual’s and/or transsexual’s rights,
whereas the adults do more on the issue of public disclosure of sexual
misconduct with teens. Neither sees scientists needing to play a greater role
in resolving these two issues.
Overall, we see that the Korean youths and adults are likely to make
cocognizing engagement relative to science primarily with only a few medicalrelated
issues, and much less with other major social issues. If behavioral
and social sciences are addressing these issues (they may not be) the news
is not getting to the public or perhaps the public does not identify those disciplines
as science.
Nonetheless, the public must have continued, at least sporadically, to
relate science to many other problems or issues in their past life. So, we
tried to obtain their impressions of science by asking each person what
word first comes to mind as she or he hears the word science,5 and how the
word associate (element) relates to science, that is, which one of six cognitive
relations is used: (a) it is a part of science, or (b) science is a part of
it (inside-outside); (c) it is a consequence of science, or (d) science is a consequence
of it (before-after); (e) it and science are the same thing, or (f) it
is not science (similarity vs. difference).
We found the top three categories of impression elements evoked in relation
to science to be scientific products (26.5 percent; e.g., computers, electric
devices, transportation), research activities (17.3 percent; e.g., experiment,
microscope, laboratory), and evaluative attributes (12.5 percent; e.g., good, useful,
difficult, complex) (Table 3).
Of special interest, the adults’ scientific products as elements are about
three times more than the youths’, whereas the youths’ research activities
and evaluative attributes are greater than those of the adults. Also, the adults
are more impressed by scientific consequences (10.5 percent; e.g., development,
civilization, life quality), whereas the youths are more impressed
by research objects (12.3 percent; e.g., space, planet, life).
What is noteworthy here is that vocabulary (e.g., DNA, molecule, mutation),
nature of science (e.g., objectivity, creativity, accuracy), and definition
of science (e.g., discovery, inquiry, proof) are negligible—this despite the scientific
establishment’s concern to broaden the public’s knowledge of them
under the traditional PUS model.
Evaluative attributes (12.5 percent; e.g., good, useful, difficult, complex),
germane to PUS’s concern for public attitudes, are not considerable.
Nor are they given as much emphasis by adults as by youths.
Science does do well in the public’s impressions if we look at the relations
used in making their impressions (Table 4). It stands outside (the first relation:
Kim / Communicative Effectiveness 303
distribution.
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
Downloaded from http://scx.sagepub.com at Sogang University on April 7, 2008
33.9 percent; other things are a part of science), it stands before (the third relation:
23.1 percent; other things are in consequence of science).
The first relation implies some authority of science, in that science
embraces an evoked element inside, perhaps being capable of controlling it;
the third relation implies some strength of science because science contributes
to an evoked element. (The second and the fourth relations imply
the opposites.) Thus, we can obtain a “power ratio” for science, indicating
relative consequentiality of science, dividing the first and third relations by
the second and fourth relations (Carter and Stamm 1993; Clark 1998). The
youths (power ratio of 3.22) and the adults (power ratio of 3.47) seem to
consider science very consequential, the adults a little more than the youths.
We also found similarity, the fifth relation, to be highly used (19.8 percent).
Is science all that well understood if so much is merely synonymous
with it?
304 Science Communication
Table 3
Elements Used in Impressions of Science (%, frequency)
Category Youth Adult Sum
Scientific products 13.6% (82) 39.6% (233) 26.5% (315)
Research activities 21.8 (131) 12.6 (74) 17.3 (205)
Research objects 12.3 (74) 7.8 (46) 10.1 (120)
Areas 10.6 (64) 7.0 (41) 8.8 (105)
Scientific consequences 8.0 (48) 10.5 (62) 9.3 (110)
Evaluative attributes 18.8 (112) 6.3 (37) 12.5 (149)
Education related .7 (4) 3.1 (18) 1.9 (22)
Nature of science 3.0 (18) 2.4 (14) 2.7 (32)
Definition of science 1.8 (11) 2.2 (13) 2.0 (24)
Vocabulary 1.5 (9) 1.0 (6) 1.3 (15)
Media related .5 (3) 1.0 (6) .8 (9)
Life related 2.0 (12) .9 (5) 1.4 (17)
International context .3 (2) .7 (4) .5 (6)
Others 1.7 (10) .3 (2) 1.0 (12)
None .3 (2) .2 (1) .3 (3)
Don’t know .7 (4) 1.5 (9) 1.1 (13)
No response 2.3 (14) 2.9 (17) 2.6 (31)
Total 100% (600) 100% (588) 100% (1,188)
χ2 = 161.8, df = 16, p < .001.
distribution.
