A lucky answer to a fair question: Conceptual, methodological, and moral implications of including items on human evolution in scientific literacy surveys

Science Communication

Volumn 33, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 501-532

  Rughiniş, Cosima ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BUCHAREST   (Romania)

Author keywords

assumption analysis; evolution; measurement model; scientific literacy; scientific worldview; survey

Indexed keywords

EID: 84855477278     PISSN: 10755470     EISSN: 15528545     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1075547011408927     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. Allum N.,Sturgis P.,Tabourazi D.,Brunton-Smith I.Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: A meta-analysis.Public Understanding of Science. 2008;17:35-54.
2. BannC. M.SchwerinM. J. (2004). Public knowledge and attitudes scale construction: development of short forms (RTI Project No. 8796). Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International. Retrieved from http://www.rti.org/pubs/PKAS_Short_Form_Report.pdf.
3. Bany J.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association; 2008Boston, MA; 2008.
4. Bauer M.Socio-demographic correlates of DK-responses in knowledge surveys: Self-attributed ignorance of science.Social Science Information. 1996;35:39-68.
5. Bauer M.The evolution of public understanding of science discourse and comparative evidence.Science, Technology and Society. 2009;14:221-240.
6. BhattacharjeeY. (2010, April8). Evolution, big bang polls omitted from NSF report. Science Insider. Retrieved from http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/04/evolution-big-bang-polls-omitted.html.
7. Billiet J.Presentation for the 9th European Social Survey Train, Ljubljana; 2010Slovenia; 2010.
8. Bollen K.,Lennox R.Conventional Wisdom on Measurement: A Structural Equation Perspective.Psychological Bulletin. 1991;110 (2): 305-314.
9. Borsboom D.,Mellenbergh G.J.,van Heerden J.The theoretical status of latent variables.Psychological Review. 2003;110:203-219.
10. Caldwell J.C.Rethinking the African AIDS epidemic.Population and Development Review. 2000;26:117-135.
11. CavusluE. (2009). Clash of discourses: The discourses on evolution and creationism in Turkey. Retrieved from http://vssr.info/docs/2009_participants/Cavuslu-Clash%20of%20Discourses.pdf.
12. Comşa M.How to compare means of latent variables across countries and waves: Testing for invariance measurement. An application using Eastern European societies.Sociológia/Slovak Sociological Review. 2010;42:639-669.
13. Deniz H.,Donnelly L.,Yilmaz I.Exploring the factors related to acceptance of evolutionary theory among Turkish preservice biology teachers: Toward a more informative conceptual ecology for biological evolution.Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2008;45:420-443.
14. Desantis A.D.A couple of white guys sitting around talking: The collective rationalization of cigar smoking.Journal of Contemporary Ethnography. 2003;32:432-466.
15. Diamantopoulos A.,Winklhofer H.M.Index construction with formative indicators: An alternative to scale development.Journal of Marketing Research. 2001;38:269-277.
16. Durant J.,Evans G.,Thomas G.Public Understanding of Science in Britain: The role of medicine in the popular representation of science.Public Understanding of Science. 1992;1:161-182.
17. EdisT. (1994). Islamic creationism in Turkey. Creation/Evolution, 34(1). Retrieved from http://www2.truman.edu/~edis/writings/articles/islamic.html.
18. Edwards J.R.,Bagozzi R.P.On the nature and direction of relationships between constructs and measures.Psychological Methods. 2000;5:155-174.
19. EhmanJ. W. (2006). Studies on remote intercessory prayer: A bibliography of articles from the health care literature. Retrieved from http://www.acperesearch.net/intercessory_prayer_studies.pdf.
20. Eurobarometer 63.1: Science and technology, social values, and services of general interest. Basic English questionnaire. Cologne, Germany: GESIS; 2005a:.
21. Eurobarometer 63.1: Science and technology, social values, and services of general interest, January-February 2005. Cologne, Germany: GESIS; 2005b:.
