Post-Secondary Students' Relationship to People They Consider to Be Scientific Experts

Research in Science Education

Volumn 41, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 225-243

  Pouliot, Chantal ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ LAVAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

Case study; Lay participation in public debates; Relationship to scientific experts; Science education; Socioscientific issue

Indexed keywords

EID: 79952042750     PISSN: 0157244X     EISSN: 15731898     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11165-009-9162-9     Document Type: Article

References (75)

1. Aikenhead, G. S. (2006). Science education for everyday life. New York: Teachers College.
2. Albe, V. (2008). When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and social considerations intersect: students' argumentation in group discussions on a socio-scientific issue. Research in Science Education, 38, 67-90.
3. Bader, B. (2003). Interprétation d'une controverse scientifique : stratégies argumentatives d'adolescentes et d'adolescents québécois. La Revue canadienne de l'enseignement des sciences, des mathématiques et des technologies/ Canadian journal of science, mathematics and technology education, 231-250.
4. eColloque international de didactique et d'épistémologie des sciences, Sfax.
5. Bingle, W. H., & Gaskell, P. J. (1994). Scientific literacy for decision making and the social construction of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 78, 185-201.
6. 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: MIT Press.
7. e Colloque international de didactique et d'épistémologie des sciences, Sfax.
8. Callon, M. (1999). The role of lay people in the production and dissemination of scientific knowledge. Science, Technology, & Society, 4, 81-94.
9. Callon, M., & Rabeharisoa, V. (2003). Research 'in the wild' and the shapping of new social identities. Technology & Society, 25, 103-204.
10. Callon, M., Lascoumes, P., & Barthe, Y. (2001). Agir dans un monde incertain. Essai sur la démocratie technique/Acting in an uncertain world; An essay on technical democracy. Paris: Seuil.
11. e Colloque international de didactique et d'épistémologie des sciences, Sfax).
12. Charlot, B. (1997). Du rapport au savoir: éléments pour une théorie. Paris: Anthropos.
13. Charlot, B. (2003). La problématique du rapport au savoir. Dans S. Maury & M. Caillot (dir.), Rapport au savoir et didactiques, Paris: Fabert, pp. 33-50.
14. Charlot, B., Bautier, E., & Rochex, J.-Y. (1992). École et savoir dans les banlieues et ailleurs. Paris: Armand Colin.
15. re rencontres de l'A. R. D. I. S. T, Cachan).
16. e rencontres scientifiques de l'A. R. D. I. S. T, Carry-Le-Rouet).
17. Collins, H. M., & Evans, R. (2002). The third wave of science studies: studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science, 32, 235-296.
18. 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.
19. Davies, I. (2004). Science and citizenship education. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 1751-1763.
20. Duschl, R., Erduran, S., Grandy, R., & Rudolph, J. (2008). Introduction to special issue: science studies and science education. Science Education, 92, 1-4.
21. Einsiedel, E., Jelsoe, E., & Breck, T. (2001). Publics at the technology table: the consensus conference in Denmark, Canada, and Australia. Public Understanding of Science, 10, 83-98.
22. Epstein, S. (1995). The construction of lay expertise: AIDS activism and the forging of credibility in the reform of clinical trials. Science, Technology & Human Values, 20, 408-437.
23. 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: MIT Press.
24. 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: MIT Press.
25. 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, 133-149.
26. Fourez, G. (1997). Scientific and technological literacy as a social practice. Social Studies of Science, 27, 903-936.
27. Goffard, M. (2000, April). Rapport au savoir et activités de documentation scientifiques. (Colloque « Rapport au savoir et apprentissages scientifiques », Sfax).
28. Goven, J. (2003). Deploying the consensus conference in New Zealand: democracy and deproblematization. Public Understanding of Science, 12, 423-440.
29. Haarala, C., Takio, F., Rintee, T., Laine, M., Koivisto, M., Revonsuo, A., et al. (2007). Pulsed and continuous wave mobile phone exposure over left versus right hemisphere: effects on human cognitive function. Bioelectromagnetics, 28, 289-295.
30. Hardell, L., Carlberg, M., Söderqvist, F., Hansson Mild, K., & Morgan, L. L. (2007). Long-term use of cellular phones and brain tumours-increased risk associated with use for < 10 years. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 64, 626-632.
31. Horlick-Jones, T. (2004). Experts in risk? ... Do they exist. Health Risk and Society, 6, 107-114.
32. Irwin, A. (2001). Constructing the scientific citizen: science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Understanding of Science, 10, 1-18.
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, 389-400.
34. Jellab, A. (2001). Scolarité et rapport aux savoirs en lycée professionnel. Paris: PUF.
35. Jelman, Y. (2002). Le rapport aux objets de savoir comme critère de différentiation entre apprenants: cas de la foudre. Cahiers pédagogiques, 277, 2-14.
36. 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, 1171-1190.