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
Downloaded from http://scx.sagepub.com at Sogang University on April 7, 2008
Summary and Conclusion
We have explored Korean youth and adult individual and collective
engagement with problems or issues relative to science, and their impressions
of science.
For engagement relative to science, we found that the youths and the
adults are quite different in their respective individual engagement but are
likely to progress into a collective public by cofocusing attention on economic
problems. Also, both seem ready to progress into a national collective
public if such problems as the energy shortage, water pollution, and
global warming develop into pressing agenda items. This attention seems to
enable such a public to step forward to a more thoughtful engagement with
“science.”
Nevertheless, we found that Korean youths and adults do not complete the
full behavioral process of individual or collective engagement with science in
regard to almost every major problem. This is also found to be the case for
most social issues, with the exception of medical instances, such as limiting
cloning research, which have already achieved high cofocused attention.
Despite incomplete (or lack of any) engagement with major problems and
issues relative to science, the Korean public hold impressions of science that
imply its consequentiality.
This new conceptualization of PEP/IS highlights the difference between
a quantitative public and a qualitative public. The former, the aggregate
public, stresses how many persons are somehow involved with a problem
Kim / Communicative Effectiveness 305
Table 4
Relations Used in Making Impressions of Science (%, frequency)
Relation Youth Adult Sum
It is a part of science 36.7% (220) 31.1% (183) 33.9% (403)
Science is a part of it 8.8 (53) 8.3 (49) 8.6 (102)
It is a consequence of science 21.3 (128) 25.0 (147) 23.1 (275)
Science is a consequence of it 9.2 (55) 7.8 (46) 8.5 (101)
It and science are the same thing 18.3 (110) 21.3 (125) 19.8 (235)
It is not science 3.7 (22) 3.7 (22) 3.7 (44)
No response 2.0 (12) 2.7 (16) 2.4 (28)
Total 100% (600) 100% (588) 100% (1188)
χ2 = 7.1, df = 6, ns.
distribution.
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
Downloaded from http://scx.sagepub.com at Sogang University on April 7, 2008
or an issue, whereas the latter, the collective public, stresses what problem
or issue brings, or might bring, together persons into a collectivity. The latter
enables collective problem solving or collective issue resolution whose
process consists of coexposing, cofocusing attention, cocognizing and/or
comoving. Minimally, it can result in the sharing of an agenda, preventing
the too frequent loss of collective cognitive capability for problem solving
or issue resolution. At best it might even produce a unity, that is, a collectively
constructed solution plus a collective resolution to move together
toward it, a great asset for challenging current and future problems or issues
(Kim 2003). If we disregard the “quality” of engagement we are as likely
to produce further problems as to solve the ones we already have.
However, this PEP/IS is not easy to achieve. We often see a public end up
only cofocusing attention on a problem or issue, as in mass media’s agenda
setting. Then, without adequate cocognizing, the public may be forced to premature
comoving, threatened by partisanship (as in voting). We can be
greatly frustrated and sharply divided by such incomplete collective
processes. Thus, we need to heed communicative effectiveness, to see if
communication is helpful to achieve cofocused attention on a problem or
issue, to realize cocognition relative to science, and to direct comoving to the
cognized end. For example, communication that essentially functions as
information exchange rather than persuasion (see Kim 1986) might be more
effective.
