Public engagement with a problem or an issue relative to science (PEP/IS) is suggested as an alternative and complementary model for understanding the communicative effectiveness of science. PEP/IS is conceptualized as the process of individual and collective problem solving in relation to science and exemplified with South Korean exploratory data. Finally, further steps for improving PEP/IS and related research capability are suggested with communicative effectiveness being anticipated.
Bauer, M., J. Durant, and G. Evans. 1994. European public perceptions of science. International Journal of Public Opinion Research6 (2): 163-186.
2.
Bauer, M., K. Petkova, and P. Boyadjieva. 2000. Public knowledge of and attitudes to science: Alternative measures that may end the “science war.” Science, Technology, and Human Values25 (1): 30-51.
3.
Bennet, W. L.1998. The uncivic culture: Communication, identity, and the rise of lifestyle politics. PS: Political Science and Politics31 (4): 741-761.
4.
Blumer, H.1966. The mass, the public, and public opinion. In Reader in public opinion and communication, edited by B. Berelson and M. Janowit, 43-50. New York: Free Press.
5.
Bodmer, W.1985. The public understanding of science. London: Royal Society.
6.
Broad, W.2004. U.S. is losing its dominance in the sciences. The New York Times, May 3, 2004, A1-A1, A19-A19.
7.
Burnham, J. C.1987. How superstition won and science lost: Popularizing science and health in the United States. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
8.
Cappella, J. N., and K. H. Jamieson. 1997. Spiral of cynicism: The press and the public good. New York: Oxford University Press.
9.
Carey, J. W.1995. The press, public opinion, and public discourse. In Public opinion and the communication of consent, edited by T. L. Glasser and C. T. Salmon, 373-402. New York: Guilford.
10.
Carter, R. F.1978. A peculiar horse race. In The Presidential debate: Media, electoral, and policy perspectives, edited by G. F. Bishop, R. G. Meadow, and M. Jackson-Beeck, 3-17. New York: Praeger.
11.
Carter, R. F.. 1990a. Mass communication effects: A weakness theorem. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Communication Theory and Methodology Division of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, August, Minneapolis, MN.
12.
Carter, R. F.. 1990b. Mass communication, mass cognition, and the behavioral molecule. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association mini-conference on mass media and society, Boston, MA.
13.
Carter, R. F.. 1992. Cognigraphics: Taking the measure of ideas. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, May, St. Petersburg, FL.
14.
Carter, R. F.. 2003. Communication: A harder science. In Communication, a different kind of horserace: Essays honoring Richard F. Carter, edited by B. Dervin and S. H. Chaffee, 369-376. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
15.
Carter, R. F.. In press. Art, art, and communication. In Audiences and the arts: Communication perspectives, edited by B. Dervin and L. Foreman-Wernet. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
16.
Carter, R. F., W. L. Ruggels, K. M. Jackson, and M. B. Heffner. 1973. Application of signaled stopping technique to communication research. In New models for communication research, edited by P. Clarke, 15-43. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
17.
Carter, R. F., and K. R. Stamm. 1993. How we thought about the Gulf War. In Desert storm and the mass media, edited by B. L. Greenberg and W. Gantz, 152-165. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
18.
Carter, R. F., and K. R. Stamm. 1994. The 1992 presidential campaign and debates: A cognitive view. Communication Research21: 380-395.
19.
Carter, R. F., K. R. Stamm, and C. Heintz-Knowles. 1992. Agenda-setting and consequentiality. Journalism Quarterly69 (4): 868-877.
20.
Chaffee, S. H., and J. Schleuder. 1986. Measurement and effects of attention to media news. Human Communication Research13 (1): 76-107.
21.
Clark, F., and D. L. Illman. 2001. Dimensions of civic science. Science Communication23 (1): 5-27.
22.
Clark, F. J. 1998. Thinking about global warming. Master’s thesis, University of Washington, Seattle.
23.
Cohen, B.1952. The education of the public in science. Impact of Science on Society3 (3): 67-100.
24.
Crowe, B. L.1969. The tragedy of the commons revisited. Science166 (3909), November 28: 1103-1107.
25.
Dewey, J.1938. Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York: Henry Holt.
26.
Dunwoody, S.1986. The science writing inner club: A communication link between science and the lay public. In Scientists and journalists: Reporting science as news, edited by S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, and C. L. Rogers, 155-169. New York: Free Press.
27.
Durant, J., M. Bauer, G. Gaskell, C. Midden, M. Liakopoulos, and L. Scholton. 2000. Two cultures of public understanding of science and technology in Europe. In Between understanding and trust: The public, science and technology, edited by M. Dierkes and C. v. Grote, 131-156. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic.
28.
