Academic Libraries and Public Engagement With Science and Technology

Eileen Harrington

• Publisher: Chandos Publishing
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN: 9780081021248
• eBook ISBN: 9780081021255
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Sociology
• Index: Social Sciences

Libraries have historically played a role as a community builder, providing resources and spaces where knowledge can be archived, shared and created. They can also play a pivotal role in fostering the public's understanding of science and scientific processes. From makerspaces to data visualization labs to exhibits, many libraries already delve into scientific explorations and many more could join them. Scientists often need to include "broader impacts" goals in grant proposals, but they might not know where to begin or feel that they do not have the time to devote to public engagement. This is where libraries and librarians can help.Research in science communication also supports tapping into libraries for public engagement with science. Studies show that it is important for scientists to present findings in an apolitical way—not aligning with one solution or one way of thinking and not being seen as an activist (Druckman, 2015; Jamieson & Hardy, 2014). One of the core tenets of librarians and libraries is to present information in a neutral way. Research also shows that Informal conversations about science can have a greater effect on people than reading about it online or hearing about it on the news (Eveland & Cooper, 2013). Again, libraries can play a role in fostering these types of conversations.Given this landscape, this book will demonstrate concrete ways that libraries and librarians can play a role in fostering public engagement with science. In addition to background information on the current landscape of public knowledge and understanding of science, it will also include best practices and case studies of different types of programming and services that libraries can offer. Often libraries do not jump to mind when people think about science education or science literacy, and many librarians do not come from a science background. Literature on science programming and sharing science is largely absent from the library field. This book will help give confidence to librarians that they can participate in engaging the public with science. At the same time, it will provide a conduit to bring informal science educators, communication officers from universities or research organizations who share scientific discoveries with the public, and librarians together to explore ways to align their work to promote scientific literacy for all.- Demonstrates concrete ways that libraries and librarians can play a role in fostering public engagement with science- Features best practices and case studies of different types of programming and services that libraries can offer- Provides a conduit to bring informal science educators, communication officers, and librarians together to explore ways to align their work to promote scientific literacy

Chapter 1

Introduction

Abstract

Recent surveys show that many North American adults have limited knowledge of basic scientific facts. With science and technology pervading our lives, a need for basic science literacy is imperative. From climate change to GMOs (genetically modified organisms) to global epidemics such as Ebola and Zika, we need basic scientific knowledge to be able to make informed personal and policy decisions. At the same time, in a country where a questioning of facts has become ever more widespread, many look upon science and scientists with mistrust. Given these realities, this chapter provides an overview of science literacy in the U.S., issues around retention in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) fields, pubic engagement with science research, and the roles that academic libraries can play in this arena. It also includes an overview of the subsequent chapters.

Keywords

Science literacy; Academic libraries; Science communication; STEM retention; Public understanding of science and technology; Community engagement

On a rainy April 22, 2017, between 70,000 and 100,000 people gathered in Washington, DC for the first March for Science (Appenzeller & Staff, 2017). An estimated 1.2 million people in over 600 locations around the world joined them in a globalized show of strength and support for science (March For Science, n.d.). In our increasingly politically polarized society, science faces attacks from both the right, on issues such as climate change, evolution, and stem cell research, and from the left, for criticism of genetically modified foods and vaccinations. With ever-shrinking federal support of scientific endeavors in the U.S., an increased mistrust and dismissal of scientific evidence and greater promulgation of nonevidence-based assertions, scientists felt the need to leave the laboratory and speak up in a very public way. The March for Science attempted to shine a spotlight on the benefits and importance of science in all aspects of our lives today in a nonpartisan way. As outlined in its mission statement: “The March for Science champions robustly funded and publicly communicated science as a pillar of human freedom and prosperity” (Mission, n.d.).

Even with this increased sense of hostility towards science, many still have confidence in scientists and scientific institutions and recognize their value in fostering the public good, boosting our economy, and promoting a democratic society. The sheer numbers of people who participated in the March for Science events around the world is concrete evidence of this. A 2014 survey conducted by the National Science Board (2016) found that 49% of U.S. citizens have a “great deal of confidence” in the scientific community, second only to the military. This level of confidence has remained fairly steady since the 1970s, while public faith in Congress, the press, the Executive Branch, organized religion, and major companies has declined (National Science Board, 2016). Among those who display mistrust of scientists, often this reflects not a skepticism of scientific endeavors themselves, but more the motivations of the scientists for pursuing and publishing their work. For example, research by McCright and Dunlap (2010) has shown that conservatives that display mistrust of scientists and their work do so because they view the scientists as overtly political or activist. Even with doubts and reservations about some new technologies or scientific discoveries, since 1979, surveys have shown that seven out of 10 U.S. citizens believe scientific research does more good than harm for society (National Science Board, 2016). In addition, “a solid majority of adults in the U.S. say government investment in both basic science research and in engineering and technology ‘pay off in the long run’ (71% and 72%, respectively)” and 61% view it as essential for scientific progress (Pew Research Center, 2015a).

Given these realities, this chapter provides an overview of the landscape of science literacy in the U.S., issues around retention in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) fields, public engagement with science research, and the roles that academic libraries can play in this arena. The following sections will touch on these areas, followed by an outline of the chapters that make up this book.