At this point, we can suggest some practical steps to take in accomplishing
PEP/IS. First, we need to effectively communicate our (shared or to be
shared) problems, for instance, energy shortage as a potentially salient collective
problem shown in our data, so as to develop that cofocusing (a.k.a.
agenda) by which a collective public begins to arise. Second, we need to
effectively communicate all of the problem’s relevance—and relevance of
issues that have arisen in regard to that problem—to science’s solving or
resolving capability. These look quite feasible and have the potential to
develop the Korean public into a constructive problem-solving collectivity
(on energy shortage) relative to science. Such effective communicating tells
the importance of relevant communication in “content” and “timing” to
enable the sequential respective acts of coexposing, cofocusing attention,
cocognizing, and comoving.
Third, to achieve the above communicative effectiveness better, we need
to establish a more genuine sense of scientific communities, one in which
science tries to help produce collective publics, to lead in the process of
full collective engagement. To do so, scientists need to consider questions
about what science can contribute to problem solving, not just questions of
306 Science Communication
distribution.
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
Downloaded from http://scx.sagepub.com at Sogang University on April 7, 2008
scientific (factual) puzzles. Scientists, natural and social, need to get into
problem solving together, and with the public, because there emerge many
collective problems (e.g., population overgrowth, global warming, atomic
war) that technology simply cannot solve (see Crowe 1969). The danger of
the cultural divide between the public and scientists seems to exist in their
not having a “joint” problem-solving and issue-resolving capability, not in
the wide, but artifactual, gap of scientific literacy between them.
These possible steps could bring about more salient and constructive
impressions regarding the “consequentiality” of science. Although we have
already seen some of this as a product of the public’s past, occasional, and
informal relationships with science (its impressions), much of significance
remains to be done. For example, improved impressions might induce more
talented youths into science careers, where shortages grow imminent and desperate
(e.g., Broad 2004, for the United States; Kim, Hong, and Park 2003, for
Korea). Prevailing modes of science communication such as science journalism,
science exhibits, science festivals, and even science education need to be
no less concerned with communicative effectiveness for PEP/IS than with
whatever responsibility that science feels to report to the public.
Finally, we need to improve survey research by using relatively consistent
problems and issues across youths and adults, years, and nations, to
enable comparative analysis. We need to develop indexes and more refined
statistical analysis for precise interpretation of current PEP/IS, to suggest
where we should try to improve communication. What new communicative
strategies could help? What science could best be used to help communication
in accomplishing PEP/IS? Would an interdisciplinary approach be
needed to make all of this work? Above all, we need to conduct research
utilizing this new PEP/IS model and the traditional PUS one so their
respective contributions to communicative effectiveness of science can be
discerned.
This PEP/IS conceptualization and its exploratory data analysis turn our
focus toward theoretical and methodological considerations in the public’s perspective,
as a complement to PUS measurements in the scientist’s perspective.
Notes
1. The partial order condition under which we as humans operate (Carter 1990b; Dewey
1938) requires more of minding than learning. Collisions exemplify our minding needs: exposing
to any and all possible collisions, focusing attention for collisions to be avoided or arranged,
cognizing to relate something to something else. In this latter regard, cognizing (or thinking) is
more than having acquaintance or knowledge (its historic meanings); it is called on to observe
and make use of discrepancies, to provide ideational implication for behavioral guidance (by
Kim / Communicative Effectiveness 307
distribution.
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
Downloaded from http://scx.sagepub.com at Sogang University on April 7, 2008
using a variety of relations and element types), to assess behavioral outcomes (e.g., feelings), and
to dynamically distinguish and balance sometimes-competing behavioral conditions (e.g., wants
vs. needs, agreement vs. understanding, economy vs. polity). Communicating helps cognizing
provide implication—and instruction—where there is none given, by providing signification to
which cognizing’s relatings can add implicatory content (Carter in press). Traditional conceptions
of cognition (as acquaintance, recognition, knowledge, and/or thought; e.g., Sternberg
1999) do not afford a complete and accurate assessment of our need for, and capabilities developed
for, cognizing’s contributions to minding.
