Mismatches between ‘Scientific’ and ‘Non-Scientific’ Ways of Knowing and Their Contributions to Public Understanding of Science

  • Anna MikulakEmail author
Regular Paper


As differentiation within scientific disciplines increases, so does differentiation between the sciences and other ways of knowing. This distancing between ‘scientific’ and ‘non-scientific’ cultures reflects differences in what are considered valid and reliable approaches to acquiring knowledge and has played a major role in recent science-oriented controversies. Scientists’ reluctance to actively engage in science communication, coupled with journalists’ reliance on the norms of balance, conflict, and human interest in covering scientific issues, have combined to exacerbate public mistrust of science on issues like the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine. The failure of effective communications between scientists and non-scientists has hindered the progress of both effective science and effective policy. In order to better bridge the gap between the ‘scientific’ and ‘non-scientific’ cultures, renewed efforts must be made to encourage substantive public engagement, with the ultimate goal of facilitating an open, democratic policy-making process.


Science communication Public understanding of science (PUS) Framing Public engagement 


  1. Ashot of reality. (2010). On the media. New York: WNYC. Podcast retrieved from Scholar
  2. Bauer, M. W., Allum, N., & Miller, S. (2007). What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 79–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benjamin, D. (2007). Episodic vs. thematic stories: A frameworks institute FrameByte. Washington: FrameWorks Institute. Retrieved from Scholar
  4. Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bubela, T., Nisbet, M. C., Borchelt, R., Brunger, F., Crtichley, C., Einsiedel, E., et al. (2009). Science communication reconsidered. Nature Biotechnology, 27, 514–518.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burns, T. W., O’Connor, D. J., & Stocklmayer, S. M. (2003). Science communication: A contemporary definition. Public Understanding of Science, 12, 183–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cobern, W. W. (1996). Public understanding of science as seen by the scientific community: Do we need to re-conceptualize and re-examine our own assumptions? Paper presented at the seminar for science, technology and citizenship. Leangkollen, Norway. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED403132)Google Scholar
  8. Cuppen, E., Hisschemoller, M., & Midden, C. (2009). Bias in the exchange of arguments: The case of scientsits’ evaluation of lay viewpoints on GM food. Public Understanding of Science, 18, 591–606.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dearing, J. W. (1995). Newspaper coverage of maverick science: Creating controversies through balancing. Public Understanding of Science, 4, 341–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dunwoody, S. (2007). Journalistic practice and coverage of the behavioral and social sciences. In M. K. Welch-Ross & L. G. Fasig (Eds.), Handbook on communicating and disseminating behavioral science. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  11. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. The Journal of Communication, 43, 51–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Freed, G. L., Clark, S. J., Butchart, A. T., Singer, D. C., & Davis, M. M. (2010). Parental vaccine safety concerns in 2009. Pediatrics, 125, 654–659.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gascoigne, T., & Metcalfe, J. (1997). Incentives and impediments to scientists communicating through the media. Science Communication, 18, 265–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. General Medical Council. (2010). Fitness to practice panel hearing 28 January 2010. Retrieved from
  15. Going public. (2004). Nature, 431, 883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Health Protection Agency. (2008). Confirmed measles cases in England and Wales—an update to end-May 2008. Health Protection Report, 2(25). Retrieved from
  17. Hilgartner, S. (1990). The dominant view of popularization: Conceptual problems, political uses. Social Studies of Science, 20, 519–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Iyengar, S. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. Jefferson, T. (2000). Real or perceived adverse effects of vaccines and the media—a tale of our times. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 54, 402–403.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Knorr-Cetina, K. D. (1981). The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  21. Kurath, M., & Gisler, P. (2009). Informing, involving or engaging? Science communication, in the ages of atom-, bio-, and nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 18, 559–573.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leask, J. A., Chapman, S., & Hawe, P. (2000). The facts are not enough. British Medical Journal, 321, 108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mason, B. W., & Donnelly, P. D. (2000). Impact of a local newspaper campaign on the uptake of the measles mumps and rubella vaccine. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 54, 473–474.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McBrien, J., Murphy, J., Gill, D., Cronin, M., O’Donovan, C., & Cafferkey, M. T. (2003). Measles outbreak in Dublin, 2000. The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, 22, 580–584.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. McCall, R. B., & Groark, C. J. (2007). A perspective on the history and future of disseminating behavioral and social science. In M. K. Welch-Ross & L. G. Fasig (Eds.), Handbook on communicating and disseminating behavioral science. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  26. Miller, J. D., & Pardo, R. (2000). Civic scientific literacy and attitude to science and technology: A comparative analysis of the European Union, the United States, Japan, and Canada. In M. Dierkes & C. von Grote (Eds.), Between understanding and trust: The public, science and technology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Miller, S. (2001). Public understanding of science at the crossroads. Public Understanding of Science, 10, 115–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. National Science Board. (2008). Science and engineering indicators 2008, volume 1 (NSB 08- 01). Arlington: National Science Foundation. Retrieved from Scholar
  29. Nisbet, M. C. (2009). Framing science: A new paradigm in public engagement. In L. Kahlor & P. Stout (Eds.), Communicating science: New agendas in communication. New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  30. Nisbet, M. C., & Goidel, R. K. (2007). Understanding citizen perceptions of science controversy. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 421–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nisbet, M. C., & Huge, M. (2007). Where do science debates come from? Understanding attention cycles and framing. In D. Brossard, J. Shanahan, C. Nesbitt (Eds.), The public, the media, and agricultural biotechnology. CABIGoogle Scholar
  32. Nisbet, M. C., & Mooney, C. (2007). Framing science. Science, 316, 56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nisbet, M. C., & Scheufele, D. A. (2009). What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany, 96, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nisbet, M. C., Scheufele, D. A., Shanahan, J., Moy, P., Brossard, D., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2002). Knowledge reservations, or promise? A media effects model for public perceptions of science and technology. Communication Research, 29, 584–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. O’Dell, L., & Brownlow, C. (2005). Media reports of links between MMR and autism: A discourse analysis. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 194–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Office of Science and Technology and the Wellcome Trust. (2001). Science and the public: A review of science communication and public attitudes toward science in Britain. Public Understanding of Science, 10, 315–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Offit, P. A., & Coffin, S. E. (2003). Communicating science to the public: MMR vaccine and autism. Vaccine, 22, 1–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Palfreman, J. (2010). The vaccine war. [Television series episode]. In J. Palfreman (Ed.), Frontline. Boston: WGBH/Boston.Google Scholar
  39. Pardo, R., & Calvo, F. (2004). The cognitive dimension of public perceptions of science: Methodological issues. Public Understanding of Science, 13, 203–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Parsons, W. (2001). Scientists and politicians: The need to communicate. Public Understanding of Science, 10, 303–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Peirce, C. S. (1957). The fixation of belief. In V. Tomas (Ed.), Essays in the philosophy of science. New York: Liberal Arts Press.Google Scholar
  42. Potter, W. J. (2009). Conceptualizing the audience. In R. L. Nabi & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of media processes and effects. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  43. Ramsay, M. E., Yarwood, J., Lewis, D., Campbell, H., & White, J. M. (2002). Parental confidence in measles mumps and rubella vaccine: Evidence from vaccine coverage to attitudinal surveys. The British Journal of General Practice, 52, 912–916.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Serpell, L., & Green, J. (2006). Parental decision-making in childhood vaccination. Vaccine, 24, 4041–4046.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Shonkoff, J. P. (2000). Science, policy, and practice: Three cultures in search of a shared mission. Child Development, 71, 181–187.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Snow, C. P. (1993). The two cultures (with introduction by Stefan Collini). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Speers, T., & Lewis, J. (2004). Journalists and jabs: Media coverage of the MMR vaccine. Communication & Medicine, 1, 171–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Strauss, C., & Quinn, N. (1997). A cognitive theory of cultural meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Sturgis, P., & Allum, N. (2004). Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science, 13, 55–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tait, J. (2009). Upstream engagement and the governance of science. EMBO Reports, 10, S18–S22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Turney, J. (1996). Public understanding of science. Lancet, 347, 1087–1090.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vaccines and autism: A story of medicine, science and fear. (2011). The Diane Rehm Show. Podcast retrieved from
  53. Wagner, W. (2007). Vernacular science knowledge: Its role in everyday life communication. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 7–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wakefield, A. J., Murch, S. H., Anthony, A., Linnell, J., Casson, D. M., Malik, M., et al. (1998). Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet, 351, 637–641.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Weigold, M. (2001). Communicating science: A review of the literature. Science Communication, 23, 164–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Weigold, M., Triese, D., & Rausch, P. (2007). Science communication scholarship: Themes and future direction. In M. K. Welch-Ross & L. G. Fasig (Eds.), Handbook on communicating and disseminating behavioral science. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  57. Welch-Ross, M. K., & Fasig, L. G. (2007). Introduction. In M. K. Welch-Ross & L. G. Fasig (Eds.), Handbook on communicating and disseminating behavioral science. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  58. Wilsdon, J., & Willis, R. (2005). See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. Retrieved from
  59. Yearley, S. (2000). Making systematic sense of public discontents with expert knowledge: Two analytical approaches and a case study. Public Understanding of Science, 9, 105–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Yurevich, A. V. (2009). Cognitive frames in psychology: Demarcations and ruptures. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 43, 89–103.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zehr, S. C. (2000). Public representations of scientific uncertainty about global climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 9, 84–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zittoun, T., Gillespie, & Cornish, F. (2009). Fragmentation or differentiation: Questioning the crisis in psychology. Integative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 43, 104–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyGeorgetown UniversityWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations