DOCSLIB.ORG

Unrealistic Science and the Reception of Narrative Fiction

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Unrealistic Science and the Reception of Narrative Fiction Screaming When There is Sound in Space: Unrealistic Science and the Reception of Narrative Fiction A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of The Australian National University By Jarrod L. Green © Copyright by Jarrod Leigh Green 2017 All rights reserved ii Declaration This thesis is my original work completed between March 2013 and December 2016. I personally completed all of the data collection, transcription, analysis, and writing described herein. To the best of my knowledge, this thesis contains no material previously published elsewhere, except where acknowledgement is made in the text. No part of this thesis has been previously submitted for an educational qualification at any university. A preliminary version of Chapter 6 was presented as a paper titled, “Who screams when there’s sound in space? Why audiences discuss unrealistic science in fiction,” at the March 2016 Popular Culture Association/American Culture Association (PCA/ACA) National Conference, Seattle, Washington. I was the sole author and presenter. Jarrod L. Green June, 2017 iii iv When a work is acutely consonant with the facts which it adduces, it is praised for fidelity; when it lapses from its claims, the idea of infidelity is held to be farcically solemn and inadmissible. This is not criticism but public relations. Christopher Ricks, “Literature and the matter of fact,” 1996 v vi Acknowledgements My first thanks go to my research participants. This thesis is indebted to your contributions. To Dr Lindy Orthia, my research supervisor, you have been both a champion of my work and a discerning critic. Thank you for your ongoing support. To my friends, thank you for the fun times and for being there. Special thanks go to Jacqui Hoepner and Matt Dunn, with whom I have shared this journey most closely. To the wider CPAS community, thank you for your camaraderie and for lending a hand. And to Monique, for encouraging me during the final climb. I am grateful to have received an Australian Postgraduate Award Scholarship. I would also like to acknowledge CPAS and the Vice Chancellor’s Travel Grant program for funding me to present my research at an international conference. Finally, to my family, I would not be where I am without your support. Thank you for everything. vii viii Abstract Sound in space. Featherless dinosaurs. Physics-defying stunts. Unrealistic science in fiction is often the subject of commentary and critique. Existing audience research on science in fiction focuses on the possible effects of unrealistic science on the audience; however, there is limited research investigating how the audience evaluates and discusses unrealistic science. This thesis reports on the outcomes of an audience research project investigating the role of unrealistic science in the reception of narrative fiction. Qualitative data drawn from focus group discussions and interviews with 55 participants were used to explore why the realism of science in fiction can be personally important to the audience, when the realism of science in fiction is most relevant to aesthetic evaluation, and what motivates audiences to discuss the realism of science in fiction. Participants reported scientific realism to be personally important for its effects on the narrative experience, its effects on the evaluation of narrative as rhetorical communication, its effects on perceived authorial respect for science and the reader, and its perceived effects on the public’s understanding and support of science. These findings illustrate how a concern with scientific realism can be both a routine and deeply personal aspect of responding to science-themed fiction. The aesthetic acceptability of unrealistic science depended on four key principles of aesthetic evaluation: subservience (unrealistic science is acceptable because it is subservient to the narrative’s aesthetic goals), satisfaction (unrealistic science is acceptable because the narrative is aesthetically or ideologically satisfying), salience (unrealistic science is acceptable because it is unimportant to the narrative or to the audience), and severity (unrealistic science is acceptable because it is an understandable or innocuous error). The framework introduced in this study provides a catalogue of evaluative moves that audiences may deploy in response to unrealistic science and serves as a tentative guide to predicting when unrealistic science is aesthetically acceptable. Discourse about the realism of science in fiction served nine self-reported functions, including catharsis, critique, conciliation, continued engagement, curiosity, communication, change, competence, and connection. These self-reported functions underpin three latent discourse functions identified in previous research. Discourse ix about scientific realism is a form of boundary work that not only maintains the epistemic authority of scientists (credibility) but also asserts authority over public discourse about socio-scientific issues (control). Furthermore, by highlighting media effects concerns, this discourse may perpetuate and legitimise the practice of blaming fiction for public opposition to science and technology (concern). The framework introduced in this study highlights how discourse about scientific realism can serve diverse functions for diverse audiences. Any audience can participate in and benefit from discourse about scientific realism. However, the benefits and rhetorical affordances of this discourse are ultimately most accessible to audiences with self-assessed scientific competence. This study contributes to science communication and audience reception research by introducing