22. European Commission. (2005c). Europeans, Science & Technology (Report of the Special Eurobarometer 224). Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_224_report_en.pdf.
23. Evans G.,Durant J.The relationship between knowledge and attitudes in the public understanding of science in Britain.Public Understanding of Science. 1995;4 (1): 57-74.
24. Evans E.M.Conceptual change and evolutionary biology: A developmental analysis International handbook of research on conceptual change. Vosniadou S., ed. New York, NY: Routledge; 2008:263-294.
25. Eve R.E.,Dunn D.Psychic powers, astrology & creationism in the classroom? Evidence of pseudoscientific beliefs among high school biology and life science teachers.The American Biology Teacher. 1990;52:10-21.
26. Francis L.J.,Greer J.E.Attitudes towards creationism and evolutionary theory: The debate among secondary pupils attending Catholic and Protestant schools in Northern Ireland.Public Understanding of Science. 1999;8:93-103.
27. Freeman P.K.,Houston D.J.The biology battle: Public opinion and the origins of life.Politics and Religion. 2009;2:54-75.
28. Fuller S.A step toward the legalization of Science Studies.Social Studies of Science. 2006;36:827-834.
29. Gallup. (2010). Evolution, creationism, intelligent design. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx.
30. General Social Survey. (2006). The National Data Program for the Social Sciences. Retrieved from http://www.norc.org/gss+website/about+gss/national+data+program+for+social+sciences/the+national+data+program+for+the+social+sciences.htm.
31. GouldS. J. (1983). Evolution as fact and theory. In GouldS. J. (Ed.), Hen's teeth and horse's toes: Further reflections in natural history (pp. 253-262). New York, NY: W. W. Norton. Retrieved from http://courses.washington.edu/anth599/Evolution%20as%20Fact%20and%20Theory%20Gould%201981.pdf.
32. Grimm J."Teach the controversy." The relationship between sources and frames in reporting the intelligent design debate.Science Communication. 2009;31:167-186.
33. Hameed S.Bracing for Islamic creationism.Science. 2008;322:1637-1638.
34. Irwin A.,Wynne B.Introduction,Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Irwin A.Wynne B., ed. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press; 1996:1-17.
35. John Paul.Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.Quarterly Review of Biology. 1997;72:381-383.
36. JørgensenK. J.HróbjartssonA. Goslash;tzscheP. C. (2009). Divine intervention? A Cochrane review on intercessory prayer gone beyond science and reason. Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine, 8(7). Retrieved September from http://www.jnrbm.com/content/8/1/7.
37. Kutschera U.Creationism in Germany and its possible cause.Evolution: Education and Outreach. 2008;1:84-86.
38. Laugksch R.Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview.Science Education. 2000;84:71-94.
39. Masters K.S.,Spielmans G.I.,Goodson J.T.Are there demonstrable effects of distant intercessory prayer? A meta-analytic review.Annals of Behavioral Medicine. 2006;32:21-26.
40. Mazur A.Believers and disbelievers in evolution.Politics and the Life Sciences. 2005;23 (2): 55-61.
41. Meadows L.,Doster E.,Jackson D.F.Managing the conflict between evolution and religion.The American Biology Teacher. 2000;62:102-107.
42. Miller J.D.Scientific literacy: A conceptual and empirical review.Daedalus. 1983;112 (2): 29-48.
43. Miller J.D.The measurement of civic scientific literacy.Public Understanding of Science. 1998;7:203-223.
44. MillerJ. D. (2006, May). Civic scientific literacy in Europe and the United States. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the World Association for Public Opinion Research, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Retrieved from www.arcsfoundation.org/Pittsburgh/JMiller.pdf.
45. MillerJ. D. (2007a, February). Civic scientific literacy across the life cycle. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from http://ucll.msu.edu/search/node/Civic+scientific+literacy+across+the+life+cycle.
46. MillerJ. D. (2007b, February). The public understanding of science in Europe and the United States. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from http://ucll.msu.edu/files_ucll.msu.edu/docs/miller-science-europe.doc
