東華大學圖書館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

登入

回首頁 到查詢結果 [ null ]

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

How Anti-Science Discourse Limits Re...

Krause, Nicole M.

FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

How Anti-Science Discourse Limits Research and Action on Science Polarization.

紀錄類型:	書目-電子資源 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	How Anti-Science Discourse Limits Research and Action on Science Polarization./
作者:	Krause, Nicole M.
出版者:	Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, : 2023,
面頁冊數:	308 p.
附註:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 85-02, Section: B.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International85-02B.
標題:	Communication. -
電子資源:	https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=30637867
ISBN:	9798380156370

How Anti-Science Discourse Limits Research and Action on Science Polarization.
Krause, Nicole M.

How Anti-Science Discourse Limits Research and Action on Science Polarization. - Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2023 - 308 p.

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 85-02, Section: B.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--The University of Wisconsin - Madison, 2023.

In the United States, there are rising calls for deliberation about high-impact areas of science and technology such as artificial intelligence and human gene editing. These topics have been called "wicked issues," or issues that raise ethical, legal, and societal questions that science alone cannot answer. In order to design, implement, and regulate wicked issues in ways that reflect democratic ideals, the U.S. will need diverse social groups to not only discuss topics as profound as the definition or value of human life, but also to compromise on those topics.Unfortunately, societal polarization will make it difficult to achieve this goal, prompting research attention to the problems of "factual belief polarization" over science, as well as "science denial." These works ask: Why do some groups reject scientific facts-e.g., "vaccines do not cause autism"-and how can we correct or prevent that problem? One answer comes from a subset of literature that draws on social identity theory (SIT) to argue that "anti-science" groups tend to deny science because they have adopted science-inconsistent ideologies (such as conspiracism), and they are psychologically motivated to defend their ingroup allegiances.In this project, I argue and begin to empirically demonstrate that, while some work which draws on SIT to study "anti-science" groups has been useful, it is limited in three important ways that can also make it misleading. Specifically, I argue that this discourse sometimes encodes support for science as the "default" or "desirable" position in statistical models, leaving noise in effect estimates that makes the intergroup processes underpinning SIT difficult to trace. I also argue that extant work elides the downsides of extreme support for science, especially the risk of moralized "pro-science" views. Finally, this work has been largely inattentive to the possibility that meta-perceptions of polarization can inhibit science engagement.{A0}These limitations needlessly constrain our collective understanding of social conflicts over science and our ability to mitigate them. Therefore, I conclude by offering pathways forward for research and action on science polarization that will address these limitations and that will support urgent efforts to build a more effective public sphere for science.

ISBN: 9798380156370Subjects--Topical Terms:

524709
Communication.
Subjects--Index Terms:

Anti-science

How Anti-Science Discourse Limits Research and Action on Science Polarization.
LDR:03526nmm a2200397 4500 001 2428046
005 20241210085349.5
006 m o d
007 cr#unu||||||||
008 261011s2023 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9798380156370
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI30637867
035 $a AAI30637867
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Krause, Nicole M. $3 3815086
245 1 0 $a How Anti-Science Discourse Limits Research and Action on Science Polarization.
260 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2023
300 $a 308 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 85-02, Section: B.
500 $a Advisor: Scheufele, Dietram A.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--The University of Wisconsin - Madison, 2023.
520 $a In the United States, there are rising calls for deliberation about high-impact areas of science and technology such as artificial intelligence and human gene editing. These topics have been called "wicked issues," or issues that raise ethical, legal, and societal questions that science alone cannot answer. In order to design, implement, and regulate wicked issues in ways that reflect democratic ideals, the U.S. will need diverse social groups to not only discuss topics as profound as the definition or value of human life, but also to compromise on those topics.Unfortunately, societal polarization will make it difficult to achieve this goal, prompting research attention to the problems of "factual belief polarization" over science, as well as "science denial." These works ask: Why do some groups reject scientific facts-e.g., "vaccines do not cause autism"-and how can we correct or prevent that problem? One answer comes from a subset of literature that draws on social identity theory (SIT) to argue that "anti-science" groups tend to deny science because they have adopted science-inconsistent ideologies (such as conspiracism), and they are psychologically motivated to defend their ingroup allegiances.In this project, I argue and begin to empirically demonstrate that, while some work which draws on SIT to study "anti-science" groups has been useful, it is limited in three important ways that can also make it misleading. Specifically, I argue that this discourse sometimes encodes support for science as the "default" or "desirable" position in statistical models, leaving noise in effect estimates that makes the intergroup processes underpinning SIT difficult to trace. I also argue that extant work elides the downsides of extreme support for science, especially the risk of moralized "pro-science" views. Finally, this work has been largely inattentive to the possibility that meta-perceptions of polarization can inhibit science engagement.{A0}These limitations needlessly constrain our collective understanding of social conflicts over science and our ability to mitigate them. Therefore, I conclude by offering pathways forward for research and action on science polarization that will address these limitations and that will support urgent efforts to build a more effective public sphere for science.
590 $a School code: 0262.
650 4 $a Communication. $3 524709
650 4 $a Social psychology. $3 520219
650 4 $a Mass communications. $3 3422380
653 $a Anti-science
653 $a Misinformation
653 $a Polarization
653 $a Public opinion
653 $a Science communication
653 $a Social identity
690 $a 0459
690 $a 0451
690 $a 0708
710 2 $a The University of Wisconsin - Madison. $b Mass Communications - AG. $3 3169041
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 85-02B.
790 $a 0262
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2023
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=30637867