new frameworks for understanding how audiences evaluate and discuss unrealistic elements in fiction. These frameworks can inform science communication practice as it relates to the production and reception of narrative fiction. x Table of contents Declaration ............................................................................................................... iii Acknowledgements .................................................................................................. vii Abstract ...................................................................................................................... ix Table of contents ....................................................................................................... xi List of tables and figures .......................................................................................... xv 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 The research problem .......................................................................................... 1 1.2 Research questions ............................................................................................ 4 1.3 Research design in brief ..................................................................................... 5 1.4 Research scope and limitations ........................................................................ 5 1.5 Synopsis .............................................................................................................. 7 2. An introduction to the perceived realism of science in fiction ............................ 8 2.1 Definitions of key terms .................................................................................... 8 2.1.1 Fiction ...................................................................................................................... 8 2.1.2 Text ......................................................................................................................... 8 2.1.3 Readers and reading ............................................................................................... 8 2.1.4 Authors ................................................................................................................... 9 2.1.5 Narrative: Discourse, story, and plot ..................................................................... 9 2.1.6 Story elements: Events and existents ................................................................... 10 2.1.7 Themes, theses, and ideology ............................................................................... 10 2.1.8 Discourse ................................................................................................................ 11 2.2 What is perceived realism? ............................................................................... 11 2.3 What is unrealistic science in fiction? ............................................................. 25 3. Methodology ......................................................................................................... 29 3.1 Overview ........................................................................................................... 29 3.2 Ethical approval ................................................................................................ 31 3.3 Recruitment and participants .......................................................................... 31 3.4 Focus groups ..................................................................................................... 35 3.5 Semi-structured interviews ............................................................................. 36 3.6 Transcription .................................................................................................... 37 3.7 Analysis ............................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Impacts of a Comprehensive Public Engagement Training and Support Program on Scientists’ Outreach Attitudes and Practices
    International Journal of Science Education, Part B Communication and Public Engagement ISSN: 2154-8455 (Print) 2154-8463 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsed20 Impacts of a comprehensive public engagement training and support program on scientists’ outreach attitudes and practices Cathlyn Stylinski, Martin Storksdieck, Nicolette Canzoneri, Eve Klein & Anna Johnson To cite this article: Cathlyn Stylinski, Martin Storksdieck, Nicolette Canzoneri, Eve Klein & Anna Johnson (2018): Impacts of a comprehensive public engagement training and support program on scientists’ outreach attitudes and practices, International Journal of Science Education, Part B, DOI: 10.1080/21548455.2018.1506188 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2018.1506188 Published online: 31 Aug 2018. Submit your article to this journal View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rsed20 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION, PART B https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2018.1506188 Impacts of a comprehensive public engagement training and support program on scientists’ outreach attitudes and practices Cathlyn Stylinski a, Martin Storksdieck b, Nicolette Canzonerib, Eve Kleinc and Anna Johnson c aUMCES, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science Appalachian Laboratory, Frostburg, MD, USA; bCenter for Research on Lifelong STEM Learning, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA; cInstitute for Learning Innovation, Seattle, WA, USA ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY Scientists are increasingly being called upon to play a more prominent role Received 1 November 2017 in the interface of science and society by contributing to science literacy in Accepted 24 July 2018 ways that support two-way exchanges with the public.
