This article seeks to expand the literature on science attitudes by developing an empirical typology of people’s engagement choices and investigating their sociodemographic characteristics. Public engagement with science is gaining a central role in current studies of science communication, as it implies a bidirectional flow of information, which makes science inclusion and knowledge co-production realizable goals. However, research has produced few empirical explorations of the public’s participation in science, especially considering its sociodemographic characteristics. By means of segmentation analysis using Eurobarometer 2021 data, I observe that Europeans’ science participation can be distinguished into four types, disengaged, the largest group, aware, invested, and proactive. As expected, descriptive analysis of the sociocultural characteristics of each group suggests that disengagement is most common among people with lower social status. In addition, in contrast to the expectations from existing literature, no behavioral distinction emerges between citizen science and other engagement initiatives.
AchterbergPDe KosterWVan der WaalJ (2017) A science confidence gap: Education, trust in scientific methods, and trust in scientific institutions in the United States, 2014. Public Understanding of Science26(6): 704–720.
2.
AldenderferMSBlashfieldRK (1984) A review of clustering methods. In: SAGE University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences (Ed) Cluster Analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE, pp. 33–61.
3.
ArnsteinSR (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners35(4): 216–224.
4.
BentoSBrásOR (2021) Technologies of participation in water plans in Portugal: What kind of science–society relationship are we talking about? In: DelicadoAVon RotenFCPripićK (eds) Communicating Science and Technology in Society. Cham: Springer, pp. 137–159.
5.
BonneyRBallardHJordanRMcCallieEPhillipsTShirkJ, et al. (2009) Public Participation in Scientific Research: Defining the Field and Assessing Its Potential for Informal Science Education. Washington, DC: CAISE.
6.
BonneyRPhillipsTBBallardHLEnckJW (2016) Can citizen science enhance public understanding of science?Public Understanding of Science25(1): 2–16.
7.
BucchiMNeresiniF (2007) Science and public participation. In: HackettEJAmsterdamskaOLynchM (eds) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, 3rd edn.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 449–472.
8.
CallonM (1999) The role of lay people in the production and dissemination of scientific knowledge. Science, Technology and Society4(1): 81–94.
9.
CámaraMMunoz van den EyndeALópez CerezoJA (2018) Attitudes towards science among Spanish citizens: The case of critical engagers. Public Understanding of Science27(6): 690–707.
10.
CerroniASimonellaZT (2014) Sociologia della scienza: capire la scienza per capire la società contemporanea. Roma: Carocci Editore.
11.
DawsonE (2014) Reframing social exclusion from science communication: Moving away from “barriers” towards a more complex perspective. Journal of Science Communication13(2): 1–5.
12.
DawsonE (2018) Reimagining publics and (non) participation: Exploring exclusion from science communication through the experiences of low-income, minority ethnic groups. Public Understanding of Science27(7): 772–786.
13.
DeanAJChurchEKLoderJFieldingKSWilsonKA (2018) How do marine and coastal citizen science experiences foster environmental engagement?Journal of Environmental Management213: 409–416.
14.
DelicadoA (2021) Introduction: How the sociology of science and technology addresses science and society relations. In: DelicadoAVon RotenFCPripićK (eds) Communicating Science and Technology in Society. Cham: Springer, pp. 137–159.
15.
DomroeseMCJohnsonEA (2017) Why watch bees? Motivations of citizen science volunteers in the Great Pollinator Project. Biological Conservation208: 40–47.
16.
FüchslinT (2019) Science communication scholars use more and more segmentation analyses: Can we take them to the next level?Public Understanding of Science28(7): 854–864.
17.
GaskellGStaresSAllansdottirAAllumNCorcheroCJacksonJ (2006) Europeans and biotechnology in 2005: Patterns and trends. Final Report on Eurobarometer 64.3. Brussels: European Commission.
18.
GibbonsM (2000) Mode 2 society and the emergence of context-sensitive science. Science and Public Policy27(3): 159–163.
19.
HairFBlackWCJrBabinBJAndersonRE (2010) Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective, 7th edn.New York, NY: MacMillan.
20.
HanJKamberMPeiJ (2011) Data Mining: Concepts and Techniques, 3rd edn.Waltham, MA: Morgan Kauffman.
21.
Ipsos MORI (2011) Public attitudes to science 2011. Report. Ipsos MORI, Department for Business Innovation and Skills, London.
22.
IrwinA (1995) Citizen Science. A Study of People, Expertise and Environment Development. London: Routledge.
23.
JasanoffS (2003) Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva41(3): 223–244.
24.
JolliffeI (2005) Principal Component Analysis. Encyclopedia of Statistics in Behavioral Science. London: John Wiley.
25.
KawamotoSNakayamaMSaijoM (2013) A survey of scientific literacy to provide a foundation for designing science communication in Japan. Public Understanding of Science22(6): 674–690.
26.
MacqHTancoigneEStrasserBJ (2020) From deliberation to production: Public participation in science and technology policies of the European Commission (1998–2019). Minerva58(4): 489–512.
27.
MejlgaardNRyanTK (2017) Patterns of third mission engagement among scientists and engineers. Research Evaluation26(4): 326–336.
28.
MejlgaardNStaresS (2010) Participation and competence as joint components in a cross-national analysis of scientific citizenship. Public Understanding of Science19(5): 545–561.
29.
MejlgaardNStaresS (2013) Performed and preferred participation in science and technology across Europe: Exploring an alternative idea of “democratic deficit.”Public Understanding of Science22(6): 660–673.
30.
OkamuraK (2016) Dynamic development of public attitudes towards science policymaking. Public Understanding of Science25(4): 465–479.
31.
PullmanAChenMYZouDHivesBALiuY (2019) Researching multiple publics through latent profile analysis: Similarities and differences in science and technology attitudes in China, Japan, South Korea and the United States. Public Understanding of Science28(2): 130–145.
32.
RoweGFrewerLJ (2005) A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology, & Human Values30(2): 251–290.
33.
RungeKKBrossardDXenosMA (2018) Protective progressives to distrustful traditionalists: A post hoc segmentation method for science communication. Environmental Communication12(8): 1023–1045.
34.
SchrögelPKolleckA (2019) The many faces of participation in science: Literature review and proposal for a three-dimensional framework. Science & Technology Studies32(2): 77–99.
35.
StirlingA (2008) “Opening up” and “closing down” power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values33(2): 262–294.
36.
StrasserBBaudryJMahrDSanchezGTancoigneE (2019) “Citizen science”? Rethinking science and public participation. Science & Technology Studies32: 52–76.
37.
WalesiakMDudekA (2010) Finding groups in ordinal data: An examination of some clustering procedures. In: Locarek-JungeHWeihsC (eds) Classification as a Tool for Research. Studies in Classification, Data Analysis, and Knowledge Organization. Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 185–192.
38.
WeingartPJoubertMConnowayK (2021) Public engagement with science—Origins, motives and impact in academic literature and science policy. PLoS ONE16(7): e0254201.
39.
WigginsACrowstonK (2011) From conservation to crowdsourcing: A typology of citizen science. In: 2011 44th Hawaii international conference on system sciences, Kauai, HI, 4–7 January, pp. 1–10. New York, NY: IEEE.
40.
WynneB (2007) Public participation in science and technology: Performing and obscuring a political–conceptual category mistake. East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal1(1): 99–110.
41.
YancoEBataviaCRampD (2021) Compassion and moral inclusion as cornerstones for conservation education and coexistence. Biological Conservation261: 109253.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
