Advertisement

Cultural Studies of Science Education

, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp 193–221 | Cite as

To vaccinate or not to vaccinate: how teenagers justified their decision

  • Mats Lundström
  • Margareta Ekborg
  • Malin Ideland
Article

Abstract

This article reports on a study of how teenagers made their decision on whether or not to vaccinate themselves against the new influenza. Its purpose was to identify connections between how teenagers talk about themselves and the decision they made. How do the teenagers construct their identities while talking about a specific socio-scientific issue? Seven teenagers between 17 and 19 years of age participated in the study. The informants were requested to document in video diary situations in which their decisions about the vaccination were discussed. All the teenagers recorded their diaries during the weeks of the vaccination programme. The students were also interviewed 1–4 weeks after completing their diaries. A discourse psychology framework (Potter and Wetherell 1987) was used to analyse the video diaries and the interviews. In this context, decision-making on a socioscientific issue must be understood as an appropriation and use of discursive repertoires, and also as meaning-making in relation to other fields, such as society and identity. It must also be understood in relation to the use of science repertoire—or actually, the school science repertoire—how available is this discourse in different contexts outside school? The repertoires were categorised into two main types; experienced emphases and important actors. The first included the categories of risk, solidarity and knowledge. The second included family and friends, media, school and society. The school repertoire was seldom used by the students, indicating that school and science education seem not to be an interpretative repertoire available to them. Instead, the risk, solidarity, family and friends and the media repertoires were available in their talk about vaccination. These results indicate the need to use media reports in dealing with scientific literacy and also in risk assessment discussions in school. It also indicates the importance of relating school science closely to the students’ daily life.