2. We nationally sampled 600 adults at age 20 years or older (based on the 2000 census
data) and 600 youths (based on the 2003 Education Ministry Statistics) from the second year
of middle school to the sophomore year of college, by the multistage stratified sampling
design. Then, we conducted a face-to-face survey for obtaining 588 adult respondents and 600
youth respondents (202 for middle school, 197 for high school, and 201 for college).
3. We sampled highly publicized social problems and issues, steady or current, from South
Korea’s major print media to establish “minimal engagement.” After pretests, we assumed that
people were very likely to have been “exposed” to those selected “problems” and even to have
advanced to “focusing attention” on those selected (highly controversial) “issues.” The difference
between the 2001 survey for adults and the 2003 survey for youths produces those NA
(not applicable) cells in the subsequent data tables.
4. A few issues seem to need some description: The new family headship system pertains
to opening the headship to a female or a single family, whereas the previous system based on
the Confucian tradition requires a family to be headed by a male elder for keeping the family
tree; the five-day-per-week work system pertains to applying it immediately in all public and
private levels; and, the new educational information system pertains to putting together all
students’ information in one single system, which might contribute to efficient management of
students’ education or endangerment of students’ privacy.
5. This was asked as an open-ended question. To explore the full range for impressions of
science, the author and a research assistant screened all responses, carefully formed many subcategories,
and then those final categories shown in Table 3. These categories would be useable
for future research’s intercoder reliability. Here, agreement was reached on everything.
References
Bauer, M., J. Durant, and G. Evans. 1994. European public perceptions of science.
International Journal of Public Opinion Research 6 (2): 163–86.
Bauer, M., K. Petkova, and P. Boyadjieva. 2000. Public knowledge of and attitudes to science:
Alternative measures that may end the “science war.” Science, Technology, and Human
Values 25 (1): 30–51.
Bennet,W. L. 1998. The uncivic culture: Communication, identity, and the rise of lifestyle politics.
PS: Political Science and Politics 31 (4): 741–61.
Blumer, H. 1966. The mass, the public, and public opinion. In Reader in public opinion and
communication, edited by B. Berelson and M. Janowit, 43–50. New York: Free Press.
Bodmer, W. 1985. The public understanding of science. London: Royal Society.
Broad, W. 2004. U.S. is losing its dominance in the sciences. The New York Times, May 3,
2004, A1, A19.
308 Science Communication
distribution.
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
Downloaded from http://scx.sagepub.com at Sogang University on April 7, 2008
Burnham, J. C. 1987. How superstition won and science lost: Popularizing science and health
in the United States. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Cappella, J. N., and K. H. Jamieson. 1997. Spiral of cynicism: The press and the public good.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Carey, J. W. 1995. The press, public opinion, and public discourse. In Public opinion and the
communication of consent, edited by T. L. Glasser and C. T. Salmon, 373–402. New York:
Guilford.
Carter, R. F. 1978. A peculiar horse race. In The Presidential debate: Media, electoral, and
policy perspectives, edited by G. F. Bishop, R. G. Meadow, and M. Jackson-Beeck, 3–17.
New York: Praeger.
———. 1990a. Mass communication effects: A weakness theorem. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Communication Theory and Methodology Division of the Association for
Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, August, Minneapolis, MN.
———. 1990b. Mass communication, mass cognition, and the behavioral molecule. Paper
presented at the American Psychological Association mini-conference on mass media and
society, Boston, MA.
———. 1992. Cognigraphics: Taking the measure of ideas. Paper presented at the meeting of
the American Association for Public Opinion Research, May, St. Petersburg, FL.
———. 2003. Communication: A harder science. In Communication, a different kind of
horserace: Essays honoring Richard F. Carter, edited by B. Dervin and S. H. Chaffee,
369–76. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
———. In press. Art, art, and communication. In Audiences and the arts: Communication
perspectives, edited by B. Dervin and L. Foreman-Wernet. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Carter, R. F.,W. L. Ruggels, K. M. Jackson, and M. B. Heffner. 1973. Application of signaled
stopping technique to communication research. In New models for communication
research, edited by P. Clarke, 15–43. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Carter, R. F., and K. R. Stamm. 1993. How we thought about the Gulf War. In Desert storm
and the mass media, edited by B. L. Greenberg and W. Gantz, 152–65. Cresskill, NJ:
Hampton Press.