37. Joubert, V., Bourthoumieu, S., Leveque, P., & Yardin, C. (2008). Apoptosis is induced by radiofrequency fields through the caspase-independent mitochondrial pathway in cortical neurons. Radiation Research, 169, 38-45.
38. Kerr, A., Cunningham-Burley, S., & Amos, A. (1998). The new genetics and health: mobilizing lay expertise. Public Understanding of Science, 7, 41-60.
39. Kerr, A., Cunningham-Burley, S., & Tutton, R. (2007). Shifting subject positions: experts and lay people in public dialogue. Social Studies of Science, 37, 385-411.
40. Kolstø, S. D. (2001). To trust or not to trust, ...-Pupils' ways of judging information encountered in a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 877-901.
41. Kolstø, S. D., Bungum, B., Arnesen, E., Isnes, A., Kristensen, T., Mathiassen, K., et al. (2006). Science students' critical examination of scientific information related to socioscientific issues. Science Education, 90, 632-655.
42. Kvale, S. (1995). The social construction of validity. Qualitative Inquiry, 1, 19-40.
43. Larochelle, M., & Désautels, J. (2001). Les enjeux socioéthiques des désaccords entre scientifiques: un aperçu de la construction discursive d'étudiants et d'étudiantes. Revue canadienne de l'enseignement des sciences, des mathématiques et des technologies, 1, 39-60.
44. Larochelle, M., & Désautels, J. (2006). L'éducation aux sciences et le croisement des expertises. In A. Legardez & L. Simonneaux (Eds.), L'école à l'épreuve de l'actualité, enseigner les questions vives (pp. 61-77). Paris: ESF Éditeur.
45. Lee Kleinman, D. (2000). Democratizations of science and technology. In D. Lee Kleinman (Ed.), Science, technology and democracy (pp. 139-169). New York: State University of New York Press.
46. Maingain, A., Dufour, B. & Fourez, G. (Eds.). (2002). Approches didactiques de l'interdisciplinarité. Bruxelles: De Boeck Université.
47. Mairone, C., & Dupin, J.-J. (2005, octobre). Concept de fossile et rapport au(x) savoir(s) : une étude au cycle 3 de l'école primaire. (Quatrième rencontre de l'ARDIST. Lyon).
48. Maury, S., & Caillot, M. (2003). Rapport au savoir et didactiques. Paris: Éditions Fabert.
49. Michael, M. (1992). Lay discourses of science: science-in-general, science-in-particular, and self. Science, Technology and Human Values, 17, 313-333.
50. Oftedal, G., Straume, A., Johnsson, A., & Stovner, L. J. (2007). Mobile phone headache: a double blind, sham-controlled provocation study. Cephalalgia, 27, 447-455.
51. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994-1020.
52. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park: Sage.
53. 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.
54. Pouliot, C. (2008). Students' inventory of social actors concerned by the controversy surrounding cellular telephones: a case study. Science Education, 92, 543-559.
55. Pouliot, C. (2009). 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, 4, 49-73.
56. Prior, L. (2003). What is the problem with experts? Social Studies of Science, 31, 123-149.
57. Rochex, Y. (2004). La notion de rapport au savoir: convergence et débats théoriques. Pratiques Psychologiques, 10, 93-106.
58. Roqueplo, P. (1997). Entre savoir et décision, l'expertise scientifique. Paris: Institut national de la recherche agronomique.
59. Roth, W.-M., & Désautels, J. (2002). Science education as/for sociopolitical action: Charting the landscape. In W.-M. Roth & J. Désautels (Eds.), Science education as/for sociopolitical action (pp. 1-16). New York: P. Lang.
60. 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, 1-27.
61. Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2000). Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation. Science, Technology & Human Values, 25, 3-29.
62. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: a critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 513-536.
63. Sadler, T., & Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: the effect of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1463-1488.
64. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The morality of socioscientific issues: construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88, 4-27.
65. 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 Education, 26, 387-409.
66. Sadler, T., Barab, S. A., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37, 371-391.
67. Shamos, M. (1995). The myth of scientific literacy. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
68. Sismondo, S. (2008). Science and technology studies and an engaged program. In E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The handbook of science and technologies studies (pp. 13-31). Cambridge: MIT Press.
69. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
70. Tytler, R., Duggan, S., & Gott, R. (2001). Dimensions of evidence, the public understanding of science and science education. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 815-832.
71. 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 (pp. 44-85). London: Sage.
72. Wynne, B. (2003). Seasick on the third wave? Subverting the hegemony of propositionalism: response to Collins and Evans. Social Studies of Science, 33, 401-417.
73. Wynne, B. (2005). Reflexing complexity, post-genomic knowledge and reductionist return in public science. Theory, Culture & Society, 22, 67-94.
74. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Beverly Hills: Sage.
75. Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: a research-based framework for socioscientific issues. Science Education, 89, 357-377.