Sociology and the public understanding of science: from rationalization to rhetoric¹

Abstract

This paper contributes to the reappraisal of sociological theories of modernity inspired by the sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK). As much as these theories rely on received ideas about the nature of science that SSK has called into doubt, so do they rely on ideas about the public understanding of science. Public understanding of science has been assumed to conform to the monolithic logic and perception of science associated with rationalization, leading to an impoverished view of the cognitive outlook of the modern individual. Rationalization has become the basis for the construction of theoretical critique of science divorced from any clear reference to public understanding, with the result that theory has encountered considerable problems in accounting for public scepticism towards science. However, rather than question rationalization, the more typical strategy has been to propose radical changes in the modernization process, such as postmodernism and the risk society. Against this, an alternative view of public understanding is advanced drawn from SSK and rhetorical psychology. The existence of the sociological critique of science, and SSK in particular, suggests that the meaning of science in modernity is not monolithic but multiple, arising out of a central dilemma over the universal form of knowledge-claims and their necessarily particular, human and social grounding. This dilemma plays out not only in intellectual discourses about science, but also in the public's understanding of science. This argument is used to call for further sociological research into public understanding and to encourage sociologists to recognize the central importance of the topic to a proper understanding of modernity.

Participatory Politics, Environmental Journalism and Newspaper Campaigns

“…Here writers such as Mill drew on two separate strands of thinking: the valuing of scientific method -the application of the rational mind to the dispassionate observing of a phenomenon in order to accumulate objective, factual and reliable knowledge -and fear of those forms of speech which could incite protests, civil unrest and cause harm. The ability of scientific methods to deliver unitary, objective and authoritative science (Locke, 2001;Yearley, 1991) and deliver a dispassionate, impartial account of what was observed were therefore seen by Mill and others as also capable of delivering objective journalism that served the higher ideals of stable democracy and political order. Thus the principles of scientific method were distilled into notions of what constituted professional conduct, practice and its contribution to society (McQuail, 2000).…”

Placing Science for Natural Resource Management and Climate Variability: Lessons from Narratives of Risk, Place and Identity

“…An empirical approach to grounding and examining these ideas of place and placed knowledge was developed as an integral part of a larger study (Leith ). Reflecting the perspective that places are mediated and curated by local people, we applied a form of discourse analysis drawing on the theoretical work of Billig (, 1989) and its subsequent applications in social research (Hajer ; Locke ). Billig (1989) concluded that people present argumentative narratives which may indicate either their ambivalence or firm positioning in relation to others.…”

Los estudios sobre percepción social de la ciencia

“…La preocupación en torno a los cuestionarios y las percepciones sociales de la ciencia se ha generalizado progresivamente (Dierkes y Grote, 2000;Durant et alia, 1998;Gregory y Miller, 1998;Irwin y Winne, 1996;Levinson y Thomas, 1997;Locke, 2001). Entre las diferentes críticas, algunas de ellas están ligadas a cuestiones metodológicas y técnicas, otras cuestionan más bien la utilidad real de los estudios sobre percepción general de la ciencia y la tecnología, en tanto que marginan las actitudes de la gente y las preocupaciones que puedan tener los ciudadanos ante los nuevos cambios tecnológicos, y también hay quienes dudan de su validez en relación a la información sobre la valoración de actividades y aplicaciones concretas.…”