———. 1994. The 1992 presidential campaign and debates: A cognitive view. Communication
Research 21: 380–95.
Carter, R. F., K. R. Stamm, and C. Heintz-Knowles. 1992. Agenda-setting and consequentiality.
Journalism Quarterly 69 (4): 868–77.
Chaffee, S. H., and J. Schleuder. 1986. Measurement and effects of attention to media news.
Human Communication Research 13 (1): 76–107.
Clark, F., and D. L. Illman. 2001. Dimensions of civic science. Science Communication 23 (1):
5–27.
Clark, F. J. 1998. Thinking about global warming. Master’s thesis, University of Washington,
Seattle.
Cohen, B. 1952. The education of the public in science. Impact of Science on Society 3 (3):
67–100.
Crowe, B. L. 1969. The tragedy of the commons revisited. Science 166 (3909), November 28:
1103–07.
Dewey, J. 1938. Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York: Henry Holt.
Dunwoody, S. 1986. The science writing inner club: A communication link between science
and the lay public. In Scientists and journalists: Reporting science as news, edited by
S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, and C. L. Rogers, 155–69. New York: Free Press.
Kim / Communicative Effectiveness 309
distribution.
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
Downloaded from http://scx.sagepub.com at Sogang University on April 7, 2008
Durant, J., M. Bauer, G. Gaskell, C. Midden, M. Liakopoulos, and L. Scholton. 2000. Two cultures
of public understanding of science and technology in Europe. In Between understanding
and trust: The public, science and technology, edited by M. Dierkes and C. v.
Grote, 131–56. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic.
Durant, J. R., G. A. Evans, and G. P. Thomas. 1989. The public understanding of science.
Nature 340, July 6: 11–14.
Edwards, C. 2004. Evaluating European public awareness of science initiatives. Science
Communication 25 (3): 260–71.
Evans, W. A., M. Krippendorf, J. H. Yoon, P. Posluszny, and S. Thomas. 1990. Science in the
prestige and national tabloid presses. Social Science Quarterly 71: 105–17.
Fahnestock, J. 1993. Accommodating science: The rhetorical life of scientific facts. In The literature
of science: Perspectives on popular scientific writing, edited by M. W. McRae,
17–36. Athens: University of Georgia Press.
Grote, C. v., and M. Dierkes. 2000. Public understanding of science and technology: State of
the art and consequences for future research. In Between understanding and trust: The
public, science and technology, edited by M. Dierkes and C. v. Grote, 341–62. Amsterdam:
Harwood Academic.
Habermas, J. 1992. Further reflections on the public sphere. In Habermas and the public
sphere, edited by C. Calhoun, 421–61. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Irwin, A. 1995. Citizen science: A study of people, expertise and sustainable development.
London: Routledge.
Irwin, A., and B. Wynne, eds. 1996. Misunderstanding of science? The public reconstruction
of science and technology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kallerud, E., and I. Ramberg. 2002. The order of discourse in surveys of public understanding
of science. Public Understanding of Science 11: 213–24.
Karl, H. A., and C. Turner. 2002. A model project for exploring the role of sustainability
science in a citizen-centered, collaborative decision-making process. Human Ecology
Review 9 (1): 67–71.
Kim, H.-S. 1986. Coorientation and communication. In Progress in communication sciences
VII, edited by B. Dervin and M. J. Voigt, 31–54. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
———. 1999. The processes of public science and science communication: A new conceptual
explication. Korean Journal of Journalism and Communication Studies 43 (3): 79–110.
———. 2003. A theoretical explication of collective life: Coorienting and communicating. In
Communication, a different kind of horserace: Essays honoring Richard F. Carter, edited
by B. Dervin and S. H. Chaffee, 117–34. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Kim, H.-S., R. F. Carter, and K. R. Stamm. 1996. Developing a standard model of measuring
the public understanding of science and technology. Journal of Science and Technology
Policy 7 (2): 51–78.
