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, @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!