Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article is situated in contemporary debates about the ways to achieve a scientific literacy that encourages a greater lay participation in public debates and political decision making. Drawing on the notion of “relationship to scientific experts” (in French, “rapport aux experts scientifiques”), I explore the ways in which a group of 3 Quebec post-secondary students describe the relationships they hold toward people whom they consider to be scientific experts, as revealed during a project in which they investigated the controversy surrounding cellular telephone use. To this end, I scrutinize how the members of the group go about describing scientific experts and picture a prospective face-to-face discussion with a scientific expert. The data come from a case study (conducted over a 15-week period). The findings show that the group maintains a relationship of intimidation by scientific experts, in which the latter are depicted in terms of their knowledge and qualifications. Accordingly, the group was overawed not only by the accumulation of knowledge held and produced by scientific experts but also by the latter’s research experience and the high social recognition they occasionally enjoyed. Similarly, the group describes a prospective face-to-face discussion with a doctor or a researcher in terms of an impersonal, intimidating encounter during which its members’ learning and comprehension in relation to the controversy are assumed to be unequal to the task. The implications of the findings for future research are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For a critique of this viewpoint, see the citizenship educator Davies (2004).

  2. The purpose of this article is to analyze the point of view of Quebec post-secondary science students concerning their relationship to the people whom they consider to be scientific experts. This article is not concerned with defining, as such, the figure and roles of scientific experts (such a project has, moreover, generated its share of controversy; e.g., Bucchi and Neresini 2008; Jasanoff 2003; Wynne 2003) or with bringing a normative perspective to bear on students’ representations of the figure and functions of scientific experts. Hereafter in this article, the phrase “relationship to scientific experts” will be used in order to make for smoother reading.

  3. Expanding upon research conducted and reported in the field of science studies, the authors have opted for the term Translation to refer to the partial reconfiguration of the world that is operated under confined research. The notion of Translation (with a capital ‘T’) can be broken down into three distinct phases: the scaling down of the macrocosm to the microcosm (translation 1); the construction and deployment of research “collectives” (translation 2); and the return of knowledge to the wider world (translation 3).

  4. This student had begun his cégep studies 6 years previously but then interrupted them a few months later to take a job in a plant.

  5. It is important to note that the interview request did not interfere with the usual tasks of the specialist in question. While these people have a full agenda, they nevertheless give interviews—to journalists in particular—fairly often.

  6. Translator’s note: In French-speaking Quebec, it is common for students up to university level to address their teachers by their first name, without appearing to be unduly familiar.

  7. The authors add: “Certainly, there are science educators who will not agree with this outlook. There are still debates about the nature of scientific literacy” (Roth and Désautels 2002, p. 4).

References

  • Aikenhead, G. S. (2006). Science education for everyday life. New York: Teachers College.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Ben Abderrahman, M.-L. (2000). Pertinence et limites de la notion de « rapport au savoir » en didactique des sciences. In A. Chabchoub (Dir.), Rapports aux savoirs et apprentissage des sciences, Actes du 5 e Colloque international de didactique et d’épistémologie des sciences, Sfax.

  • Bingle, W. H., & Gaskell, P. J. (1994). Scientific literacy for decision making and the social construction of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 78, 185–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caillot M. (2000). Rapport(s) au(x) savoir(s) et didactique des sciences. In A. Chabchoub (Ed.), Rapports aux savoirs et apprentissage des sciences, Actes du 5e Colloque international de didactique et d’épistémologie des sciences, Sfax.

  • Callon, M. (1999). The role of lay people in the production and dissemination of scientific knowledge. Science, Technology, & Society, 4, 81–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callon, M., & Rabeharisoa, V. (2003). Research ‘in the wild’ and the shapping of new social identities. Technology & Society, 25, 103–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chabchoub, A. (2000). Rapports au(x) savoir(s), didactique des sciences et anthropologie. Dans A. Chabchoub (dir.), Rapports aux savoirs et apprentissage des sciences, (Actes du 5e Colloque international de didactique et d’épistémologie des sciences, Sfax).