Keywords

New influenza Vaccination Decision-making Video diary Discourse psychology 

References

  1. Aikenhead, G. S. (2006). Science education for everyday life. Evidence-based practice. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  2. Beck, U. (1992). Risk society towards a new modernity. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  3. Beck, U. (1999). World risk society. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.Google Scholar
  4. Brickhouse, N. W. (2001). Embodying science: A feminist perspective on learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 282–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, C. (2010). Pacific consumer acculturation in New Zealand: Understanding the dynamics of consumption using video diaries. Doctoral thesis at the University of Waikato.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, B. A., Reveles, J. M., & Kelly, G. J. (2005). Scientific literacy and discursive identity: A theoretical framework for understanding science learning. Science Education, 89, 778–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buchwald, D., Schantz-Laursen, B., & Delmar, C. (2009). Video diary data collection in research with children: An alternative method. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(1), 12–20.Google Scholar
  8. Burchell, K., Franklin, S., & Holden, K. (2009). Public culture as professional science. London: BIOS, London School of Economics and Political Science.Google Scholar
  9. Chang, S.-N., & Chiu, M.-H. (2008). Lakatos’ scientific research programmes as a framework for analysing informal argumentation about socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 1753–1773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Christensen, C. K. (2009). Risk and school science education. Studies in Science Education, 45, 205–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. CODEX. (2010). Rules and guidelines for research. The Swedish Research Council and Uppsala University. Retrieved December 26, 2010, from http://www.codex.vr.se.
  12. Cotton, D. R. E., Stokes, A., & Cotton, P. (2010). Using observational methods to research the student experience. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 34, 463–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Duggan, S., & Gott, R. (2002). What sort of science education do we really need? International Journal of Science Education, 24, 661–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ekborg, M. (2008). Opinion building on a socio-scientific issue: The case of genetically modified plants. Journal of Biology Education, 42(2), 60–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Malden: Blackwell Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
  17. Gibson, B. E. (2005). Co-producing video diaries: The presence of the “absent” researcher. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 4(4), 1–9.Google Scholar
  18. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity-self and society in the late modern age. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  19. Holliday, R. (2004). Filming “The Closet”: The role of video diaries in researching sexualities. American Behavioral Scientist, 47, 1597–1616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ideland, M. (2007). Sick children. How medial and personal experiences are woven together. Ethnologia Scandinavica, 37, 63–71.Google Scholar
  21. Irwin, A., & Wynne, B. (1996). Misunderstanding science: The public reconstructions of science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jarman, R., & McClune, B. (2010). Developing students’ ability to engage critically with science in the news: Identifying elements of the ‘media awareness’ dimension. Curriculum Journal, 21(1), 47–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jenkins, E. W. (1999). School science, citizenship and the public understanding of science. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 703–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jenkins, E. W. (2006). School science and citizenship: Whose science and whose citizenship? The Curriculum Journal, 17(3), 197–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kolstø, S. D. (2001). ‘To trust or not to trust,…’—pupils’ ways of judging information encountered in a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 877–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kolstø, S. D. (2006). Patterns in students’ argumentation confronted with a risk-focused socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1689–1716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kolstø, S. D., Bungum, B., Arnesen, E., Isnes, A., Kristensen, T., Mathiassen, K., et al. (2006). Science students’ critical examination of scientific information related to socioscientific issues. Science Education, 90, 632–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Korpan, C. A., Bisanz, G. L., Bisanz, J., & Henderson, J. M. (1997). Assessing literacy in science evaluation of scientific news briefs. Science Education, 81, 515–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.Google Scholar
  30. Lemke, J. L. (2001). Articulating communities. Socio-cultural perspectives on science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 296–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. León, B. (2008). Science related information in European television: A study of prime-time news. Public Understanding of Science, 17, 443–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lundström, M., Ekborg, M., & Ideland, M. (in progress). Using video diaries in studies about scientific literacy.Google Scholar
  33. Lundström, M., & Jakobsson, A. (submitted). Students perceptions about scientific trustworthiness.Google Scholar
  34. McClune, B., & Jarman, R. (2010). Critical reading of science-based news reports: Establishing a knowledge, skills and attitudes framework. International Journal of Science Education, 32(6), 727–752.Google Scholar
  35. Nerlich, B., & Halliday, C. (2007). Avian flu: The creation of expectations in the interplay between science and the media. Sociology of Health & Illness, 29(1), 46–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Norris, S. P., Phillips, L. M., & Korpan, C. A. (2003). University students’ interpretation of media reports of science and its relationship to background knowledge, interest, and reading difficulty. Public Understanding of Science, 12, 123–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Noyes, A. (2004). Video diary: A method for exploring learning dispositions. Cambridge Journal of Education, 3(2), 193–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. OECD. (2003). Assessment frameworkmathematics, reading, science and problem solving knowledge and skills. Retrieved November 10, 2005 from http://www-skolverket.se/sb/d/254/a/1121.
  39. OECD. (2007). PISA 2006, science competencies for tomorrow’s world. Retrieved January 10, 2008 from http://www.pisa.oecd.org/document/.
  40. Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe: Critical reflections. A report to the Nuffield Foundation.Google Scholar
  41. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  42. Peters, E., Hibbard, J., Slovic, P., & Dieckmann, N. (2007). Numeracy skill and the communication, comprehension, and use of risk-benefit information. Health Affairs, 26(3), 741–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pink, S. (2001). Doing visual ethnography. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  44. Poltorak, M., Leach, M., Fairhead, J., & Cassell, J. (2005). “MMR talk” and vaccination choices: An ethnographic study in Brighton. Social Science and Medicine, 61, 709–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology—beyond attitudes and behavior. London: Sage Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  46. Powell, M., Dunwoody, S., Griffin, R., & Neuwirth, K. (2007). Exploring lay uncertainty about an environmental health risk. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 323–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Quadri, N., & Bullen, P. (2007). Exploring students’ views with video diaries. SOLSTICE 2007 conference. Edge Hill University.Google Scholar
  48. Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship. Teaching socio-scientific issues. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar
  50. Roth, W.-M. (2008). The nature of scientific conceptions: A discursive psychological perspective. Educational Research Review, 3, 30–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Roth, W.-M., & Lee, S. L. (2004). Science education as/for participation in the community. Science Education, 88(2), 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ryder, J. (2001). Identifying science understanding for functional literacy. Studies in Science Education, 36, 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sadler, T. (2009). Situated learning in science education: Socio-scientific issues as contexts for practice. Studies in Science Education, 45, 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socio-scientific decision-making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Shafir, E., Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1993). Reason-based choice. Cognition, 49(1–2), 11–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Swedish Institute for Infectious Disease Control. (2010). Retrieved June 09, 2010 from http://www.smittskyddsinstitutet.se Smittskyddsinstitutets hemsida.
  57. Toulmin, S. E. (2003). Uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Tytler, R., Duggan, S., & Gott, R. (2001). Dimensions of evidence, the public understanding of science and science education. International Journal of Science Education, 23(8), 815–832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ungar, S. (2008). Global bird flu communication. Hot crisis and media reassurance. Science Communication, 29, 472–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Van Eijck, M., & Roth, W.-M. (2010). Theorizing scientific literacy in the wild. Educational Research Review, 5, 184–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wenger, E. (2008). Community of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Wetherell, M., & Potter, J. (1992). Mapping the language of racism. Discourse and the legitimation of exploitation. Hempel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  63. Wildavsky, A., & Dake, K. (1990). Theories of risk perception: Who fears what and why? Daedalus, 119(4), 41–60.Google Scholar
  64. Winther Jørgensen, M., & Phillips, L. (2000). Diskursanalys som teori och metod. [Discourse analysis as theory and method] Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
  65. Wynne, B. (1991). Knowledges in context. Science, Technology and Human Values, 16(1), 111–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. You Tube. (2010). Retrieved September 16, 2010 from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGT0r-udstQ&feature=related.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mats Lundström
    • 1
  • Margareta Ekborg
    • 1
  • Malin Ideland
    • 1
  1. 1.Malmö UniversityMalmöSweden

Personalised recommendations