Public Engagement: Talking Science to Laypersons as Perceived by Postgraduate Students in Jordan
top of page
Asian Institute of Research, Journal Publication, Journal Academics, Education Journal, Asian Institute
Asian Institute of Research, Journal Publication, Journal Academics, Education Journal, Asian Institute

Education Quarterly Reviews

ISSN 2621-5799

asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
crossref
doi
open access

Published: 12 July 2018

Public Engagement: Talking Science to Laypersons as Perceived by Postgraduate Students in Jordan

Abdallah Khataybeh

Yarmouk University, Jordan

asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
pdf download

Download Full-Text Pdf

doi

10.31014/aior.1993.01.01.2

​

​

Abstract

This study aimed at investigating how and why to engage laypersons with science as perceived by postgraduate students in Jordan. A questionnaire consisted of (24) items, with 5 point Likert-Scale was used after conducting the validity and reliability of the questionnaire. Findings showed that the respondents showed positive perception towards engaging laypersons in science as it is vital for their daily life and using technology properly, and the importance of using layperson knowledge in communicating with them. Finally scientists need practice and knowledge to communicate with laypersons.

References

  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for Science Literacy (Project 2061), New York: Oxford University Press.

  2. Baddeley AD (1978) Applied cognitive and cognitive applied research. Perspectives on Memory Research, ed Nilsson LG (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ).

  3. Bakuwa, J. (2014). The role of Laypeople in the Governance of Science and Technology, International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences,4(5),121-129.

  4. Bruine de Bruine W, and Bostrom A (2013). Assessing what to address in science communication. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110:14062–14068.

  5. Dietz T (2013) Bringing values and deliberation to science communication. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110:14081–14087.

  6. Irwin, A. & Wynne, B. (Eds.). 1996. Misunderstanding Science? Cambridge: CUP.

  7. Kahneman D. (2011) Thinking, Fast and Slow (Farrar Giroux & Strauss, New York).

  8. Klahr D (2013). What do we mean? On the importance of not abandoning scientific rigor when talking about science education. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110:14075–14080.

  9. Löfstedt R, Fischhoff B, Fischhoff I (2002) Precautionary principles: General definitions and specific applications to genetically modified organisms (GMOs). J Policy Anal Manage 21(3):381–407.

  10. Lupia A (2013). Communicating science in politicized environments. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110:14048–14054.

  11. Merz J, Fischhoff B,Mazur DJ,. And Fischbeck PS (1993). Decision-analytic approach to developing standards of disclosure for medical informed consent. J Toxics Liability 15(1):191–215.

  12.  Morgan MG, Henrion M. (1990) Uncertainty (Cambridge University Press, New York).

  13. Pew Research Center, February, 15, 2015. “How Scientists Engage The Public”. Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/02/how-scientists-engage-public/.

  14. Raiffa H. (1968) Decision Analysis (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA).

  15. Reyna VF (2012). A new intuitionism: Meaning, memory, and development in Fuzzy-Trace Theory. Judgm Decis Mak 7(3):332–339.

  16. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S (2013) The Drug Facts Box: Improving the communication of prescription drug information. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110:14069–14074.

  17. Somerville, R.C.J, and Hassol, S.J. (2011).Communicating the Science of Climate Change, Physics Today, 64(10), 48-53. https://doi.org/10.1063/pt.3.1296.

  18. The Royal Society of London. (1985). the Public Understanding of Science. London: The Royal Society. Sjøberg, S. 2001. Science and Technology in Education—Current challenges and possible solutions. Science and Technology. A discussion document version 21. Pp1-13.

  19. von Winterfeldt D (2013) Bridging the gap between science and decision making. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110:14055–14061.

  20. Wynne, B.  (1991). Knowledge's in Context. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 16 (1), 111121.

  21. Wynne, B. (1989). Sheep farming after Chernobyl: A case study in communicating scientific information. Environment 31(10- 15), 33-39.

  22. Wynne, B. (1996). May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. In S. Lash, B. Szerszynski & B. Wynne (eds.), Risk, Environment and Modernity: Towards a new ecology. London: Sage Publications. Pp. 44- 83.

bottom of page