Ignoring science: discourses of ignorance in the public understanding of science

Abstract

Introduction The starting-point of this chapter is the observation that people do not simply possess knowledge about scientific ‘facts’ and scientific procedures and processes, they can also reflect upon the epistemological status of that knowledge. In addition, I argue that this active reflection can directly affect their responses to science and scientific experts. In feeling uncertainty about their understanding of science, or in identifying a ‘lack’ in their knowledge, people are making tacit judgements in relation to the authoritative source or sources of that knowledge. Thus people can review the standing of their scientific and technological knowledge in relation to some more or less expert source such as scientists, the media, friends and relatives, and so on. As such, identity cannot but be implicated. Conversely, the ways in which people regard themselves and the value they place upon their scientific knowledge, affects the ways in which they understand science. We have, therefore, a sort of discursive jigsaw in which identity, the status of lay scientific knowledge, and scientific expertise are delimited. This chapter will, first of all, briefly examine three approaches to the public understanding of science which are essentially interested in describing the scientific knowledge that people ‘possess’. The fact that these approaches ignore issues concerning the reflexivity and identity of lay people, suggests their underpinning model of the individual is fundamentally mechanistic. The implication is that a particular representation or narrative of the lay person is promoted; in some cases, this is further disseminated through the media. These ‘knowledge description’ approaches will then be contrasted with a social constructionist/discourse analysis of the public understanding of science. Further, I will focus on one particular facet of the public understanding of science.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 132 citations exist upstream.