    [Show full text]
  • THE INDY STEM TEACHER RESIDENCY PROGRAM: a Teacher Quality Partnership Between Indianapolis Public Schools and Purdue University
    Table of Contents QUALITY OF THE PROJECT DESIGN 1-29 1.Extent to which the proposed project demonstrates a rationale 3-7 (a) Needs Assessment data 4-6 AppC (b) Project will prepare teachers with strong teaching skills 1-29 2.Goals, objectives, and outcomes are clearly specified and measurable 42-44 3.Project is designed to build capacity / yield results that extend beyond project period 29 4.Project represents exceptional approach for meeting statutory purposes/requirements 1-29 (c) Program will prepare teachers to understand/use research data to improve instruction 1-29 (f5i) Program aligns with state early learning standards… 1-29 ADEQUACY OF RESOURCES 29-33 1. Adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment, supplies, and other resources 29-33 (e1) Assessment describing resources, including integration of funds from other sources 29-33 (e2) Assessment that describes the intended use of the grant funds 33 2. Relevance/demonstrated commitment of partners to project implementation/success 33 (e3) Commitment of resources and to the continuation of activities when the grant ends 29-33 QUALITY OF MANAGEMENT PLAN 33-41 1. Adequacy of management plan to achieve objectives on time/within budget, 33-39, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for AppJ accomplishing tasks (d1) Coordination of strategies/activities with funded teacher preparation or PD prog 13 (d2) How activities are consistent with State, local, and other education reform activities 8, 18- 19,21- that promote teacher quality and student academic
    [Show full text]
  • John Andrew Higgins
    John Andrew Higgins Assistant Professor Princeton University Tel: 609-258-7024 Department of Geosciences Fax: 609-258-5275 212 Guyot Hall Email: [email protected] Princeton, NJ, 08544 Web: carboncycle.princeton.edu Education: 2003-2009 Harvard University, Cambridge, MA Ph.D. in Earth and Planetary Sciences, June 2009 Dissertation Supervisor: Daniel P. Schrag 2002-2003 University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK M.Phil. in Earth Science, August 2003 Dissertation Supervisor: Harry Elderfield 1998-2002 Harvard College, Cambridge, MA A.B. in Earth and Planetary Sciences (Summa Cum Laude), June 2002 Employment: 2018-present Associate Professor, Department of Geosciences, Princeton University 2012-2018 Assistant Professor, Department of Geosciences, Princeton University 2011-2012 Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIfAR) Junior Fellow 2009-2011 Hess Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Geosciences, Princeton University 2003-2009 Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Earth and Planetary Science, Harvard University Fellowships and Awards: 2011-2013 Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIfAR) Global Scholars Program 2009-2011 Hess Postdoctoral Fellow, Princeton University 2007-2009 National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship 2004-2007 National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate (NDSEG) Fellowship 2002-2003 Henry Fellowship to the University of Cambridge 2002 Phi Beta Kappa, Harvard College Research Interests: Interactions between Earth's climate, life, and the global geochemical cycles of carbon and oxygen on timescales of millennia to billions of years using measurements of the chemistry and isotopic composition of cations in sedimentary rocks and bubbles of trapped air in polar ice cores. Higgins - CV 1 Publications: *Lab -affiliated graduate student or postdoctoral fellow **First author or co-first author manuscripts In Review: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Rendering Supernova Remnant Cassiopeia a Into Virtual Reality
    Walking Through an Exploded Star: Rendering Supernova Remnant Cassiopeia A into Virtual Reality 1 2 1 1 2 1 Arcand, K.K. , Jiang, E. , Price, S. , Watzke, M. , Sgouros, T. , Edmonds, P. 1 2 ( Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory/Chandra X-ray Observatory, Brown University) ABSTRACT: NASA and other astrophysical data of the Cassiopeia A supernova remnant have been rendered into a three-dimensional virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) program, the first of its kind. This data-driven experience of a supernova remnant allows viewers to “walk” inside the leftovers from the explosion of a massive star, select the parts of the supernova remnant to engage with, and access descriptive texts on what the materials are. The basis of this program is a unique 3D model of the 340- year old remains of a stellar explosion, made by combining data from NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory, Spitzer Space Telescope, and ground-based facilities. A collaboration between the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory and Brown University allowed the 3D astronomical data collected on Cassiopeia A to be featured in the VR/AR program - an innovation in digital technologies with public, education, and research-based impacts. Key Words: data, virtual reality, science communication, visualization, augmented reality, narrative 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Overview of Virtual Reality (VR) Virtual Reality (VR) is computer technology that simulates a user's physical presence in a virtual environment. (VR’s close relative, Augmented Reality (AR), adds elements, such as text, overlays and audio, to enhance that experience with sensory input and is briefly discussed in section 1.3).