Durant, J. R., G. A. Evans, and G. P. Thomas. 1989. The public understanding of science. Nature340, July 6: 11-14.
29.
Edwards, C.2004. Evaluating European public awareness of science initiatives. Science Communication25 (3): 260-271.
30.
Evans, W. A., M. Krippendorf, J. H. Yoon, P. Posluszny, and S. Thomas. 1990. Science in the prestige and national tabloid presses. Social Science Quarterly71: 105-117.
31.
Fahnestock, J.1993. Accommodating science: The rhetorical life of scientific facts. In The literature of science: Perspectives on popular scientific writing, edited by M. W. McRae, 17-36. Athens: University of Georgia Press.
32.
Grote, C. v., and M. Dierkes. 2000. Public understanding of science and technology: State of the art and consequences for future research. In Between understanding and trust: The public, science and technology, edited by M. Dierkes and C. v. Grote, 341-362. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic.
33.
Habermas, J.1992. Further reflections on the public sphere. In Habermas and the public sphere, edited by C. Calhoun, 421-461. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
34.
Irwin, A.1995. Citizen science: A study of people, expertise and sustainable development. London: Routledge.
35.
Irwin, A., and B. Wynne, eds. 1996. Misunderstanding of science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
36.
Kallerud, E., and I. Ramberg. 2002. The order of discourse in surveys of public understanding of science. Public Understanding of Science11: 213-224.
37.
Karl, H. A., and C. Turner. 2002. A model project for exploring the role of sustainability science in a citizen-centered, collaborative decision-making process. Human Ecology Review9 (1): 67-71.
38.
Kim, H.-S.1986. Coorientation and communication. In Progress in communication sciences VII, edited by B. Dervin and M. J. Voigt, 31-54. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
39.
Kim, H.-S.. 1999. The processes of public science and science communication: A new conceptual explication. Korean Journal of Journalism and Communication Studies43 (3): 79-110.
40.
Kim, H.-S.. 2003. A theoretical explication of collective life: Coorienting and communicating. In Communication, a different kind of horserace: Essays honoring Richard F. Carter, edited by B. Dervin and S. H. Chaffee, 117-134. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
41.
Kim, H.-S., R. F. Carter, and K. R. Stamm. 1996. Developing a standard model of measuring the public understanding of science and technology. Journal of Science and Technology Policy7 (2): 51-78.
42.
Kim, H.-S., J.-M. Choi, and T.-J. Jung. 2000. Impressions of the SET (Scientist-Engineer-Technician): A national survey analysis. Journal of Technology Innovation8 (1): 95-123.
43.
Kim, H.-S., H.-H. Hong, and S.-C. Park. 2003. Youths’ impressions of the scientist: A national survey analysis. Journal of Technology Innovation11 (2): 41-69.
44.
Kim, H.-S., J.-H. Lee, and H.-H. Hong. 2002. Korean public understanding of science and technology: A national survey through a new conceptualization. Journal of Technology Innovation10 (1): 124-147.
45.
Kim, H.-S., J.-S. Park, S.-C. Park, and H.-H. Hong. 2003. Developing a new measurement model for the youths’ understanding of science and technology: A national survey. Report on a policy research project to the Ministry of Science and Technology, the Korean government, Seoul, Korea.
46.
Lane, N.1999. The civic scientist and science policy. In Science and technology policy year-book, edited by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, ch. 22. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.aaas.org/spp/yearbook/chap22.htm
47.
Lee, S., and W.-M. Roth. 2003. Science and the “good citizenship”: Community-based scientific literacy. Science, Technology, and Human Values28 (3): 403-424.
48.
Lubchenco, J.1998. Entering the century of the environment: A new social contract for science. Science279, January 23: 491-497.
49.
Matthews, M. R.2000. Appraising constructivism in science and mathematics education. In Constructivism in education, edited by D. C. Phillips, 161-192. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
50.
McGuire, W. J.1985. Attitudes and attitude change. In Handbook of social psychology, edited by G. Lindzey and E. Aronson, 233-346. New York: Random House.
51.
McLeod, J., C. J. Glynn, and R. J. Griffin. 1987. Communication and energy conservation. Journal of Environmental Education18: 28-37.
52.
Meissner, H. I., A. L. Potosky, and R. Convissor. 1992. How sources of health information relate to knowledge and use of cancer screening exams. Journal of Community Health17: 153-165.
53.
Michael, M.1992. Lay discourses of science: Science-in-general, science-in-particular, and self. Science, Technology, and Human Values17 (3): 313-333.
54.
Miller, J. D.1983. Scientific literacy: A conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus112 (2): 29-48.
55.
Miller, J. D.. 1986. Reaching the attentive and interested publics for science. In Scientists and journalists: Reporting science as news, edited by S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, and C. L. Rogers, 55-69. New York: Free Press.
