Using the deficit model, public debate model and co-production of knowledge models to interpret points of view of students concerning citizens' participation in socioscientific issues

International Journal of Environmental and Science Education

Volumn 4, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 49-73

  Pouliot, Chantal ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ LAVAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

Citizen participation; Co production of knowledge model; Deficit model; Public debate model; Socioscientific issue

Indexed keywords

EID: 66249117695     PISSN: None     EISSN: 13063065     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (75)

1. Abell, S. K., & Lederman, N. G. (2007). Handbook of research on science education. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
2. Aikenhead, G. S. (2007). Humanistic perspectives in the science curriculum. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 881-910). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
3. Aikenhead, G. S. (2006). Science education for everyday life. New York: Teachers College Press.
4. Aikenhead, G. S. (1985). Collective decision making in the context of science. Science Education, 69(4), 453-475.
5. Albe, V. (2008). When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and social considerations intersect: Students' argumentation in group discussions on a socioscientific issue. Research in Science Education, 38(1), 67-90.
6. Brown, B. A. (2004). Discursive identity: Assimilation into the culture of science and its implications for minority students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(8), 810-834.
7. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
8. Bucchi, M. (1998). Science and the media: Alternative routes in scientific communication. London: Routeledge.
9. Bucchi, M., & Neresini, F. (2008). Science and public participation. In E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The handbook of science and technologies studies (pp. 449-472). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10. Callon, M. (1999). The role of lay people in the production and dissemination of scientific knowledge. Science, Technology & Society, 4(1), 81-94.
11. Callon, M., & Rabeharisoa, V. (2008). The growing engagement of emergent concerned groups in political and economic life: Lessons from the French association of neuromuscular disease patients. Science, Technology and Human Values, 33(2), 230-261.
12. Casper, B. M. (1980). Public policy decision making and science literacy. In D. Wolfe (Ed.), Public policy decision making and scientific literacy: Information needs for science and technology (Report No. NSF-80-21-A6). Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
13. Chilvers, J. (2008). Deliberating competence: Theoretical and practitioner perspectives on effective participatory appraisal practice. Science, Technology & Human Values, 33(2), 155-185.
14. Cook, G., Robbins, P. T., & Pieri, E. (2006). Words of mass destruction: British newspaper coverage of the genetically modified food debate, expert and non-expert reaction. Public Understanding of Science, 15(1), 5-29.
15. Cross, R. T., & Price, R. F. (2002). Teaching controversial science for social responsibility: The case of food production. In W.-M. Roth & J. Désautels (Eds.), Science education as/for sociopolitical action (pp. 99-123). New York: Peter Lang.
16. Davies, I. (2004). Science and citizenship education. International Journal of Science Education, 26(14), 1751-1763.
17. Davies, I., & Issitt, J. (2005). Citizenship education textbooks in England, Canada and Australia. Comparative Education, 41(4), 389-410.
18. DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582-601.
19. Drake, F. (2006). Mobile phone masts: Protesting the scientific evidence. Public Understanding of Science, 15(4), 387-410.
20. Durant, D. (2008). Accounting for expertise: Wynne and the autonomy of the lay public. Public Understanding of Science, 17(1), 5-20.
21. Duschl, R., Erduran, S., Grandy, R., & Rudolph, J. (2008). Introduction to special issue: Science studies and science education. Science Education, 92(3), 1-4.
22. Epstein, S. (2008). Patient groups and health movements. In E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The handbook of science and technologies studies (pp. 499-540). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23. Evans, R., & Collins, H. (2008). Expertise: From attribute to attribution and back again? In E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The handbook of science and technologies studies (pp. 609-630). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24. Fensham, P. J. (2002). De nouveaux guides pour l'alphabétisation scientifique. Revue canadienne de l'enseignement des sciences, des mathématiques et des technologies/Canadian journal of science, mathematics and technology education, 2(6), 133-149.
25. Fourez, G. (1997). Scientific and technological literacy as a social practice. Social Studies of Science, 27(11), 903-936.
26. Grace, M., & Ratcliffe, M. (2002). The science and values that young people draw upon to make decisions about biological conservation issues. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1157-1169.
27. Hackett, E. J., Amsterdamska, O., Lynch, M., & Wajcman, J. (2008). The handbook of science and technology studies. London: MIT Press.
28. Hine, C. (2005). Virtual methods: Issues in social research on the Internet. New York: Berg.
29. Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 645-670.
30. Horton-Salway, M. (2001). The construction of M. E.: The discursive action model. In M. Wetherell, S. Taylor & S. J. Taylor (Eds.), Discourse as Data. A Guide for Analysis (pp. 147-188). London: The Open University.
31. Irwin, A. (2001). Constructing the scientific citizen: Science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Understanding of Science. 10(1), 1-18.
32. Irwin, A. & Michael, M. (2003). Science, Social Theory and Public Knowledge. Maidenhead, Berks: Open University Press.
33. Jasanoff, S. (2003). Breaking the waves in science studies: Comment on H. M Collins and Robert Evans, 'The third wave of science studies'. Social Studies of Science, 33(3), 389-400.
34. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Pereiro-Munoz, C. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal in Science Education, 24(11), 1171-1190.
35. Kallerud, E. & Ramberg, I. (2002). The order of discourse in surveys of public understanding of science. Public Understanding of Science, 11(3), 213-224.