    [Show full text]
  • Annenberg Science Media Monitor – Report 3
    ANNENBERG SCIENCE MEDIA MONITOR – REPORT 3 How the Media Frame News Stories About Retractions of Scientific Findings Introduction The third report of the Annenberg Science Media Monitor focuses on news coverage of three high- profile retracted scientific findings. Our analysis examines reporting on withdrawn research by four authors: Miguel Ángel Martínez González, whose paper, “Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease with a Mediterranean Diet,” was published in February 2013 in The New England Journal of Medicine; Oona Lönnstedt and Peter Eklöv, whose paper, “Environmentally relevant concentrations of microplastic particles influence larval fish ecology,” was published in June 2016 in Science; Brian Wansink, who has had a number of papers on human eating behavior retracted, including “Bad popcorn in big buckets: portion size can influence intake as much as taste,” published in September 2005 in The Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior. News pieces about retractions treat those due to unintended error differently than those withdrawn for malfeasance or fraud. Here we examine one of the former and two of the latter. Reports on the Lönnstedt-Eklöv study and on Wansink’s withdrawn work adopted the counterfeit quest narrative, while coverage of the Mediterranean diet attributed the retractions to researcher error rather than intentional deception. Articles covering retractions often employ the counterfeit quest narrative, in which storylines chronicle the activities of a deceptive researcher who has gulled custodians of knowledge, such as journal editors and peer reviewers. Our analysis shows that, in general, counterfeit quest narratives report the circumstances leading to retractions, how errors or misconduct were uncovered, and the individuals who identified the issues, but fail to explain how retractions are evidence of the self-corrective norm of science in action.
    [Show full text]
  • Challenges in Biology Education Research
    Challenges in Biology Education Research Challenges in Biology Education Research – Challenges in Biology This volume consists of 24 original papers related to biology education research. The papers were first presented at the 11th Conference of Eu- ropean Researchers in Didactics of Biology (ERIDOB) organized by the Education Research Academic Committee of ERIDOB and the Centre of Science, Mathema- tics and Engineering Education Research (SMEER) at Karlstad University in Sweden. The conference took place on 5-9 September 2016 with 165 Edited by Niklas Gericke and Marcus Grace participants representing 24 countries. There were 77 oral presentations, including four symposia, and 52 poster presentations. After the conference the presenters were asked to send in extended papers, which all then went through a rigorous peer review process and these 24 were selected for this volume. They are presented in section one. The theme for the 11th ERIDOB conference was Challenges of Biology Education Research – the same as the title of this book of collected pa- pers, and a panel debate around this issue was arranged with William Niklas Gericke and Marcus Grace McComas as organizer. Included in the debate were contributions from seven scholars in the field of biology education research representing se- ven countries from four continents. In section two of this volume, we in- clude the peer-reviewed versions of these short papers as a joint article commenting on the current challenges, trajectories and opportunities for biology education. We hope that this volume will find its way to biology educators as well as biology education researchers and make a useful contribution to the deve- lopment of biology education in Europe and around the world.
    [Show full text]
  • Neurological Institute
    C L E V E L A N D C L I N I C | N E U R O L The Cleveland Clinic Foundation O G I 9500 Euclid Ave. / AC311 C A L Cleveland, OH 44195 I N S T I T U T E | 2 0 1 6 Y E A R I N R E V I E W Neurological Institute 2016 Year in Review 16-NEU-1727 105035_CCFBCH_16NEU1727_Cover_ACG.indd 1 1/9/17 2:30 PM Contents Resources for Physicians 3 Neurological Institute Overview 6 Welcome from the Chairman Stay Connected with Cleveland Clinic’s Critical Care Transport Worldwide Neurological Institute 216.448.7000 or 866.547.1467 clevelandclinic.org/criticalcaretransport 2016 Highlights Consult QD – Neurosciences Online insights and perspectives from Cleveland Outcomes Books 8 First-in-Human Trial of DBS for Clinic experts. Visit today: clevelandclinic.org/outcomes Stroke Recovery Launched with consultqd.clevelandclinic.org/neurosciences NIH BRAIN Support CME Opportunities Facebook for Medical Professionals ccfcme.org 10 Sizing Up Ketamine vs. ECT for Facebook.com/CMEClevelandClinic Treatment-Resistant Depression Executive Education Follow us on Twitter clevelandclinic.org/executiveeducation 12 Pioneering Staged Gamma Knife @CleClinicMD for Large Brain Metastases “Cleveland Clinic Way” Book Series Lessons in excellence from one of the world’s leading 14 Remaking the Management Connect with us on LinkedIn healthcare organizations. of Chronic Low Back Pain clevelandclinic.org/MDlinkedin On the web at The Cleveland Clinic Way 16 Rapid Autopsy Program Speeds www Research Progress in Multiple clevelandclinic.org/neuroscience Toby Cosgrove, MD Sclerosis President and CEO, Cleveland Clinic 18 Dual-Task mTBI Assessment: Communication the Cleveland Clinic Way Out of the Biomechanics Lab, Edited by Adrienne Boissy, MD, MA, 24/7 Referrals Onto the Battlefield and Tim Gilligan, MD, MS Referring Physician Center and Hotline 20 2016 Look-Back in Brain Health: Innovation the Cleveland Clinic Way 855.REFER.123 (855.733.3712) Two Studies with Potential Thomas J.
