Teaching biotechnology: Identity in the context of ignorance and knowledgeability

Public Understanding of Science

Volumn 6, Issue 1, 1997, Pages 1-17

  Michael, Mike ^a   Grinyer, Anne ^a   Turner, Jill ^b  

^a LANCASTER UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0002141496     PISSN: 09636625     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1088/0963-6625/6/1/001     Document Type: Review

References (41)

1. For an excellent review of this literature see, Wynne, B.E., 1995, The public understanding of science. Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited by S. Jasanoff, G.E. Markle, J.C. Petersen and T. Pinch (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage), pp.361-388.
2. Wynne, B. E., 1992, Misunderstood misunderstanding: social identities and public uptake of science. Public Understanding of Science, 1, 281-304.
3. See, Michael, M., 1992, Lay discourses of science: science-in-general, science-in-particular and self. Science, Technology & Human Values, 17, 313-333;
4. Michael, M., 1996, Constructing Identities (London: Sage).
5. Solomon, J., 1993, Reception and rejection of science knowledge: choice, style and home culture. Public Understanding of Science, 2, 111-121.
6. For further examples see Wynne, B. E., 1995, The public understanding of science. Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited by S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen and T. Pinch (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage), pp.361-388;
7. Irwin, A., and Wynne, B., 1996, Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology (Cambridge University Press);
8. and Layton, D., Jenkins, E., MacGill, S., and Davey A., 1993, Inarticulate Science? (Driffield, E. Yorks: Studies in Education).
9. Lyotard, J.-F. 1984, The Postmodern Condition: a Report on Knowledge (Manchester University Press).
10. Holton, G., 1992, How to think about the 'anti-science' phenomenon. Public Understanding of Science, 1. 103-128;
11. Holton, G., 1993, Science and Anti-Science (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
12. For examples of this approach to the public 'attitude' toward science, see, for example Beck, U., 1992, The Risk Society (London: Sage);
13. Bauman, Z., 1991, Modernity and Ambivalence (Cambridge: Polity);
14. Giddens, A., 1991, Modernity and Self-Identity (Cambridge: Polity).
15. See, for example, Collins, H. M., 1987, Certainty and the public understanding of science: science on television. Social Studies of Science, 17, 689-713;
16. Lewenstein, B. V., 1995, Science and the media. Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited by S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen and T. Pinch (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage), pp.343-360;
17. Nelkin, D., 1987, Selling Science (New York: Freeman);
18. Silverstone, R., 1991, Communicating science to the public. Science, Technology & Human Values, 16, 106-110.
19. See for example, Edwards, D., and Mercer, N., 1987, Common Knowledge: the Development of Understanding in the Classroom (London: Methuen);
20. Walkerdine, V., 1988, The Mastery of Reason: Cognitive Development and the Production of Rationality (London: Routledge).
21. For classic examples of constructionism in social studies of science see, for example, Collins, H. M., 1985, Changing Order (London: Sage);
22. and Latour, B., 1987, Science in Action: How to Follow Engineers in Society (Milton Keynes: Open University Press).
23. For a more critical appraisal, see Sismondo, S., 1993, Some social constructions. Social Studies of Science, 23, 515-553.
24. Krueger, R. A., 1994, Focus Groups (London: Sage).
25. Krueger, R. A., 1994, Focus Groups (London: Sage), p.29
26. For a now standard account of discourse analysis, see Potter, J., and Wetherell, M., 1987, Discourse and Social Psychology (London: Sage).
27. We use the term 'representation' and 'representational' in the sense developed by Moscovici in his advocacy of social representations. Social representations have been characterized as concepts, statements, images and explanations that originate in the course of inter-individual communication. Their key function is to make the unfamiliar familiar, particularly the unfamiliar knowledges produced by science (or the 'reified universe,' as Moscovici would call it). However, in contrast to Moscovici and other writers in this tradition, we would emphasize that such representations are not unitary or coherent - rather they entail contradictory or ambiguous concepts, statements, images and explanations. Moreover, we are particularly keen to stress here the role of representational discourse in the construction of the identities of both self and others. Two key papers on social representations are Moscovici, S., 1981. On social representations. Social Cognition, edited by J. P. Forgas (London: Academic Press), pp.181-209,
28. and Moscovici, S., 1984, The phenomenon of social representations. Social Representations, edited by R. M. Farr and S. Moscovici (Cambridge University Press), pp.3-70.
29. For an explicit application of social representation theory to the public understanding of science field see Farr, R. M., 1993, Common sense, science and social representations. Public Understanding of Science, 2, 189-204.
30. A more critical account can be found in Michael, M., 1996, Ignoring science: discourses of ignorance in the public understanding of science. Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology, edited by A. Irwin and B. Wynne (Cambridge University Press), pp.105-125.
31. For an analysis of the contradictory nature of social representations see Billig, M., 1991, Ideology and Opinions (London: Sage).
32. Michael, M., and Birke, L., 1994, Animal experimentation: enrolling the core set. Social Studies of Science, 24, 81-95.
33. Gieryn, T., 1983, Boundary work in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48, 781-795;
34. Gieryn, T., 1995, Boundaries of science. Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited by S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen and T. Pinch (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage), pp.393-443.
35. Collins, H. M., and Pinch, T., 1993, The Golem (Cambridge: Canto).
36. The key text addressing the phenomenon of ideological dilemmas is Billig, M., Condor, S., Edwards, D., Gane, M., Middleton, D., and Radley, A., 1988, Ideological Dilemmas (London: Sage).
37. See, for example, Barnes, B., and Shapin, S., 1979, Natural Order (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage);
38. and Haraway, D., 1989, Primate Visions (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul).
39. See, for example, Knorr-Cetina, K. D., 1981, The Manufacture of Knowledge (Oxford: Pergamon);
40. Latour, B., and Woolgar, S., 1979, Laboratory Life: the Social Construction of Scientific Facts (London: Sage);
41. and Lynch, M., 1985, Art and Artifact in Laboratory Science (London: Routledge).