SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
From Eurekalert:
When it comes to science, socioeconomic status may widen confidence gaps among the least and most educated groups in society, according to a new study by researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison's Science, Media and the Public research group.
The findings, published in June in the journal Science Communication, show that similar levels of attention to science in newspapers and on blogs can lead to vastly different levels of factual and perceived knowledge between the two groups.
Notably, frequent science blog readership among low socioeconomic-status groups actually lowered their scores on factual tests of scientific knowledge while high levels of attention to science in newspapers caused them to feel they were less knowledgeable compared to those who read less or those from higher socioeconomic backgrounds.
"The science section of The New York Times is not written for audiences with little or no prior knowledge of science and technology," explains study co-author Dominique Brossard, professor and chair in the Department of Life Sciences Communication. "Just putting more science in front of less-educated people may therefore confuse them rather than help them grasp complex science."
The team also found that how science knowledge is measured matters, too adding clarity to the science of science communication. Basing policy, public engagement and education efforts on just one measure of science knowledge may not be reliable.
Abstract can be found here.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday July 09 2014, @12:32AM
(Score: 1) by hellcat on Wednesday July 09 2014, @10:55AM
Here's the first sentence from the abstract: This study assesses two key types of knowledge assessments, factual and perceived knowledge, in the study of knowledge gaps.
First assumption that they're pushing in their argument is that there are (at least, only?) two types of knowledge assessments. Does this mean their ability to assess OUR knowledge, or someone else's? I know of no previous studies that lay the foundation of these "knowledge assessments."
Second, the rest of the phrase leads us to believe that they are using the term "knowledge assessment" as a form of personal characteristic among individuals - you and me, for instance. I don't know how you feel about your ability to "perceive knowledge" but I rather think that I "know" knowledge. I try to go the extra meter and put a fact value on every piece, but it doesn't always work. I pretty much NEVER label a piece of knowledge as "perceived" because ALL my knowledge is perceived. Perception is the only way I get anything through my thick skull.
Third, "knowledge gaps" means that they have some way to equate their two forms (highly dubious forms if you don't disagree with what I said earlier) in some linear / one-dimensional fashion. I find it hard to believe that anyone has become so comfortable with describing pieces of knowledge in such a way that they can be compared qualitatively, let alone quantitatively.
There's my impression of three holes in the first sentence of the abstract. Should I continue?
My point in my not-meant-to-be-a-troll comment was that there is an awful lot of social science research that we fund as a nation in which no true benefits accrue. I was part of this system (at Wharton) some 30 years ago and took private money, justifying it with our state-of-the-art "research" of the day. In the end it was fancy words, no definitions, no progress.
Science means a very rigorous method of learning, rigor in definitions, and the ability to discern natural phenomena in such a way that the facts can be replicated by anyone else, anywhere, anytime. This study does NOT meet that standard.
Sincerely,...
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday July 09 2014, @09:11PM
Ah, thank you! Specific criticism is better than wholesale dismissal. Now I can see you are not a troll, or a Juggaloo!
Couple points: I haven't gone beyond the abstract, so probably don't know enough the just the paper, but there are standards in social science, even if you have not heard of them. Perceived knowledge is a subjective phenomena, but one that can be tested on whether the perception is correct or not. The is up this alley. [wikipedia.org]
Second, science, pure science that is, is not to be judged on benefits or progress, even when it comes to funding. If we were to judge the value of scienfitic research before it has been done, we would be engaging in percieved knowledge, not factual knowledge!