    [Show full text]
  • Development of Science Achievement Test Including the Units of “States of Matter and Heat” and “Electricity in Our Life”
    International Journal of Progressive Education, Volume 16 Number 1, 2020 © 2020 INASED Development of Science Achievement Test Including the Units of “States of Matter and Heat” and “Electricity in Our Life” Serkan Timur i Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University Eylem Yalçınkaya Önder ii Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University Betül Timur iii Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University Meltem Ekici iv Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University Abstract In this study, a valid and reliable multiple-choice achievement test has been developed in order to measure the academic achievement of 8th grade students about the units of “States of Matter and Heat” and “Electricity in Our Life”. The pilot study of the achievement test was carried out with 30 questions which were prepared with at least one question from each gain related to unit gains. This study was conducted with 287 students having learned these subjects from two different schools in the central district of Siirt in 2017-2018 academic year. The validity and reliability studies of the achievement test items were performed. For the validity of the test, a table of specifications was prepared, and the test was examined by two faculty members and three science teachers. Item analysis and reliability analyzes of the test were performed with TAP 14.7. As a result of the analyzes, 3 items with low item discrimination index were excluded from the test. Mean discrimination index of the final test including 27 questions was found to be 0.520 and mean item difficulty index was 0.598. As a result of reliability analysis; KR20 value was calculated as 0,840 and Spearman-Brown value was 0,730.
    [Show full text]
  • (STEM) Education
    Progress Report on Coordinating Federal Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education March 2016 About the Office of Science and Technology Policy The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) advises the President on the effects of science and technology on domestic and international affairs. The Office serves as a source of scientific and technological analysis and judgment for the President with respect to major policies, plans, and programs of the Federal Government. OSTP leads an interagency effort to develop and implement sound science and technology policies and budgets. The Office works with the private sector to ensure Federal investments in science and technology contribute to economic prosperity, environmental quality, and national security. For more information, visit http://www.ostp.gov. About this document As called for in the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010, the National Science and Technology Council’s (NSTC) Committee on STEM Education (CoSTEM) released, in May of 2013, the Federal Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education 5- Year Strategic Plan (Strategic Plan).1 As required by the Act, this report includes an update on Strategic Plan implementation activities, an update on efforts being taken to increase efficiency and coherence across the Federal STEM education portfolio, and a discussion of methods to disseminate information about Federally-supported STEM education research and resources. This report also includes tables containing estimated and actual Federal STEM Education funding by agency and program (FY2015-2017). These data build on historical reporting of Federal STEM-education investments that appear in the Strategic Plan and in the Federal Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education Portfolio released by CoSTEM in December 2011.2 Copyright information This document is a work of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • An Exercise in Worldmaking 2015-2016
    Cover Erarmus Brochure.indd 1 30-11-2016 11:57:03 Perspectives in Development: an Exercise in Worldmaking Best student essays of 2015/16 Editors: Peter Bardoel, Margarita Mecheva, Joseph Edward Alegado Erarmus Brochure 001.indd 1 2-12-2016 14:08:27 Published by the International Institute of Social Studies, Erasmus University Rotterdam Kortenaerkade 12 2518 AX The Hague, Netherlands Published in 2016 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without written permission of the editors, authors or publishers. A catalogue record for this book is available from the Royal Library, The Hague, The Netherlands Printed in the Netherlands by De Bondt, Barendrecht 2 Erarmus Brochure 001.indd 2 2-12-2016 14:08:27 Who Participated All 2015-2016 Masters Students Editors Peter Bardoel, ISS Faculty – Academic Skills Margarita Mecheva (Russia, ECD) Joseph Edward Alegado (Philippines, AFES) With Assistance From Emma Frobisher (UK, SPD) Oleksandra Pravednyk (Ukraine, SPD) Amod Shah (India, SPD) Azmarina Tanzir (Bangladesh, GPPE) Contributors Joseph Edward Alegado (Philippines, AFES) Diana Ardila Vargas (Colombia, AFES) Marina Cadaval Narezo (Mexico, SPD) Laurie Calverley (Canada, SPD) Laura Cooper Hall (USA, Mundus MAPP) Emma Frobisher (UK, SPD) Belén Giaquinta (Argentina, SJP) Belén Moro (Mexico, SPD) Jack Mullan (Ireland, Mundus
    [Show full text]
  • What Do We Know About Teachers' Knowledge?
    EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 2020, 16(10), em1885 ISSN:1305-8223 (online) OPEN ACCESS Research Paper https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/8473 What Do We Know about Teachers’ Knowledge? Assessing Primary Science Teachers’ Content Knowledge in the Jewish and Arab Sectors Hava Greensfeld 1*, Tirza Gross 2,3 1 Michlalah Jerusalem College, ISRAEL 2 David Yellin College, ISRAEL 3 Herzog College, ISRAEL Received 31 May 2020 ▪ Accepted 21 July 2020 Abstract This study concerns the importance of assessing teachers’ content knowledge (CK) and it is one of the very few international studies that directly measures science teachers’ CK. We developed a comprehensive content knowledge test (CKT), relating to the content strand: states of matter. The study compared teachers from the Jewish and the Arab sectors in three stages of professional development: Results showed that all participants’ CK level was low (M = 61.3%). Comparison between the sectors showed that CK scores among the Arab pre-service and science teachers were significantly higher than CK scores among the Jewish pre-service and science teachers. Our study is an example of a direct CK assessment of teachers that provides valuable diagnostic information. Its dismal findings illuminate the need for innovative methods to measure teachers’ CK directly in various disciplines, and contributes strong impetus for a renewed focus on the training and professional development of teachers. Keywords: content knowledge, science teachers, states of matter, teachers’ assessment pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) which “goes beyond INTRODUCTION knowledge of subject matter per se to the dimension of subject matter knowledge for teaching” (p.
    [Show full text]
  • Thesis Template
    WHY DO WE ARGUE ABOUT SCIENCE? EXPLORING THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ANTECEDENTS OF REJECTION OF SCIENCE JOHN RICHARD KERR A thesis submitted to Victoria University of Wellington for the fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Victoria University of Wellington 2020 Abstract Science is recognised and accepted as an important tool for understanding the world in which we live, yet some people hold beliefs that go against the best available scientific evidence. For example, many people believe human-caused climate change is not occurring, or that vaccines are ineffective and dangerous. Previous research has investigated a range of possible drivers of this ‘rejection of science’ (Lewandowsky, Oberauer, & Gignac, 2013), including ignorance, distrust of scientists, and ideological motivations. The studies in this thesis extend this line of inquiry, focusing first on the role of perceptions of scientific agreement. I report experimental evidence that people base their beliefs on ‘what they think scientists think’ (Study 1). However, an analysis of longitudinal data (Study 2) suggests that our personal beliefs may also skew our perceptions of scientific agreement. While the results of Study 1 and Study 2 somewhat conflict, they do converge on one finding: perceptions of consensus alone do not fully explain rejection of science. In the remainder of the thesis I cast a wider net, examining how ideological beliefs are linked to rejection of science. Study 3 draws on social media data to reveal that political ideology is associated with rejection of science in the context of who people choose to follow on the platform Twitter. A final set of studies (4, 5, and 6) examine the role of two motivational antecedents of political ideology, Right-wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO), in rejection of science across five publicly debated issues.
    [Show full text]