Indifferent, Dogmatic or Pragmatic: A Multi-Country Analysis of How Scientists View the Public and Public Engagement

Poonam Pandey; Stefano Sbalchiero; Cesare Silla; Brandon Vaidyanathan

doi:10.6092/issn.1971-8853/19401

Authors

Poonam Pandey Post-Growth Innovation Lab, University of Vigo https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2296-6821

Poonam Pandey is a Research Fellow at the Post-Growth Innovation Lab, University of Vigo (Spain). She is an interdisciplinary researcher working at the interface of STS, development studies, and innovation studies. Her recent work engages with the debates on Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) from a Global South perspective. Broadly, her research focuses on understanding knowledge politics, inclusion, and justice in socio-technical systems.
Stefano Sbalchiero Department of Philosophy, Sociology, Education and Applied Psychology (FISPPA), University of Padova https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4369-1983

Stefano Sbalchiero (PhD in Sociology, 2010) is a Researcher (RtdB) and Assistant Professor at the University of Padova (Italy), where he teaches Social Research Methods with special emphasis on quantitative analysis. He was a visiting fellow at Boston University, MA, USA (2023) and at the Polish Academy of Sciences, Department of Methodology, Kraków, Poland (2018), where he focused on quantitative methods, text mining approaches, and topic modelling.
Cesare Silla Department of Economics, Society, Politics (DESP), University of Urbino "Carlo Bo" https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0995-8592

Cesare Silla is Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Urbino (Italy), where he teaches History of Sociology, Sociology of Globalization, and Advanced Topics in Sociology. Trained as a historical sociologist and a social theorist, he researches in the fields of sociology of capitalism, urban media studies, and sociology of science. His main interest focuses on the study of the link between the “spirit” of modernity and the “spirit” of capitalism, conducted through a genealogical reinterpretation of Max Weber, which brings innovative concepts such as liminality to the fore.
Brandon Vaidyanathan Department of Sociology, The Catholic University of America https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5748-6051

Brandon Vaidyanathan is Professor of Sociology and Director of the Institutional Flourishing Lab at The Catholic University of America (USA). His research explores the cultural dimensions of commercial scientific, and religious institutions, and has been widely published. He is the author of Mercenaries and Missionaries (Cornell University Press, 2019), co-author of Secularity and Science (Oxford University Press, 2019), and co-editor of Rebuilding Trust (CUA Press, 2025). His ongoing research examines aesthetics and spirituality in science and innovations in religion/spirituality.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1971-8853/19401

Keywords:

Sociology of science, public understanding of science, social trust, imagined public, public engagement in science

Abstract

How do scientists view the public and think about public engagement? In this article, we analyze interview data from 205 scientists in the fields of biology and physics from four countries — India, Italy, UK, and the USA — to show that scientists do not perceive the public as a monolithic entity. Three distinct kinds of publics were described by scientists, which we analytically characterize as “indifferent”, “dogmatic”, and “pragmatic”, and discuss in relation to major trends in extant literature. Our analysis showed that the respondents in our sample represented advanced and nuanced understandings of the public. Even though the deficit model still persists, and the preferred mode of public engagement remains science education and mostly (one-way) science communication, the purpose and focus of education and communication differ according to scientists’ orientations. We also identify discipline- and country-specific variations that warrant further investigation.

References

Ballo, R., Pearce, W., Stilgoe, J., & Wilsdon, J. (2024). Socially-Distanced Science: How British Publics Were Imagined, Modelled and Marginalised in Political and Expert Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11, 975 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03446-y

Bauer, M.W. (2009). The Evolution of Public Understanding of Science—Discourse and Comparative Evidence. Science, Technology and Society, 14(2), 221–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/097172180901400202

Bauer, M.W., Allum, N., & Miller, S. (2007). What Can We Learn from 25 Years of PUS Survey Research? Liberating and Expanding the Agenda. Public Understanding of Science, 16(1), 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506071287

Bauer, M.W., & Jensen, P. (2011). The Mobilization of Scientists for Public Engagement. Public Understanding of Science, 20(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662510394457

Bauer, M.W., Petkova, K., & Boyadjieva, P. (2000). Public Knowledge of and Attitudes to Science: Alternative Measures that May End the “Science War”. Science, Technology & Human Values, 25(1), 30–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224390002500102

Besley, J.C., Dudo, A., & Yuan, S. (2018). Scientists’ Views about Communication Objectives. Public Understanding of Science, 27(6), 708–730. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662517728478

Besley, J.C., & Nisbet, M. (2011). How Scientists View the Public, the Media and the Political Process. Public Understanding of Science, 22(6), 644–659. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662511418743

Blok, A., Jensen, M., & Kaltoft, P. (2008). Social Identities and Risk: Expert and Lay Imaginations on Pesticide Use. Public Understanding of Science, 17(2), 189–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506070176

Bonney, R., Phillips, T.B., Ballard, H.L., & Enck, J.W. (2016). Can Citizen Science Enhance Public Understanding of Science? Public Understanding of Science, 25(1), 2–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515607406

Bryman, A., & Burgess, R.G. (1994). Analyzing Qualitative Data. London, UK: Routledge.

