An official website of the United States government
The COVID-19 pandemic and global climate change crisis remind us that widespread trust in the products of the scientific enterprise is vital to the health and safety of the global community. Insofar as appropriate responses to these (and other) crises require us to trust that enterprise, cultivating a healthier trust relationship between science and the public may be considered as a collective public good. While it might appear that scientists can contribute to this good by taking more initiative to communicate their work to public audiences, we raise a concern about unintended consequences of an individualistic approach to such communication.
more »
« less
The Development and Validation of the Social Enterprise of Science Index (SESI): An Instrument to Measure Grasp of the Social-Institutional Aspects of Science
Significant gaps remain between public opinion and the scientific consensus on many issues. We present the results of three studies ( N = 722 in total) for the development and testing of a novel instrument to measure a largely unmeasured aspect of scientific literacy: the enterprise of science, particularly in the context of its social structures. We posit that this understanding of the scientific enterprise is an important source for the public’s trust in science. Our results indicate that the Social Enterprise of Science Index (SESI) is a reliable and valid instrument that correlates positively with trust in science ( r = .256, p < .001), and level of education ( r = .245, p < .001). We also develop and validate a six question short version of the SESI for ease of use in longer surveys.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1734616
- PAR ID:
- 10489121
- Publisher / Repository:
- Sage
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- SAGE Open
- Volume:
- 11
- Issue:
- 2
- ISSN:
- 2158-2440
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 215824402110164
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Retracted COVID-19 articles have circulated widely on social media. Although retractions are intended to correct the scientific record, when trust in science is low, they may instead be interpreted as evidence of censorship or simply ignored. We performed a content analysis of tweets about the two most widely shared retracted COVID-19 articles, Mehra20 and Rose21, before and after their retractions. When Mehra20 was seen as a politicized attack on Donald Trump and hydroxychloroquine, its retraction was broadly shared as proof that the article had been published for political reasons. However, when Rose21 was seen as evidence of vaccine harm by vaccine opponents, its retraction was either ignored or else framed as a conspiracy to censor the truth. These results demonstrate how retractions can be selectively used by scientific counterpublics to reframe the regulation of science as evidence of its institutional corruption.more » « less
-
As the scientific community, like society more broadly, reckons with long-standing challenges around accessibility, justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion, we would be wise to pay attention to issues and lessons emerging in debates around citizen science. When practitioners first placed the modifier “citizen” on science, they intended to signify an inclusive variant within the scientific enterprise that enables those without formal scientific credentials to engage in authoritative knowledge production (1). Given that participants are overwhelmingly white adults, above median income, with a college degree (2, 3), it is clear that citizen science is typically not truly an egalitarian variant of science, open and available to all members of society, particularly those underrepresented in the scientific enterprise. Some question whether the term “citizen” itself is a barrier to inclusion, with many organizations rebranding their programs as “community science.” But this co-opts a term that has long referred to distinct, grassroots practices of those underserved by science and is thus not synonymous with citizen science. Swapping the terms is not a benign action. Our goal is not to defend the term citizen science, nor provide a singular name for the field. Rather, we aim to explore what the field, and the multiple publics it serves, might gain or lose by replacing the term citizen science and the potential repercussions of adopting alternative terminology (including whether a simple name change alone would do much to improve inclusion).more » « less
-
This article examines intersectional praxis as an approach to institutional transformation, arguing that intersectionality is both a catalyst for and outcome of gender equity efforts in the social sciences and other academic STEM fields. As such, approaching gender equity intersectionally can be understood as a way that theory and practice are co-constitutive in social science and hence an important aspect of transforming academic institutions. Through a case study of the US National Science Foundation (NSF) ADVANCE program for gender equity in STEM, I look at the development of ADVANCE from an effort to support women in scientific fields to becoming a program for institutional transformation grounded in an intersectional understanding of women's inequity in the academic labor force. I ask two related questions in the efforts to address gender inequities in STEM. First, what is the relationship between academic institutions (which are simultaneously sites for the discovery of knowledge and gender inequality) and the National Science foundation, as the premier American academic institutional funding agency? Second, how has this relationship, through those working on ADVANCE, fundamentally shifted the understanding of the social scientific tools and strategies necessary to advance equity for women in academia? In looking at these questions, I argue that, beyond women's representation in social sciences and academia broadly, intersectionality is an important scholarly advance in social science that offers a dialectical tool for change.more » « less
-
This article explores the subjective and temporal modes of organizing underlying science-based social movements through an analysis of two mother-led movements in Argentina. The Abuelas de Plaza de Mayo appropriated forensic anthropology and nascent DNA technologies to identify their disappeared grandchildren during the 1976–83 dictatorship. The Madres de Ituzaingó Anexo developed community-led epidemiology studies and agrochemical contamination mapping to argue for a causal relation between intensive pesticide use and high rates of childhood illnesses. We focus on how these movements delineate visions of time, responsibility, and collective action by closely examining the underlying histories and practices of each social movement as they politicized motherhood and appropriated scientific practice. We offer the concept ofmother-led sciencethrough the temporal registers of constancy,desgaste, and durability to illuminate the iterative relationship between care work, creating sustainable communities and institutions, and the fragile processes of stabilizing facts. Mother-led science, with its dual claims to scientific authority in an epistemic register and maternal authority in an affective register, articulates a potent form of scientific organizing. We suggest that these affective temporalities may be present across all science-based social movements but can be obscured by narratives of linear progress toward objective truths.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211016411