Kim, H.-S., J.-M. Choi, and T.-J. Jung. 2000. Impressions of the SET (Scientist-Engineer-
Technician): A national survey analysis. Journal of Technology Innovation 8 (1): 95–123.
Kim, H.-S., H.-H. Hong, and S.-C. Park. 2003. Youths’ impressions of the scientist: A national
survey analysis. Journal of Technology Innovation 11 (2): 41–69.
Kim, H.-S., J.-H. Lee, and H.-H. Hong. 2002. Korean public understanding of science and
technology: A national survey through a new conceptualization. Journal of Technology
Innovation 10 (1): 124–47.
Kim, H.-S., J.-S. Park, S.-C. Park, and H.-H. Hong. 2003. Developing a new measurement
model for the youths’ understanding of science and technology: A national survey. Report
310 Science Communication
distribution.
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
Downloaded from http://scx.sagepub.com at Sogang University on April 7, 2008
on a policy research project to the Ministry of Science and Technology, the Korean government,
Seoul, Korea.
Lane, N. 1999. The civic scientist and science policy. In Science and technology policy yearbook,
edited by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, ch. 22.
Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.aaas.org/spp/yearbook/chap22.htm
Lee, S., and W.-M. Roth. 2003. Science and the “good citizenship”: Community-based scientific
literacy. Science, Technology, and Human Values 28 (3): 403–24.
Lubchenco, J. 1998. Entering the century of the environment: A new social contract for
science. Science 279, January 23: 491–97.
Matthews, M. R. 2000. Appraising constructivism in science and mathematics education. In
Constructivism in education, edited by D. C. Phillips, 161–92. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
McGuire,W. J. 1985. Attitudes and attitude change. In Handbook of social psychology, edited
by G. Lindzey and E. Aronson, 233–346. New York: Random House.
McLeod, J., C. J. Glynn, and R. J. Griffin. 1987. Communication and energy conservation.
Journal of Environmental Education 18: 28–37.
Meissner, H. I., A. L. Potosky, and R. Convissor. 1992. How sources of health information
relate to knowledge and use of cancer screening exams. Journal of Community Health 17:
153–65.
Michael, M. 1992. Lay discourses of science: Science-in-general, science-in-particular, and
self. Science, Technology, and Human Values 17 (3): 313–33.
Miller, J. D. 1983. Scientific literacy: A conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus 112 (2):
29–48.
———. 1986. Reaching the attentive and interested publics for science. In Scientists and journalists:
Reporting science as news, edited by S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, and C. L.
Rogers, 55–69. New York: Free Press.
———. 1998. The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding of Science
7: 203–23.
———. 2004. Public understanding of, and attitudes toward, scientific research: What we
know and what we need to know. Public Understanding of Science 13 (3): 273–94.
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 Between understanding and trust: The public, science and technology, edited by
M. Dierkes and C. v. Grote, 81–129. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Harwood Academic.
Miller, S. 2001. Public understanding of science at the crossroads. Public Understanding of
Science 10: 115–20.
National Science Board. 2004. Science and engineering indicators 2004. Washington, DC:
National Science Foundation.
Nelkin, D. 1995. Selling science: How the press covers science and technology (rev. ed.). New
York: Freeman.
Nisbet, M. C., D. A. Scheufele, J. Shanahan, P. Moy, D. Brossard, and B. V. Lewenstein. 2002.
Knowledge, reservations, or promises? A media effects model for public perceptions of
science and technology. Communication Research 29 (5): 584–608.
Paisley, W. J. 1998. Scientific literacy and the competition for public attention and understanding.
Science Communication 20 (1): 70–80.
Pardo, R., and F. Calvo. 2002. Attitudes toward science among the European public:
A methodological analysis. Public Understanding of Science 11: 155–95.
Kim / Communicative Effectiveness 311
distribution.
