Staff

Publication details for Prof Richard Gott

Tytler, R., Duggan, S. & Gott, R. (2001). Public participation of an environmental dispute: implications for science education. Public Understanding of Science 10(4): 343-364.

• Publication type: Journal papers: academic
• ISSN/ISBN: 0963-6625, 1361-6609
• DOI: 10.1088/0963-6625/10/4/301
• View online: Online version
• Durham research online: DRO record

Author(s) from Durham

• Prof Richard Gott

Abstract

The paper, which reports the findings of a case study of an environmental dispute, focuses on the role of the key players and the way in which they interacted with the underlying science. A model is proposed that lays out some of the dimensions of the complexity of public involvement, of the understandings of the science pertinent to such socio-scientific issues, and of the way knowledge of science is represented and disseminated in such issues. The analysis focuses on the value of local knowledge in framing and engaging with the issue, on the distinction between generative and evaluative engagement, and on the type of knowledge that proved central for engagement. The implications for science education and notions of scientific literacy are discussed.

References

1 A. Irwin and B. Wynne, eds., Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) 6, 7.
2 J. Ziman, “Public understanding of science,” Science, Technology and Human Values, 16, no. 1 (1991): 99–105;
J. Durant, G. Evans, and G. Thomas, “The public understanding of science,”Nature, 340 (6 July 1989): 11–14.
3 D. Layton, E. Jenkins, S. Macgill, and A. Davey, Inarticulate Science? Perspectives on the Public Understanding
of Science and some Implications for Science Education (Driffield, UK: Studies in Education, 1993).
4 A. Davison , I. Barns, and R. Schibeci, “Problematic publics: A critical review of surveys of public attitudes to
biotechnology,” Science, Technology and Human Values 22, no. 3 (1997): 317–348.
5 B.Wynne, “Knowledges in context,” Science, Technology andHumanValues 16, no. 1 (1991): 111–121; B.Wynne,
“Misunderstood misunderstandings: social identities and public uptake of science,” in Misunderstanding science?
The public reconstruction of science and technology, eds., A Irwin and B. Wynne (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1996), 19–46.
6 Wynne (cit. no. 5); D. Layton, “Science education and praxis: the relationship of school science to practical
action,” Studies in Science Education 19 (1991) 43–79.
7 Quoted in Layton et al. (cit. no. 3).
8 A. Irwin, Citizen science: A study of people, expertise and sustainable development (London: Routledge, 1995);
Irwin and Wynne (cit. no. 1); Layton et al. (cit. no. 3); M. Mulkay, “Book review: Misunderstanding Science?
The public reconstruction of science and technology,” Science, Technology and Human Values 22 no. 2 (1997)
254–256.
9 Irwin and Wynne (cit. no. 1).
10 Wynne (cit. no. 6).
11 Layton et al. (cit. no. 3).
12 R. Millar and B. Wynne, “Public understanding of science: from contents to processes,”International Journal of
Science Education 10 no. 4 (1988): 388–398.
13 Irwin and Wynne (cit. no. 1) p. 9; Davison, Barns, and Schibeci (cit. no. 4).
14 Layton et al. (cit. no. 3).
15 Irwin and Wynne (cit. no. 1).
16 See, for instance, R. Millar and J. Osborne, eds., Beyond 2000: Science education for the future: The report of a
seminar series funded by the Nuffield Foundation (London: Kings College London, School of Education, 1998).
17 M. Shamos The Myth of Scientific Literacy (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1995).
18 Layton et al. (cit. no. 3).
19 Layton et al. (cit. no. 3) p. 118.
20 Millar and Wynne (cit. no. 17).
21 R. Gott, S. Duggan, and R. Roberts, “Understanding scientific evidence,” http://www.dur.ac.uk/∼ded0www/
evidence main1.htm.
22 See http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/policy en.htm#h.
23 HOC: House of Commons Environment Committee, Third Report: The environmental impact of cement
manufacture (London: Government Stationery Office, 1997).
24 C. Adelman, D. Jenkins and S. Kemmis, “Rethinking case study: Notes from the second Cambridge
conference,”Cambridge Journal of Education 6, no. 3 (1976): 139–150; S. Merriam, Case study research in
education: A qualitative approach (San Francisco: Jossy-Bass, 1988); R. Stake, The art of case study research
(London: Sage, 1995).
25 D. Tripp, “Co-authorship and negotiation: The interview as an Act of Creation,” Interchange 14, no. 3 (1983):
32–45.
26 P. Johnson and R. Gott, “Constructivism and evidence from children’s ideas,” Science Education 80, no. 5 (1996):
561–577.
27 R. Tytler, S. Duggan, and R. Gott, “Dimensions of evidence, the public understanding of science and science
education,” International Journal of Science Education 23, no. 8 (2001): 815–832
28 HOC: House of Commons Environment Committee (cit. no. 23); HOC: House of Commons Environment
Committee, The environmental impact of cement manufacture: Minutes of evidence (London: Government
Stationery Office, 1997).
29 HOC: House of Commons Environment Committee (cit. no. 27).
30 Ibid, para. 98–100.
31 Ibid, para. 116–125.
32 HOC: House of Commons Environment Committee (cit. no. 27) p. 19.
33 Ibid, para 118.
34 Ibid, para 123.
35 HOC: House of Commons Environment Committee (cit. no. 27) p. liii–lv.
36 HOC: House of Commons Environment Committee (cit. no. 27) p. 20.
37 Wynne (cit. no. 5).
38 A. Irwin, A. Dale, and D. Smith, “Science and Hell’s kitchen: the local understanding of hazard issues,” in
Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology, eds., A Irwin and B. Wynne
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 47–64.
39 Wynne (cit. no. 5); R. Gott, S. Duggan, and P. Johnson, “What do practising applied scientists do and what are
the implications for science education?” Research in Science and Technological Education 17, no.1 (1999a):
97–107.
40 Irwin and Wynne (cit. no. 1); Layton et al. (cit. no. 3); Wynne (cit. no. 6).
41 Wynne (cit. no. 5); Layton (cit. no. 8).
42 K. Goshorn, “Social rationality, risk, and the right to know: Information leveraging with the Toxic Release
Inventory,” Public Understanding of Science 5 (1996): 297–320.
43 Wynne (cit. no. 5) p. 117.
44 Described in Layton et al. (cit. no. 3).
45 S. Epstein, “The construction of lay expertise: AIDS activism and the forging of credibility in the reform of
clinical trials,” Science, Technology and Human Values 20, no. 4 (1995) 408–437.
46 Wynne (cit. no. 6).
47 Millar and Osborne (cit. no.22).
48 R. Millar, “Science education for democracy: What can the school curriculum achieve?” in Science today:
Problem or crisis? eds., R. Levinson and J. Thomas (London: Routledge, 1997), pp. 87–101.