1.1 Science Literacy in the United States

Various definitions of science literacy exist and debate still surrounds how best to measure it. Certain themes, however, emerge in many of the definitions. Earlier definitions tended to emphasize knowledge of basic scientific facts, and the way to counter science illiteracy was to expand teaching and testing on those basic facts of school-age children, as well as sharing information with the broader public (Irwin, 2009; Raymo, 1998). Critics of this approach argued against only focusing on facts and instead stressed an understanding of scientific processes or methods (Devlin, 1998; Hurd, 1998). Miller took this even further promoting civic science literacy, which he defines as, “the level of understanding of science and technology needed to function as citizens in a modern industrial society” (Miller, 2012, p. 219). To achieve civic science literacy, a person needs to not only have a basic understanding of scientific concepts and processes, but also be able to apply them in decision-making and/or engagement with scientific issues or new technologies. A definition from a report by the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) combines many of these different strands:

Scientific literacy is the capacity to use scientific knowledge, to identify questions and to draw evidence-based conclusions in order to understand and help make decisions about the natural world and the changes made to it through human activity.

(OECD, 2003, p. 133)

In this same report, the authors stress that scientific literacy should be viewed as a continuum rather than defining people as scientifically literate or not.

Given the various definitions of science literacy and an emphasis on civic science literacy in particular, many studies on the public understanding of science over the past few decades have focused not only on the facts of science but also measured an understanding of the scientific process and science in policy debates (Losh, 2012; Miller, 1998; Nisbet & Markowitz, 2016a; Pew Research Center, 2015a). Recent surveys show that many North American adults have limited knowledge of basic scientific facts and do not fully grasp how the scientific process works (Funk & Goo, 2015; National Science Board, 2016). These surveys found differences in the scores of participants according to certain demographic and social factors. For example, those with higher levels of education and who had taken more science and math courses generally scored higher. In a National Science Board (2016) study, gender also played a slight role with 69% of men compared to 61% of women answering fact-based questions correctly. The types of questions asked; however, likely influenced these results, with men answering more physics-based questions correctly, and women answering more biology-related questions correctly. Funk and Goo’s (2015) survey found differences by race and ethnicity, which mirrored past studies conducted by the National Science Board. On fact-based questions, Caucasians scored an average of 8.4 correct answers out of 12, versus 7.1 for Hispanics and 5.9 for African Americans. The authors suggest some reasons for these discrepancies could include differences in formal and informal educational opportunities throughout their lives and the underrepresentation of minorities in STEM fields.

The results of studies that measure basic science literacy are often not as clear-cut as they appear on the surface, and they can demonstrate the complex relationships between science, politics, and society. The level of someone’s scientific literacy does not always correlate with their views on certain scientific issues, scientists, or the scientific process. As Nisbet and Markowitz (2016a) point out, “Knowledge tends to explain a relatively small amount of the variance of opinion, whereas other factors such as ideology, religious beliefs, and trust tend to be much stronger predictors” (p.18). A study by Losh (2012) adds support to this claim. She examined the differences in basic scientific knowledge among different generational cohorts, including pre-World War II, Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Millennials. She found that many pseudoscience concepts, such as astrology and the belief that UFOs have visited Earth, showed greater appeal to more recent generations than older generations. This disputed her hypothesis that more recent generations have received more science education so would likely be more scientifically literate and reject pseudoscience beliefs. In addition, even though many of the instruments used to measure scientific literacy have moved to a more balanced approach, they still tend to focus heavily on particular facts. In different situations, such as policy decisions versus consumer health choices, people might need different kinds of knowledge, and these measures do not always reflect people’s understanding in these different situations. In many cases, people might be ignorant of certain scientific facts or processes, but that does not mean they are stupid. Many will possess critical thinking skills and other knowledge that they can apply when confronting scientific issues.

1.2 STEM Education and Workforce in the United States and Issues Around Retention

The main reaction to low levels of scientific literacy among the general U.S. population has been to put money into STEM education programs. Often these have focused on K-12 initiatives, but more recently and broadly, they have addressed higher education as well (Wieman, 2017). Despite these efforts, some have argued that formal STEM education is still lagging and have promoted informal educational settings to fill the gaps, such as museums, zoos, libraries, science TV programs and blogs (Falk & Dierking, 2010; Harrington, 2014; Losh, 2012). Greater emphasis on reading and math skills in K-12, what often appears on standardized tests, has sidelined science education in many instances. Finding teachers who feel comfortable teaching science at the early elementary level has also been a challenge (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Childhood Research Network, 2005). Overall, despite sizable changes to science education in both formal and informal settings, many scientists, faculty members, and industry leaders feel that students are unprepared for college-level science and have low science literacy (Losh, 2012, p. 55).

Along with low science literacy and deficits in STEM education, conc...

Table of contents

• Cover image
• Title page
• Table of Contents
• Copyright
• Acknowledgments
• Chapter 1: Introduction
• Chapter 2: Makerspaces
• Chapter 3: Workshops and Courses
• Chapter 4: Programming and Outreach
• Chapter 5: Citizen Science
• Chapter 6: Data Services
• Chapter 7: Open Science
• Index