36. Kawulich, Barbara B. (2005). Participant Observation as a Data Collection Method. Retreived February 10, 2006, from Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6, Art. 43: [http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/2-05/ 05-2-43-e.htm].
37. Kearnes, M. B., Macnaghten, P. M., & Wilsdon, J. (2006). Governing at the nanoscale: People, policies and emerging technologies. London: Demos
38. Keeley, J. (2005). Interrogating China's biotechnology revolution: Contesting dominant science policy cultures in the risk society. In M. Leach, I. Scoones & B. Wynne (Eds.), Science and citizens: Globalization and the challenge of engagement (pp. 155-166). London: Zed Books.
39. Kelly, G. J., & Crawford, T. (1997). An ethnographic investigation of the discourse processes of school science. Science Education, 81(5), 533-559.
40. Kerr, A., Cunningham-Burley, S, & Tutton, R. (2007). Shifting subject positions. Social Studies of Science, 37(3), 385-411.
41. Kolstoe, S. D., Bungum, B. Arnesen, E., Isnes, A. Kristensen, T., Mathiassen, K., Mestad, I., Quale, A., Sissel, A., Tonning, V., & Ulvik, M. (2006). Science students' critical examination of scientific information related to socioscientific issues. Science Education, 90(4), 632-655.
42. Kvale, S. (1995). The social construction of validity. Qualitative Inquiry, 1(1), 19-40.
43. Latour, B. (2004). Politics of nature: How to bring the sciences into democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
44. Laugksch, R. C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84(1), 71-94.
45. Leach, M., Scoones, I. & Wynne, B. (2005). Science and citizens: Globalization and the challenge of engagement. London: Zed Books.
46. Lengwiler, M. (2008). Participatory approaches in science and technology: Historical origins and current practices in critical perspectives. Science, Technology & Human Values, 33(2), 186-200.
47. Lynch, M. (2008). Ideas and perspectives. In E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch & J. Wajcman (Eds.), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (pp. 9-12). MIT Press. Maingain, A., Dufour, B., & Fourez, G. (2002). Approches didactiques de l'interdisciplinarité [Didactic approaches and interdisciplinarity]. Bruxelles: De Boeck University.
48. Maranta, A., Guggenheim, M., Gisler, P., & Pohl, C. (2003). The Reality of Experts and the Imagined Lay Person, Acta Sociologica, 46(2), 150-165.
49. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.
50. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
51. Peters, H. P. (2000). From information to attitudes? Thoughts on the relationship between knowledge about science and technology and attitudes toward technology. In M. Dierkes & C. von Grote (Eds.) Between understanding and trust: The public, science and technology (pp. 265-286). Amsterdam: Harwood.
52. Potter, J. (1996). Representing reality: Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. London: Sage.
53. Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour. London: Sage.
54. Pouliot, C. (2008). Students' inventory of social actors concerned by the controversy surrounding cellular telephones: A case study. Science Education, 92(3), 543-559.
55. Pouliot, C. (2007). Appréhension d'une controverse sociotechnique et rapport aux experts scientifiques: une étude de cas. [Students' apprehension of a sociotechnical controversy and their relationship to scientific experts: A case study]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Université Laval, Quebec, Canada.
56. Roth, W.-M., & Désautels, J. (2004). Educating for citizenship: Reappraising the role of science education. Revue canadienne de l'enseignement des sciences, des mathématiques et des technologies/Canadian journal of science, mathematics and technology education, 4(1), 1-27.
57. Rusike, E. (2005). Exploring food and farming futures in Zimbabwe: A citizen's jury and scenario workshop experiment. In M. Leach, I. Scoones & B. Wynne (Eds.), Science and citizens: Globalization and the challenge of engagement (pp. 249-255). London: Zed Books.
58. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536.
59. Sadler, T. D, Barab, S. A., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37(4), 371-391.
60. Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science, 26(4), 387-409.
61. Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90(6), 986-1004.
62. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2002). The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88(1), 4-27.
63. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
64. Stilgoe, J. (2007). The (co-)production of public uncertainty: UK scientific advice on mobile phone health risk. Public Understanding of Science, 16(1), 45-61.
65. Stirling, A. (2008). Opening up and closing down: Power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science, Technology & Human Values, 33(2), 262-294.
66. Sturgis, P., & Allum, N. (2004). Science in Society: Re-evaluating the Deficit Model of Public Understanding. Public Understanding of Science, 13(1), 55-75.
67. Turner, S. (2008). School science and its controversies: Or whatever happened to scientific literacy? Public Understanding of Science, 17(1), 55-72.
68. Tutton, R., Kerr, A., & Cunningham-Burley, S. (2005). Myriad stories: Constructing expertise and citizenship in discussions of the new genetics. In M. Leach, I. Scoones & B. Wynne (Eds.), Science and citizens: Globalization and the challenge of engagement (pp. 101-112). London: Zed Books.
69. Tytler, R., Duggan,S., & R. Gott. (2001). Dimensions of evidence, the public understanding of science and science education. International Journal of Science Education, 23(8), 815-832.
70. Wright, N., & Nerlich, B. (2006). Use of the deficit model in a shared culture of argumentation: the case of foot and mouth science. Public Understanding of Science, 15(3), 331-342.
71. Wynne, B. (2008). Elephants in the rooms where public encounter "science"?: A response to Darrin Durant, "Accounting for expertise: Wynne and the autonomy of the lay public". Public Understanding of Science, 17(1), 21-33.
72. Wynne, B. (2003). Seasik on the third wave? Subverting the hegemony of propositionalism: response to Collins and Evans. Social Studies of Science, 33(3), 401-417.
73. Wynne, B. (1992). Misunderstood misunderstanding: Social identities and public uptake of science. Public Understanding of Science, 1(3), 281-304.
74. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
75. Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357-377.