Burchell, K. (2007). Empiricist Selves and Contingent “Others”: The Performative Function of the Discourse of Scientists Working in Conditions of Controversy. Public Understanding of Science, 16(2), 145–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662507060587

Burri, R.V. (2018). Models of Public Engagement: Nanoscientists’ Understandings of Science—Society Interactions. Nanoethics, 12, 81–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-018-0316-y

Callon, M. (1999). The Role of Lay People in the Production and Dissemination of Scientific Knowledge. Science Technology & Society, 4(1), 81–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/097172189900400106

Coates, R.L. (2022). 1992: The First Issue of Public Understanding of Science. Public Understanding of Science, 31(3), 340–345. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625211070886

Cohn, J.P. (2008). Citizen Science: Can Volunteers Do Real Research? Bioscience, 58(3), 192–197. https://doi.org/10.1641/B580303

Davies, S.R. (2013). Constituting Public Engagement: Meanings and Genealogies of PEST in Two UK Studies. Science Communication, 35(6), 687–707. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547013478203

Davies, S.R. (2022). STS and Science Communication: Reflecting on a Relationship. Public Understanding of Science, 31(3), 305–313. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625221075953

del Savio, L., Prainsack, B., & Buyx, A. (2016). Crowdsourcing the Human Gut: Is Crowdsourcing Also “Citizen Science”? Journal of Science Communication, 15(3), Article A03. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.15030203

Deterding, N.M., & Waters, M.C. (2021). Flexible Coding of In-depth Interviews: A Twenty-First-Century Approach. Sociological Methods & Research, 50(2), 708–739. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124118799377

Dickinson, J.L., Zuckerberg, B., & Bonter, D.N. (2010). Citizen Science as an Ecological Research Tool: Challenges and Benefits. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 41, 149–172. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-102209-144636

Dietram, A., Scheufele, D.A., Jamieson, K.H., & Kahan, D.M. (2017). Conclusion—On the Horizon: The Changing Science Communication Environment. In K.E. Jamieson, D.M. Kahan & D.A. Scheufele (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication (pp. 462–468). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190497620.013.49

Entradas, M., Bauer, M.W., O’Muircheartaigh, C., Marcinkowski, F., Okamura, A., Pellegrini, G., & Li, Y.Y. (2020). Public Communication by Research Institutes Compared Across Countries and Sciences: Building Capacity for Engagement or Competing for Visibility? PLoS ONE, 15(7), e0235191. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235191

Eyal, G., Au, L., & Capotescu, C. (2024). Trust is a Verb!: A Critical Reconstruction of the Sociological Theory of Trust. Sociologica, 18(2), 169–191. https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1971-8853/19316

Funtowicz, S.O., & Ravetz, J.R. (2018). Post-Normal Science. In N. Castree, M. Hulme, & J.D. Proctor (Eds.), Companion to Environmental Studies (pp. 443–447). London, UK: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315640051-89

Gauchat, G. (2011). The Cultural Authority of Science: Public Trust and Acceptance of Organized Science. Public Understanding of Science, 20(6), 751–770. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662510365246

Gieryn, T.F. (1983). Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists. American Sociological Review, 48(6), 781–795. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095325

Gieryn, T.F. (1999). Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226824420.001.0001

Greenacre, M. (2007). Correspondence Analysis in Practice. New York, NY: Chapman & Hall/CRC.

Gustafson, A., & Rice, R.E. (2016). Cumulative Advantage in Sustainability Communication: Unintended Implications of the Knowledge Deficit Model. Science Communication, 38(6), 800–811. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547016674320

Guston, D.H. (2000). Retiring the Social Contract for Science. Issues in Science and Technology, 16(4), 32–36. https://issues.org/p_guston/

Guston, D.H. (2001). Boundary Organizations in Environmental Policy and Science: An Introduction. Science, Technology & Human Values, 26(4), 399–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224390102600401

Horst, M. (2013). A Field of Expertise, the Organization, or Science Itself? Scientists’ Perception of Representing Research in Public Communication. Science Communication, 35(6), 758–779. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547013487513

Hu, W. (2024). Imagining the Model Citizen: A Comparison between Public Understanding of Science, Public Engagement in Science, and Citizen Science. Public Understanding of Science, 33(6), 709–724. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625241227081

Irwin, A. (2014). From Deficit to Democracy (Re-visited). Public Understanding of Science, 23(1), 71–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662513510646

Jasanoff, S., (2004). Science and Citizenship: A New Synergy. Science and Public Policy§, 31(2), 90–94. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154304781780064

Jasanoff, S. (2005). Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400837311

Kessler, S.H., Schäfer, M.S., Johann, D., & Rauhut, H. (2022). Mapping Mental Models of Science Communication: How Academics in Germany, Austria and Switzerland Understand and Practice Science Communication. Public Understanding of Science, 31(6), 711–731. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625211065743

Koizumi, H., & Yamashita, H. (2021). Deficit Lay or Deficit Expert: How Do “Experts” in Environmental Projects Perceive Lay People and Lay Knowledge? SAGE Open, 11(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211023155

Landström, C., Hauxwell-Baldwin, R., Lorenzoni, I., & Rogers-Hayden, T. (2015). The (Mis)understanding of Scientific Uncertainty? How Experts View Policymakers, the Media and Publics. Science as Culture, 24(3), 276–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2014.992333

Law, J. (2009). Seeing Like a Survey. Cultural Sociology, 3(2), 239–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/1749975509105533

Law, J., & Lin, W.Y. (2017). Provincializing STS: Postcoloniality, Symmetry, and Method. East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal, 11(2), 211–227. https://doi.org/10.1215/18752160-3823859

Lebart, L., Morineau, A., & Warwick, k.M. (1984). Multivariate Descriptive Statistical Analysis. Correspondence Analysis and Related Techniques for Large Matrices. Chichester: Wiley.

Lebart, L., Salem, A., & Berry, L. (1998). Exploring Textual Data. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Lewenstein, B. (2016). Can We Understand Citizen Science? Journal of Science Communication, 15(1), E1–E5. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.15010501

Llorente, C., Revuelta, G., Carrió, M., & Porta, M. (2019). Scientists’ Opinions and Attitudes towards Citizens’ Understanding of Science and Their Role in Public Engagement Activities. PLoS one, 14(11), e0224262. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224262

Maranta, A., Guggenheim, M., Gisler, P., & Pohl, C. (2003). The Reality of Experts and the Imagined Lay Person. The Knowledge Society, 46(2), 150–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001699303046002005

Mauceri S. (2016). Integrating Quality into Quantity: Survey Research in the Era of Mixed Methods. Quality & Quantity, 50, 1213–1231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-015-0199-8

Michael, M. (2002). Comprehension, Apprehension, Prehension: Heterogeneity and the Public Understanding of Science. Science, Technology & Human Values, 27(3), 357–378. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224390202700302

Michael, M. (2009). Publics Performing Publics: Of PiGs, PiPs and Politics. Public Understanding of Science, 18(5), 617–631. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662508098581

Miller, S. (2001). Public Understanding of Science at the Crossroads. Public Understanding of Science, 10(1), 115–120. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/10/1/308

Millar, R., & Wynne, B. (1988). Public Understanding of Science: From Contents to Processes. International Journal of Science Education, 10(4), 388–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069880100406

Möllering, G. (2024). Practice(s) of Trusting. Commentary on Gil Eyal, Larry Au and Cristian Capotescu’s “Trust is a Verb!”. Sociologica, 18(2), 199–208. https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1971-8853/20450

Murtagh, F. (2005). Correspondence Analysis and Data Coding with Java and R. New York, NY: Chapman & Hall/CRC.

Neuendorf, K.A. (2016). The Content Analysis Guidebook. Thousand Oaks, C: SAGE Publications.