  • Charlot, B. (1997). Du rapport au savoir: éléments pour une théorie. Paris: Anthropos.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Charlot, B., Bautier, E., & Rochex, J.-Y. (1992). École et savoir dans les banlieues et ailleurs. Paris: Armand Colin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chartrain, J.-L., & Caillot, M. (1999), Apprentissages scientifiques et rapports aux savoirs : le cas du volcanisme au CM2, (Actes des 1re rencontres de l’A.R.D.I.S.T, Cachan).

  • Chartrain, J.-L., & Caillot, M. (2001), Rapport au savoir et apprentissages scientifiques : quelle méthodologie pour analyser le type de rapport au savoir des élèves? (Actes des 2e rencontres scientifiques de l’A.R.D.I.S.T, Carry-Le-Rouet).

  • Collins, H. M., & Evans, R. (2002). The third wave of science studies: studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science, 32, 235–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, I. (2004). Science and citizenship education. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 1751–1763.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R., Erduran, S., Grandy, R., & Rudolph, J. (2008). Introduction to special issue: science studies and science education. Science Education, 92, 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fourez, G. (1997). Scientific and technological literacy as a social practice. Social Studies of Science, 27, 903–936.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goffard, M. (2000, April). Rapport au savoir et activités de documentation scientifiques. (Colloque « Rapport au savoir et apprentissages scientifiques », Sfax).

  • Goven, J. (2003). Deploying the consensus conference in New Zealand: democracy and deproblematization. Public Understanding of Science, 12, 423–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horlick-Jones, T. (2004). Experts in risk? ... Do they exist. Health Risk and Society, 6, 107–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, A. (2001). Constructing the scientific citizen: science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Understanding of Science, 10, 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jellab, A. (2001). Scolarité et rapport aux savoirs en lycée professionnel. Paris: PUF.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jelman, Y. (2002). Le rapport aux objets de savoir comme critère de différentiation entre apprenants: cas de la foudre. Cahiers pédagogiques, 277, 2–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, A., Cunningham-Burley, S., & Amos, A. (1998). The new genetics and health: mobilizing lay expertise. Public Understanding of Science, 7, 41–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kvale, S. (1995). The social construction of validity. Qualitative Inquiry, 1, 19–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maingain, A., Dufour, B. & Fourez, G. (Eds.). (2002). Approches didactiques de l’interdisciplinarité. Bruxelles: De Boeck Université.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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).

  • Maury, S., & Caillot, M. (2003). Rapport au savoir et didactiques. Paris: Éditions Fabert.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michael, M. (1992). Lay discourses of science: science-in-general, science-in-particular, and self. Science, Technology and Human Values, 17, 313–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oftedal, G., Straume, A., Johnsson, A., & Stovner, L. J. (2007). Mobile phone headache: a double blind, sham-controlled provocation study. Cephalalgia, 27, 447–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994–1020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Pouliot, C. (2008). Students’ inventory of social actors concerned by the controversy surrounding cellular telephones: a case study. Science Education, 92, 543–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prior, L. (2003). What is the problem with experts? Social Studies of Science, 31, 123–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rochex, Y. (2004). La notion de rapport au savoir: convergence et débats théoriques. Pratiques Psychologiques, 10, 93–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roqueplo, P. (1997). Entre savoir et décision, l’expertise scientifique. Paris: Institut national de la recherche agronomique.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2000). Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation. Science, Technology & Human Values, 25, 3–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: a critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 513–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T., & Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: the effect of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1463–1488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The morality of socioscientific issues: construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88, 4–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T., Barab, S. A., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37, 371–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shamos, M. (1995). The myth of scientific literacy. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wynne, B. (2005). Reflexing complexity, post-genomic knowledge and reductionist return in public science. Theory, Culture & Society, 22, 67–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by grants from the Fonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Société et la Culture (FQRSC) and from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC). I thank the anonymous reviewers for their detailed comments on the draft and Jacques Désautels for helpful discussions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Département d’études sur l’enseignement et l’apprentissage, Université Laval, Pavillon des Sciences de l’Éducation, local 1126, Québec, QC, G1K 7P4, Canada

    Chantal Pouliot

Authors
  1. Chantal Pouliot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chantal Pouliot.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pouliot, C. Post-Secondary Students’ Relationship to People They Consider to Be Scientific Experts. Res Sci Educ 41, 225–243 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-009-9162-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-009-9162-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation