Understanding “understanding” in Public Understanding of Science

Joanna K. Huxster, Matthew H. Slater, Jason Leddington, Victor LoPiccolo, Jeffrey Bergman, Mack Jones, Caroline McGlynn, Nicolas Diaz, Nathan Aspinall, Julia Bresticker, Melissa Hopkins

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

This study examines the conflation of terms such as “knowledge” and “understanding” in peer-reviewed literature, and tests the hypothesis that little current research clearly distinguishes between importantly distinct epistemic states. Two sets of data are presented from papers published in the journal Public Understanding of Science. In the first set, the digital text analysis tool, Voyant, is used to analyze all papers published in 2014 for the use of epistemic success terms. In the second set of data, all papers published in Public Understanding of Science from 2010–2015 are systematically analyzed to identify instances in which epistemic states are empirically measured. The results indicate that epistemic success terms are inconsistently defined, and that measurement of understanding, in particular, is rarely achieved in public understanding of science studies. We suggest that more diligent attention to measuring understanding, as opposed to mere knowledge, will increase efficacy of scientific outreach and communication efforts.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)756-771
Number of pages16
JournalPublic Understanding of Science
Volume27
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2018
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • epistemology
  • literacy
  • public understanding of science
  • understanding

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Communication
  • Developmental and Educational Psychology
  • Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Understanding “understanding” in Public Understanding of Science'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this