The different audiences of science communication: A segmentation analysis of the Swiss population’s perceptions of science and their information and media use patterns

Abstract

Few studies have assessed whether populations can be divided into segments with different perceptions of science. We provide such an analysis and assess whether these segments exhibit specific patterns of media and information use. Based on representative survey data from Switzerland, we use latent class analysis to reconstruct four segments: the "Sciencephiles," with strong interest for science, extensive knowledge, and a pronounced belief in its potential, who use a variety of sources intensively; the "Critically Interested," also with strong interest and support for science but with less trust in it, who use similar sources but are more cautious toward them; the "Passive Supporters" with moderate levels of interest, trust, and knowledge and tempered perceptions of science, who use fewer sources; and the "Disengaged," who are not interested in science, do not know much about it, harbor critical views toward it, and encounter it-if at all-mostly through television.

Who wants to be a citizen scientist? Identifying the potential of citizen science and target segments in Switzerland

“…We ran a secondary analysis of a nationally representative data set -the "Science Barometer Switzerland" ("Wissenschaftsbarometer Schweiz")from 2016 that ascertained the Swiss' willingness to partake in scientific research projects (for an overview see Schäfer, Füchslin, Metag, Kristiansen, & Rauchfleisch, 2018). The survey generally covers common science communication variables ranging from attitudes towards, beliefs in, and knowledge about science to a wide spectrum of media and non-media sources with which respondents could come into contact with science and research.…”

“…A second set of indicators covered attitudes toward science (Schäfer et al, 2018), which we measured regarding cognitive, affective, and conative aspects (Table 1):…”

“…As this quiz format has been criticized (e.g., Pardo & Calvo, 2002, 2004, however, we use it in adapted form. First, we included questions about arts and humanities, about textbook and applied scientific knowledge, and also about the process of science (Schäfer et al, 2018). Second, we moved from the established dichotomous "correct-false" answer format, which…”

“…In addition to knowledge, we asked for respondents' interest in science, employing a question that was widely used in several surveys (Besley, 2013).  The affective aspect of attitudes was measured by asking respondents for their general trust in science (Lee, Scheufele, & Lewenstein, 2005), as well as for their assessment of whether science plays an important role in their lives (Schäfer et al, 2018).  We assessed the conative aspectas the behavioural component of attitudes is often operationalized in studies of science communication (Bauer, 2016;Eurobarometer, 2005)with a question asking whether respondents actively search for information about science (Wissenschaft im Dialog, 2015).…”

Societal problem solver or deficient discipline? The debate about social science in the online public sphere

“…For example, in the U.S., only half of the population thinks that the social sciences are actually scientific [Science and Engineering Indicators, 2014]. Similarly, surveys in the U.K. and Switzerland show that only a few people associate the social sciences with the term science whereas science was most commonly referred to as being medicine, biology, chemistry, and physics [IPSOS, 2014;Wissenschaftsbarometer Schweiz, 2016; see also Schäfer et al, 2018]. Yet, people are quite interested in the social sciences.…”