56.
Miller, J. D.. 1998. The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding of Science7: 203-223.
57.
Miller, J. D.. 2004. Public understanding of, and attitudes toward, scientific research: What we know and what we need to know. Public Understanding of Science13 (3): 273-294.
58.
Miller, J. D., and R. Pardo. 2000. Civic scientific literacy and attitude to science and technology: A comparative analysis of the European Union, the United States, Japan, and Canada. In Between understanding and trust: The public, science and technology, edited by M. Dierkes and C. v. Grote, 81-129. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Harwood Academic.
59.
Miller, S.2001. Public understanding of science at the crossroads. Public Understanding of Science10: 115-120.
60.
National Science Board. 2004. Science and engineering indicators 2004. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
61.
Nelkin, D.1995. Selling science: How the press covers science and technology (rev. ed.). New York: Freeman.
62.
Nisbet, M. C., D. A. Scheufele, J. Shanahan, P. Moy, D. Brossard, and B. V. Lewenstein. 2002. Knowledge, reservations, or promises? A media effects model for public perceptions of science and technology. Communication Research29 (5): 584-608.
63.
Paisley, W. J.1998. Scientific literacy and the competition for public attention and understanding. Science Communication20 (1): 70-80.
64.
Pardo, R., and F. Calvo. 2002. Attitudes toward science among the European public: A methodological analysis. Public Understanding of Science11: 155-195.
65.
Pellechia, M. G.1997. Trends in science coverage: A content analysis of three US newspapers. Public Understanding of Science6: 49-68.
66.
Petty, R. E., T. M. Ostrom, and T. C. Brock. 1981. Historical foundations of the cognitive response approach to attitudes and persuasion. In Cognitive responses in persuasion, edited by R. E. Petty, T. M. Ostrom, and T. C. Brock, 5-29. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
67.
Phillips, D. C.2000. An opinionated account of the constructivist landscape. In Constructivism in education, edited by D. C. Phillips, 1-16. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
68.
Pielke Jr., R. A., and R. Byerly, Jr.1998. Beyond basic and applied. Physics Today51 (2): 42-46.
69.
Prewitt, K.1983. Scientific illiteracy and democratic theory. Daedalus112 (2): 49-64.
70.
Pulford, D. L.1976. Follow-up of study of science news accuracy. Journalism Quarterly53: 119-121.
71.
Roth, W.-M., and S. Lee. 2002. Scientific literacy as collective praxis. Public Understanding of Science11: 33-56.
72.
Schiele, B., ed. 1994. When science becomes culture. Ottawa, Canada: University of Ottawa Press.
73.
Stamm, K. R., F. Clark, and P. R. Eblacas. 2000. Mass communication and public understanding of environmental problems: The case of global warming. Public Understanding of Science9: 219-237.
74.
Sternberg, R. J.1999. A dialectical basis for understanding the study of cognition. In The nature of cognition, edited by R. J. Sternberg, 51-78. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
75.
Sturgis, P. S., and N. Allum. 2004. Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science13: 55-74.
76.
Tankard, J. W., and M. Ryan. 1974. News source perceptions of accuracy of science coverage. Journalism Quarterly51: 219-225, 334-334.
77.
Taylor, S. E.1998. The social being in social psychology. In The handbook of social psychology, edited by D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, and G. Lindzey, 58-95. New York: McGraw-Hill.
78.
U.K. House of Lords. 2000. Science and technology—Third report (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
79.
Wellcome Trust. 2001. The role of scientists in public debate. Retrieved from http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/assets/wtd003425.pdf
80.
Wheatley, G. H.1991. Constructivist perspectives on science and mathematics learning. Science Education75 (1): 9-21.
81.
Wolfendale, S. A.1995. Report of the committee to review the contribution of scientists and engineers to public understanding of science, engineering and technology. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.
82.
Wynne, B.1989. Sheepfarming after Chernobyl: A case study in communicating scientific information. Environment31 (2): 11-39.
83.
Wynne, B.. 1991. Knowledge in context. Science, Technology, and Human Values16 (1): 111-121.
84.
Wynne, B.. 1993. Public uptake of science: A case for institutional reflexivity. Public Understanding of Science2: 321-337.
85.
Wynne, B.. 1995. Public understanding of science. In Handbook of science and technology studies, edited by S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Peterson, and T. Pinch, 361-388. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
86.
Zaal, R., and L. Leydesdorff. 1987. Amsterdam Science Shop and its influence on university research: The effects of ten years of dealing with non-academic questions. Science and Public Policy14 (6): 310-316.
87.
Ziman, J.1991. Public understanding of science. Science, Technology, and Human Values16 (1): 99-105.
