Experts’ Views on Science Communication Barriers: A Thai Perspective
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This qualitative study investigates the factors or concerns science communicators/specialists perceive as obstacles to successful science communication in Thailand. The participants are five scientists engaged in science communication activities, two officers working as policy or science communication specialists, and five people who had received information through various science communication formats or believed in non-scientific information. The researcher examined science communication activities performed by some of the participants and conducted semi-structured interviews with twelve participants. Findings from inductive theme analysis reveal that science communicators have experienced significant obstacles, including 1) The negative impact of misapprehension about science, people’s uncritical thinking, and perfunctory behaviors, 2) insufficient administrative support, and 3) inconsistency between the nature of science and the needs of audiences. In conclusion, the underlying causes of problems and obstacles are the extent to which current science education does not provide a solid foundation for people to recognize the benefits and importance of scientific knowledge in everyday life and does not encourage people to become scientifically literate.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyright: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
References
American Association of Physics Teachers. (1999). What is science? American Journal of Physics, 67(8), 659.
Baram-Tsabari, A., & Osborne, J. (2015). Bridging science education and science communication research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(2), 135-144.
Beniermann, A., Mecklenburg, L., & Upmeier Zu Belzen, A. (2021). Reasoning on controversial science issues in science education and science communication. Education Sciences, 11(522), 1-18.
Bostrom, A. (2008). Lead is like mercury: Risk comparisons, analogies and mental models. Journal of Risk Research, 11(1-2), 99-117.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Brossard, D., & Lewenstein, B.V. (2010) A critical appraisal of models of public understanding of science: using practice to inform theory. Routledge, London, United Kingdom
Burns, T. W., O’Connor, D. J., & Stocklmayer, S. M. (2003). Science communication: A contemporary definition. Public Understanding of Science, 12(2), 183-202.
Chen, G., Na Ayudhya, W. S., & Na Ayudhya, C. S. (2020). Thailand: From temples and palaces to modern science communication (pp.865-884). In Gascoigne, T., Schiele, B., Leach, J., Riedlinger, M., Lewenstein, B. V., Massarani, L., & Broks, P. (Eds.). Communicating Science: A Global Perspective. Acton, Australia: ANU Press.
Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5(2), 121-152.
Chinnalong, S. (2015). Science communication in urban Thailand: Issues and challenges (Doctoral Dissertation). UK: University of Leeds.
Craig, A., Panda, N., Palapu, R., Oku, G., Lifoia, C., Tatalu, J., Beebe, N., Kelly, G., Kama Jr, N., Iro’ofa, C., & Bugoro, H. (2024). Citizen science for enhanced dengue vector surveillance in Solomon Islands: A methods paper. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 9(1), 1-13.
De Bruin, W. B., Parker, A. M., & Fischhoff, B. (2007). Individual differences in adult decision-making competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(5), 938-956.
Downs, J. S., de Bruin, W. B., & Fischhoff, B. (2008). Parents’ vaccination comprehension and decisions. Vaccine, 26(12), 1595-1607.
Earle, T. C. (2010). Trust in risk management: A model-based review of empirical research. Risk Analysis, 30(4), 541-574.
Evans, A. T., Peters, E., Strasser, A. A., Emery, L. F., Sheerin, K. M., & Romer, D. (2015). Graphic warning labels elicit affective and thoughtful responses from smokers: Results of a randomized clinical trial. PLoS ONE, 10(12), 1-23.
Mahidol University (2023). The faculty of science, Mahidol university, in collaboration with the principia and a nationwide network of science communicators, organized activities at the Science Communication Festival 2023. Retrieved from https://science.mahidol.ac.th/news/aug66-26-27/.
Fazio, L. K., Brashier, N. M., Payne, B. K., & Marsh, E. J. (2015). Knowledge does not protect against illusory truth. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(5), 993-1002.
Fischhoff, B. (2018). Evaluating science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(16), 7670-7675.
Gascoigne, T., & Schiele, B. (2020). Introduction: A global trend, an emerging field, a multiplicity of understandings: Science communication in 39 countries (pp.1-14). In Gascoigne, T., Schiele, B., Leach, J., Riedlinger, M., Lewenstein, B. V., Massarani, L., & Broks, P. (Eds.). Communicating Science: A Global Perspective. Acton, Australia: ANU Press.
Gilbert, J. K., Stocklmayer, S.M., & Garnett, R. (1999). Mental modeling in science and technology centres: What are visitors really doing? (pp.16-32). In Stocklmayer, S., & Hardy, T. (Eds). In the proceedings of Learning Science in Informal Contexts. Questacon, Canberra.
Gregory, J., & Lock, S. J. (2008). The Evolution of ‘Public Understanding of Science’: Public Engagement as a Tool of Science Policy in the UK. Sociology Compass, 2(4), 1252-1265.
Hackling, M. W., Goodrum, D., & Rennie, L. (2001). The state of science in Australian Secondary Schools. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 47(4), 6-17.
Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814-834.
Hemakirin, J. (2009). Importance of Science Communication [Khwam Samkhan Khong Kan Suea-san Witthayasard]. Retrieved from https://www.nstda.or.th/sci2pub/thaismc/factsheet/document/2552/26august-scicom2.pdf.
Hornsey, M. J. (2020). Why facts are not enough: understanding and managing the motivated rejection of science. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29(6), 583-591.
Horst, M. (2022). Science Communication as a Boundary Space: An Interactive Installation about the Social Responsibility of Science. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 47(3), 459-482.
