Public Understanding of Science

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Young, N.
Right arrow Articles by Matthews, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 16, No. 2, 123-144 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/0963662507060586
© 2007 SAGE Publications

Experts’ understanding of the public: knowledge control in a risk controversy

Nathan Young

University of Ottawa, Canada, nyoung{at}uottawa.ca

Ralph Matthews

Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of British Columbia, Canada, ralph.matthews{at}ubc.ca

This paper reverses the common emphasis in the literature on public understanding of science by examining "experts’ understanding of the public." This research uses the case of aquaculture in Canada, a highly contested mode of production that has divided the scientific community and public opinion. Using a survey of 300 aquaculture experts in Canada, we examine three dimensions of experts’ understanding of public "contributions" to this controversy. These are (1) stakeholder participation in aquaculture regulation and policy, (2) the media as an interpreter and communicator of expert claims, and (3) the knowledge and values basis of general public opinion. We find that experts’ views on lay knowledge and participation in the debate swing from strongly positive to strongly negative. Using quantitative and qualitative data from the survey, we argue that these swings in experts’ views of the public coincide with issues of control over knowledge. Experts on all sides of the aquaculture controversy are markedly open to incorporating lay knowledge into scientific practices (a situation where expert control over knowledge is retained), but are highly critical of lay "consumption" of expert claims (a situation where expert control over knowledge is lost).


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Science CommunicationHome page
S. R. Davies
Constructing Communication: Talking to Scientists About Talking to the Public
Science Communication, June 1, 2008; 29(4): 413 - 434.
[Abstract] [PDF]