Abstract
Engagement is seen to be the key to understanding the process of behavior. It is a theoretical concept deriving from the universe’s partial order condition. I argue that a problematic situation is the precondition for engagement, and that communicating is effective for enabling that engagement. Engagement is conceptualized as the act sequence of exposing, focusing attention, and cognizing (with moving to follow—or not). I then illustrate three possible types of the sequence: orienting-centered, constructing-centered or reorienting-centered. These types help explain why learning, creativity and reform are difficult to accomplish. I find that the more we are engaged with a problem, the more we are further engaged with science’s potential specific contribution to solving it. Therefore, engagement seems to be the key to the communicative effectiveness of science and ideas.
An earlier draft was presented at the 2nd Venice PCST Colloquia on Quality in Science Communication and Public Engagement, hosted by the Instituto Veneto di Scienze (Venice Academy of Science), Italy, 15–16 January 2009.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Asimov, I. (1983). Popularizing science. Nature, 36(10), 119.
Bauer, M., Durant, J., & Evans, G. (1994). European public perceptions of science. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 6(2), 163–186.
Bauer, M., Petkova, K., & Boyadjieva, P. (2000). Public knowledge of and attitudes to science: Alternative measures that may end the ‘science war’. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 25(1), 30–51.
Broadbent, D. E. (1958). Perception and communication. New York: Pergamon.
Carter, R. F. (1965). Communication and affective relations. Journalism Quarterly, 42(2), 203–212.
Carter, R. F. (1978). A peculiar horse race. In G. F. Bishop, R. G. Classer, & M. Jackson-Beeck (Eds.), The presidential debates: Media, electoral, and policy perspectives (pp. 3–17). New York: Praeger.
Carter, R. F. (1988). Life: The double crystal. Unpublished manuscript, University of Washington School of Communications, Seattle, Washington.
Carter, R. F. (2010a). Art, art, and communication. In L. Foreman-Wernet & B. Dervin (Eds.), Audiences and the arts: Communication perspectives (pp. 265–277). Cresskill: Hampton.
Carter, R. F. (2010b). Behavioral foundations of effective problem solving. Retrieved November 1, 2010, from http://bfeps.org
Carter, R. F., & Stamm, K. R. (1993). How we thought about the Gulf War. In B. L. Greenberg & W. Gantz (Eds.), Desert storm and the mass media (pp. 152–165). Cresskill: Hampton.
Cho, S. -K., & Kim, O. (2012). From science popularization to public engagement: The history of science communication in Korea. In B. Schiele, M. Claessens, & S. Shi (Eds), Science communication in the world: Practices, theories and trends. Springer.
Cohen, I. B. (1952). The education of the public in science. Impact of Science on Society, 3(2), 67–100.
Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York: Henry Holt.
Durant, J. R., Evans, G. A., & Thomas, G. P. (1989). The public understanding of science. Nature, 340, 11–14.
Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist, 58(9), 697–720.
Kim, H.-S. (1986). Coorientation and communication. In B. Dervin & M. J. Voigt (Eds.), Progress in communication sciences (Vol. 7, pp. 31–54). Norwood: Ablex.
Kim, H.-S. (2003). A theoretical explication of collective life: Coorienting and communicating. In B. Dervin & S. H. Chaffee (Eds.), Communication, a different kind of horserace: Essays honoring Richard F. Carter (pp. 117–134). Cresskill: Hampton.
Kim, H.-S. (2007a). PEP/IS: A new model for communicative effectiveness of science. Science Communication, 28(3), 287–313.
Kim, H.-S. (2007b). South Korea: The scandal of Professor Hwang Woo-Sok. In M. Bauer & M. Bucchi (Eds.), Journalism, science and society (pp. 255–258). New York: Routledge.
Kim, H.-S. (2012). Measuring PEP/IS, a new model for communicative effectiveness of science. In M. W. Bauer, R. Shukla, & N. Allum (Eds.), The culture of science: How the public relates to science across the globe (pp. 375–384). New York: Routledge.
Kim, H.-S. (in press). Climate change, science and community. Public Understanding of Science.
Kim, H.-S., Choi, J. -M., Park, Y. -M., & Song, J. -R. (2007). Strengthening the scientist leadership: Improving the Science Korea Movement. Final project report to the Ministry of Science and Technology, Korean Government, Seoul, South Korea.
Kim, H.-S., Ha, H. -S., Park, Y. -M., & Song, J. -R. (2008). A study on upgrading the value of meteorological information toward the construction and leisure industries. Final project report to the Korea Meteorological Administration, Seoul, South Korea.
Leshner, A. I. (2003). Public engagement with science. Science, 299(5609), 97.
Lubchenco, J. (1998). Entering the century of the environment: A new social contract for science. Science, 279, 491–497.
Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row.
McGuire, W. J. (1985). Attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 233–346). New York: Random House.
Miller, J. D. (1998). The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding of Science, 7, 203–223.
Miller, S. (2001). Public understanding of science at the crossroad. Public Understanding of Science, 10, 115–120.
Miller, J. D. (2004). Public understanding of, and attitudes toward, scientific research: What we know and what we need to know. Public Understanding of Science, 13(3), 273–294.
Miller, S. (2012). Benchmarking climate indicators for science communication and public engagement across Europe. In M. Bauer, R. Shukla, & N. Allum (Eds.), The culture of science: How the public relates to science across the globe (pp. 436–448). New York: Routledge.
Pardo, R., & Calvo, F. (2002). Attitudes toward science among the European public: A methodological analysis. Public Understanding of Science, 11, 155–195.
Pielke, R. A., Jr., & Byerly, R., Jr. (1998). Beyond basic and applied. Physics Today, 51(2), 42–46.
Prewitt, K. (1983). Scientific illiteracy and democratic theory. Daedalus, 112(2), 49–64.
SCST (Select Committee on Science and Technology) (2000). Science and society, House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, third report. Retrieved from http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199900/ldselect/ldsctech/38/3801.htm
Service, R. F. (2002). Bell labs fires star physicist found guilty of forging data. Science, 298, 30–31.
Snow, C. P. (1993). The two cultures. London: Cambridge University Press.
Sturgis, P. S., & Allum, N. (2004). Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science, 13, 55–74.
Ziman, J. (1996). Is science losing its objectivity? Nature, 382, 751–754.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kim, HS. (2012). Engagement: The Key to the Communicative Effectiveness of Science and Ideas. In: Schiele, B., Claessens, M., Shi, S. (eds) Science Communication in the World. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4279-6_18
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4279-6_18
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-4278-9
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-4279-6
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)