Nisbet, M.C., & Scheufele, D.A. (2009). What’s Next for Science Communication? Promising Directions and Lingering Distractions. American Journal of Botany, 96(10), 1767–1778. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.0900041

Pandey, P., & Sharma, A. (2022). Science Advice for COVID-19 and Marginalized Communities in India. In P. Martin, S. de Saille, K. Liddiard, & W. Pearce (Eds.), Being Human During COVID-19 (pp. 67–74). Bristol, UK: Bristol University Press. https://doi.org/10.1332/policypress/9781529223125.003.0009

Poliakoff, E., & Webb, T.L. (2007). What Factors Predict Scientists’ Intentions to Participate in Public Engagement of Science Activities? Science Communication, 29(2), 242–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547007308009

Ratinaud, P. (2014). IRaMuTeQ: Interface de R pour les Analyses Multidimensionnelles de Textes et de Questionnaires [software, Version 0.7 alpha 2]. Retrieved from http://www.iramuteq.org

Ratinaud, P., & Marchand, P. (2015). Des mondes lexicaux aux représentations sociales. Une première approche des thématiques dans les débats à l’Assemblée nationale (1998—2014). Mots. Les Langages du Politique, 108, 57–77. https://doi.org/10.4000/mots.22006

Reinert, M. (1983). Une méthode de classification descendante hiérarchique: Application à l’analyse lexicale par contexte. Les Cahiers de l’Analyse des Données, 8(2), 187–198. https://www.numdam.org/item/CAD_1983__8_2_187_0/

Reinert, M. (1993). Les “mondes lexicaux” et leur “logique” à travers l’analyse statistique d’un corpus de récits de cauchemars. Langage et Société, 66, 5–39. https://doi.org/10.3406/lsoc.1993.2632

Royal Society, The. (1986). Public Understanding of Science: The Royal Society Reports. Science, Technology & Human Values, 11(3), 53–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224398601100306

Savin-Baden, M., & Major, C. (2013). Qualitative Research: The Essential Guide to Theory and Practice. London and New York: Routledge.

Sbalchiero, S. (2018). Finding Topics: A Statistical Model and a Quali-Quantitative Method. In A. Tuzzi (Ed.), Tracing the Life-Course of Ideas in the Humanities and Social Sciences (pp. 189–210). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97064-6_10

Sbalchiero, S., & Tuzzi, A. (2017). Italian Scientists Abroad in Europe’s Scientific Research Scenario: High Skill Migration as a Resource for Development in Italy. International Migration, 55(4), 171–187. https://doi.org/10.1111/imig.12340

Scheufele, D.A. (2022). Thirty Years of Science—Society Interfaces: What’s Next? Public Understanding of Science, 31(3), 297–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625221075947

Schmid-Petri, H., & Bürger, M. (2019). Modeling Science Communication: From Linear to More Complex Models. In A. Leßmöllmann, M. Dascal, & T. Gloning (Eds.), Science Communication (pp. 105–122). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110255522-005

Silverman D. (2006). Interpreting Qualitative Data. Methods for Analyzing Talk, Text and Interaction. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Silvertown, J. (2009). A New Dawn for Citizen Science. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 24(9), 467–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.017

Simis, M.J., Madden, H., Cacciatore, M.A., & Yeo, S.K. (2016). The Lure of Rationality: Why Does the Deficit Model Persist in Science Communication? Public Understanding of Science, 25(4), 400–414. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516629749

Stilgoe, J., Lock, S., & Wilsdon, J. (2014). Why Should We Promote Public Engagement with Science? Public Understanding of Science, 23(1), 4–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662513518154

Stilgoe, J., & Wilsdon, J. (2009). The New Politics of Public Engagement with science. In R. Holliman, E. Whitelegg, E. Scanlon, S. Smidt, & J. Thomas (Eds.), Investigating Science Communication in the Information Age: Implications for Public Engagement and Popular Media (pp. 18–34). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. London/New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Ziman, J. (1991). Public Understanding of Science. Science, Technology & Human Values, 16(1), 99–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224399101600106

Wynne, B. (1992). Misunderstood Misunderstanding: Social Identities and Public Uptake of Science. Public Understanding of Science, 1(3), 281–304. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/1/3/004

Wynne, B. (2006). Public Engagement as a Means of Restoring Public Trust in Science. Hitting the Notes, But Missing the Music? Community Genetics, 9(3), 211–220. https://doi.org/10.1159/000092659

Wynne, B. (2007). Public Participation in Science and Technology: Performing and Obscuring a Political—Conceptual Category Mistake. East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal, 1(1), 99–110. https://doi.org/10.1215/s12280-007-9004-7

Wynne, B. (2014). Further Disorientation in the Hall of Mirrors. Public Understanding of Science, 23(1), 60–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662513505397

Indifferent, Dogmatic or Pragmatic: A Multi-Country Analysis of How Scientists View the Public and Public Engagement

Authors

DOI:

Keywords:

Abstract

References

Downloads

Published

How to Cite

Issue

Section

License

Information

Make a Submission

Keywords

Current Issue