Suchergebnisse

Abstract
This article is the second of a two-part literature review on the evolution of the relationship between science and the public after the second half of the twentieth century. The first part presented a general review on public understanding of science (PUS), PUS measurements and what has motivated a shift from a deficit model to a contextual one. In this second part, we look more closely at the discussion around the role of the public in science and the transformation from the idea that lay people are isolated from science to the idea that the public should participate in policy-making on science and technology issues. In particular, we focus on the debate around who should and should not contribute to decision-making by presenting both the arguments in favour of and against public participation in science policy.

Abstract
This is the first of a two-part historical review on the relationship between science and its publics in the second half of the twentieth century. The two-part literature review covers major trends in the evolution of this relationship from 'public understanding of science' (PUS) in which science was separated from laypeople, through the transition to 'public participation' when PUS became a matter for science policy. This first part of the literature describes the arguments that called for an increase in the public's understanding of science, its measurement, and the academic debate in favour of and against PUS measures. In particular, we refer to the evolution of survey design, and how criticisms of measures of PUS gave rise to the 'contextual' perspective in the PUS being favoured over a 'deficit' one.

Studies on experts' understanding of the public have mainly focused on the views of scientists. We add to the literature on constructions of the public by analyzing the views of decision-makers, professional science communicators and scientists involved in 'space' communication on the public and public participation in policy. Findings show that contextual situations and roles determine the way the public is conceptualised: the public is sophisticated and knowledgeable to participate in space activities/citizen science, but in matters of policy, a gullible image of the public is brought up. Despite the democratic talk on participation, practitioners delimited public involvement in policy in some way or other to protect their own power and decision-making capabilities. This conception of the public competes with the stated aims of scientific and political institutions for public engagement and the substantive value of public participation, leaving a limited role for the public in space policymaking.

Leading academic institutions, governments, and funders of research across the world have spent the last few decades fretting publicly about the need for scientists and research organisations to engage more widely with the public and be open about their research. While a global literature asserts that public communication has changed from a virtue to a duty for scientists in many countries and disciplines, our knowledge about what research institutions are doing and what factors drive their 'going public' is very limited. Here we present the first cross-national study of N = 2,030 research institutes within universities and large scientific organisations in Brazil, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America. We find that institutes embrace communication with non-peers and do so through a variety of public events and traditional news media-less so through new media channels-and we find variation across countries and sciences, yet these are less evident than we expected. Country and disciplinary cultures contribute to the level of this communication, as do the resources that institutes make available for the effort; institutes with professionalised staff show higher activity online. Future research should examine whether a real change in the organisational culture is happening or whether this activity and resource allocation is merely a means to increase institutional visibility.