Why Definitions of Science Literacy Matter

By nisbetmc_2 on July 17, 2007.

Everyone claims it's a major societal problem, but what does science literacy exactly mean? What does past research suggest are the valid definitions of this frequently used term? Similarly, what is meant by the "public understanding of science"? Is it the same thing as "public engagement"? As I explain in our Framing Science article at Science and in the Speaking Science 2.0 road show, these definitions matter when it comes to effective public communication.

Over at my blog Framing Science, I repost a 2005 column that I wrote for Skeptical Inquirer Online. The short piece offers a lot for thought and discussion. Ultimately how we come to define these terms has direct bearing for how we choose to engage the public on controversial areas of science.

Tags
Discussion

More like this

The Misunderstood Meanings of Science Literacy
As part of their conversation series with scientists, the NY Times this week runs an interview with Harvard's Eric Mazur featuring the headline "Using the 'Beauties of Physics' to Conquer Science Illiteracy." Mazur discusses his teaching approach in his physics course, stating that his goal is to…
Rethinking the Relevance and Nature of Science Literacy
I spent the past three days with my colleague Ed Maibach and several graduate students conducting one-on-one interviews about climate change with participants recruited and screened from among the diversity of visitors to the National Mall in Washington, DC. In conducting these qualitative…
Thurs. @ NYAS: Public Communication Re-Considered
The NY Academy of Sciences offers a stunning venue for public talks, forums, and receptions, with a view from the 40th floor of 7 World Trade Center. Thursday morning I will be heading up to New York to give a 7pm talk at the New York Academy of Sciences. A crowd of more than 100 is expected for…
At Science, Four Letters on Framing and Our Reply
Science has published four letters in response to our framing article along with a fifth letter as our reply. As it turns out, I know two of the correspondents fairly well. Earle Holland, the author of the first letter, is assistant VP for Research Communications at The Ohio State University,…

When scientists try to (and not lie and say that they do) understand science; then the public also will be interested to listen and want to understand what is understandable.
But the unintelligible and unrealistic ideas of modern physics have frighten the public from understanding empirical science and relevant mathematics.
Ingvar, Sweden

When scientists try to (and not lie and say that they do) understand science; then the public also will be interested to listened and want to understand.
But the unintelligible and unrealistic modern physics� ideas has frighten the public from understanding science and mathematics.

Ultimately how we come to define these terms has direct bearing for how we choose to engage the public on controversial areas of science.

I've seen this idea alluded to a number of times today. Mainly referring to Global warming. I believe that science has to remember that in dealing with the uninformed you have to consider their emotional reactions. Always being the bearer of bad news casts you in that light. We need to promote work on outlining solutions and rewarding even infinitesimal steps in those directions. The bad news has to be delivered, but that is just the starting point on bringing about solutions. And encouraging and rewarding even the slightest moves towards solutions and participation can bring vast results!
Dave Briggs :~)