47. Miller J.D.,Scott E.C.,Okamoto S.Public acceptance of evolution.Science. 2006;313:765-766.
48. Mitroff I.I.,Emshoff J.R.On strategic assumption-making: A dialectical approach to policy and planning.Academy of Management Review. 1979;4:1-12.
49. Mitroff I.I.,Emshoff J.R.,Kilmann R.H.Assumptional analysis: A methodology for strategic problem solving.Management Science. 1979;25:583-593.
50. Morley D.Papal policy, poverty, and AIDS.British Medical Journal. 1990 1705;300:.
51. Nadelson L.S.,Southerland S.A.Examining the interaction of acceptance and understanding: How does the relationship change with a focus on macroevolution?.Evolution: Education & Outreach. 2010;3:82-88.
52. National Science Board. (2008). Science and technology: Public attitudes and understanding. In Science and engineering indicators 2008. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/pdf/c07.pdf.
53. Pardo R.,Calvo F.The cognitive dimension of public perceptions of science: Methodological issues.Public Understanding of Science. 2004;13:203-227.
54. Pardo R.,Midden C.,Miller J.D.Attitudes toward biotechnology in the European Union.Journal of Biotechnology. 2002;98:9-24.
55. Park H.-J.The creation-evolution debate: Carving creationism in the public mind.Public Understanding of Science. 2001;10:173-186.
56. Plutzer E.,Berkman M.Evolution, creationism, and the teaching of human origins in schools.Public Opinion Quarterly. 2008;72:540-553.
57. Poling D.A.,Evans E.M.Religious belief, scientific expertise, and folk ecology.Journal of Cognition and Culture. 2004;4:485-524.
58. Pritchard D.Epistemic luck. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 2005:.
59. RughinişC.ToaderR. (2010). Education and scientific knowledge in European societies: Exploring measurement issues in general population surveys. Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai-Sociologia, 1, 175-202. Retrieved from http://www.unibuc.ro/prof/rughinis_a_c/docs/res/2011ianStudiaSociologia_2010-1.pdf.
60. Saris W.E.,Gallhofer I.N.Design, evaluation, and analysis of questionnaires for survey research. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Interscience; 2007:.
61. Scalise D.M.,Bognolo G.The new Pope and medical ethics: Can Benedict XVI strike a balance between Catholic doctrines and health?.British Medical Journal. 2005;330:1281-1282.
62. Schütz A.On multiple realities.Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. 1945;5:533-576.
63. Schütz A.Common-sense and scientific interpretation of human action.Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. 1953;14 (1): 1-38.
64. Scott E.C.Antievolution and creationism in the United States.Annual Review of Anthropology. 1997;26:263-289.
65. Shidlo A.,Schroeder M.Changing sexual orientation: A consumers' report.Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. 2002;33:249-259.
66. Superfine B.M.The evolving role of the courts in educational policy: The tension between judicial, scientific, and democratic decision making in Kitzmiller v. Dover.American Educational Research Journal. 2009;46:898-923.
67. Thagard P.,Findlay S.Getting to Darwin: Obstacles to accepting evolution by natural selection.Science & Education. 2009;19:625-636.
68. Throckmorton W.Initial empirical and clinical findings concerning the change process for ex-gays.Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. 2002;33:242-248.
69. Vlǎsceanu L.Sociologie (Sociology), Iaşi: Polirom. Vlǎsceanu L., ed. 2011:536-565.
70. VlǎsceanuL.DuşaA.RughinişC. (2010). Publicul şi ştiinţa. Ştiinţǎ şi societate. Interese şi percepţii ale publicului privind cercetarea ştiinţificǎ şi rezultatele cercetǎrii (Science and the public. Science and society. Public interests and perceptions concerning scientific research and research results). Retrieved from http://stisoc.ro/psip.html.
71. Wagner W.Vernacular science knowledge: Its role in everyday life communication.Public Understanding of Science. 2007;16:7-22.
72. Wynne B.Misunderstood misunderstandings: Social identities and public uptake of scienceMisunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Irwin A.Wynne B., ed. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press; 1996:19-46.