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
Downloaded from http://scx.sagepub.com at Sogang University on April 7, 2008
Pellechia, M. G. 1997. Trends in science coverage: A content analysis of three US newspapers.
Public Understanding of Science 6: 49–68.
Petty, R. E., T. M. Ostrom, and T. C. Brock. 1981. Historical foundations of the cognitive
response approach to attitudes and persuasion. In Cognitive responses in persuasion,
edited by R. E. Petty, T. M. Ostrom, and T. C. Brock, 5–29. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Phillips, D. C. 2000. An opinionated account of the constructivist landscape. In Constructivism
in education, edited by D. C. Phillips, 1–16. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Pielke Jr., R. A., and R. Byerly, Jr. 1998. Beyond basic and applied. Physics Today 51 (2):
42–46.
Prewitt, K. 1983. Scientific illiteracy and democratic theory. Daedalus 112 (2): 49–64.
Pulford, D. L. 1976. Follow-up of study of science news accuracy. Journalism Quarterly 53:
119–21.
Roth, W.-M., and S. Lee. 2002. Scientific literacy as collective praxis. Public Understanding
of Science 11: 33–56.
Schiele, B., ed. 1994. When science becomes culture. Ottawa, Canada: University of Ottawa Press.
Stamm, K. R., F. Clark, and P. R. Eblacas. 2000. Mass communication and public understanding
of environmental problems: The case of global warming. Public Understanding
of Science 9: 219–37.
Sternberg, R. J. 1999. A dialectical basis for understanding the study of cognition. In The
nature of cognition, edited by R. J. Sternberg, 51–78. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Sturgis, P. S., and N. Allum. 2004. Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of
public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science 13: 55–74.
Tankard, J. W., and M. Ryan. 1974. News source perceptions of accuracy of science coverage.
Journalism Quarterly 51: 219–25, 334.
Taylor, S. E. 1998. The social being in social psychology. In The handbook of social psychology,
edited by D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, and G. Lindzey, 58–95. New York: McGraw-Hill.
U.K. House of Lords. 2000. Science and technology—Third report (Select Committee on
Science and Technology Third Report). Retrieved from http://www.parliament.thestationery-
office.co.uk/pa/ld199900/ldselect/ldsctech/38/3801.htm
Wellcome Trust. 2001. The role of scientists in public debate. Retrieved from http://www
.wellcome.ac.uk/assets/wtd003425.pdf
Wheatley, G. H. 1991. Constructivist perspectives on science and mathematics learning.
Science Education 75 (1): 9–21.
Wolfendale, S. A. 1995. Report of the committee to review the contribution of scientists and
engineers to public understanding of science, engineering and technology. London: Her
Majesty’s Stationery Office.
Wynne, B. 1989. Sheepfarming after Chernobyl: A case study in communicating scientific
information. Environment 31 (2): 11–39.
———. 1991. Knowledge in context. Science, Technology, and Human Values 16 (1): 111–21.
———. 1993. Public uptake of science: A case for institutional reflexivity. Public
Understanding of Science 2: 321–37.
———. 1995. Public understanding of science. In Handbook of science and technology studies,
edited by S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Peterson, and T. Pinch, 361–88. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
312 Science Communication
distribution.
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
Downloaded from http://scx.sagepub.com at Sogang University on April 7, 2008
Zaal, R., and L. Leydesdorff. 1987. Amsterdam Science Shop and its influence on university
research: The effects of ten years of dealing with non-academic questions. Science and
Public Policy 14 (6): 310–16.
Ziman, J. 1991. Public understanding of science. Science, Technology, and Human Values 16
(1): 99–105.
Hak-Soo Kim is dean of the College of Communication and the Graduate School of Mass
Communication, Sogang University, Seoul, South Korea. He also directs the Academy for
Scientific Culture and the Science Communication Laboratory of the same university. He is
currently vice president of PCST (Public Communication of Science and Technology)
International Network. His research interests focus on basic communication theory and
science communication.
Kim / Communicative Effectiveness 313
distribution.
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
Downloaded
Trackback 0 Comment 0