Intuprapa, P. (2017a). Science communication in the context of Thai scientists [Kan Suea-san Witthayasard Nai Bo-ri-bot Nak Wit Thai]. Retrieved from http://www.tistr.or.th/tistrblog/?p=3618.
Intuprapa, P. (2017b). Scientist and Science Communication [Nak Witthayasard Kap Kan Suea-san Witthayasard]. Retrieved from https://www.tistr.or.th/tistrblog/?p=3313.
Iyengar, S., & Massey, D. S. (2018). Scientific communication in a post-truth society. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(16), 7656-7661.
Jafari, M., & Meisert, A. (2021). Activating students’ argumentative resources on socioscientific issues by indirectly instructed reasoning and negotiation processes. Research in Science Education, 51(2), 913-934.
Jones, R. A. L. (2014). Reflecting on public engagement and science policy. Public Understanding of Science, 23(1), 27-31s
Jucan, M. S., & Jucan, C. N. (2014). The power of science communication. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 149, 461-466.
Kahan, D. M., Jenkins-Smith, H., & Braman, D. (2011). Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of Risk Research, 14(2), 147-174.
Khaosod News Online. (2018). FDA seizes 100 million baht in food supplements Illegal cosmetics after a lot of complaints [Aor Yor Yuet Khong Klang 100 Laan Tha-lai Ahan Soem Khrueang Sam-ang Phit Kotmai Lkang Khon Rong-rian Phiap]. Retrieved from https://www.khaosod.co.th/breaking-news/news_766496.
Khishfe, R. (2014). Explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction in the context of socioscientific issues: An effect on student learning and transfer. International Journal of Science Education, 36(6), 974-1016.
Kosiyaporn, H., Julchoo, S., Papwijitsil, R., Uansri, S., Phaiyarom, M., Sinam, P., & Suphanchaimat, R. (2022). Risk communication distributed among migrant workers during the COVID-19 crisis in Thailand: Analysis on Structural and Networking Gaps. Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease, 7(10), 1-20.
Kraft, P. W., Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2015). Why People “Don’t Trust the Evidence”: Motivated Reasoning and Scientific Beliefs. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658(1), 121-133.
Lazer, D. M. J., Baum, M. A., Benkler, Y., Berinsky, A. J., Greenhill, K. M., Menczer, F., Metzger, M. J., Nyhan, B., Pennycook, G., Rothschild, D., Schudson, M., Sloman, S. A., Sunstein, C. R., Thorson, E. A., Watts, D. J., & Zittrain, J. L. (2018). The science of fake news: Addressing fake news requires a multidisciplinary effort. Science, 359(6380), 1094-1096.
Lewenstein, B. V. (2003). Models of public communication of science and technology. Retrieve from https://ecommons.cornell.edu/items/601f5747-d07a-4a52-a61d-d2fa8a7235bd.
Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2013). The rationalizing voter. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Martín-Sempere, M. J., Garzón-García, B., & Rey-Rocha, J. (2008). Scientists’ motivation to communicate science and technology to the public: surveying participants at the Madrid Science Fair. Public Understanding of Science, 17(3), 349-367.
McCright, A. M., Dentzman, K., Charters, M., & Dietz, T. (2013). The influence of political ideology on trust in science. Environmental Research Letters, 8(4), 1-9.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Millar, R. (1996). Toward a science curriculum for public understanding. School Science Review, 77(280), 7-18.
Monzón Alvarado, C. M., Zamora Rendon, A., & Vázquez Pérez, A. del S. (2020). Integrating public participation in knowledge generation processes: Evidence from citizen science initiatives in Mexico. Environmental Science and Policy, 114, 230-241.
National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine. (2016). Science literacy: Concepts, contexts, and consequences. In Science Literacy: Concepts, Contexts, and Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Communicating science effectively: A research agenda. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2015). Public engagement on genetically modified organisms: When science and citizens connect: Workshop summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Science and Technology Development Agency. (2004). National strategy in science and technology 2004-2013. Retrieved from https://www.nstda.or.th/home/knowledge_post/science-technology-strategy-plan/.
National Science Museum of Thailand. (2023a). Science communication festival 2023. Retrieved from https://www.nsm.or.th/nsm/th/node/54377.
National Science Museum of Thailand. (2023b). The 19th Young Thai Science Ambassador (YTSA). Retrieved from https://www.nsm.or.th/nsm/th/ytsa.
National Science Museum of Thailand. (2024). Organization Structure [Khrong Sang Ongkon]. Retrieved from https://www.nsm.or.th/nsm/en/node/70.
Office of Research and Educational Quality Assurance. (2016). “Thailand 4.0 blueprint" is driving Thailand towards prosperity, stability, and sustainability [Phim Khiao Thailand 4.0 Model Khap Khluan Prathet Thai Su Khwam Mangkhang Mankhong Lae Yang Yuen]. Retrieved from https://www.nstda.or.th/home/knowledge_post/blueprint-thailand-4/.
Pain, E. (2020). French plan for improving science communication stirs up controversy. Retrieved from https://www.science.org/content/article/french-plan-improving-science-communication-stirs-controversy.
Pinto, B. M. L., Costa, J. L., & Cabral, H. N. (2017). How do science communication practitioners view scientists and audiences in relation to public engagement activities? A research note concerning the marine sciences in portugal. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 37(3), 159-166.
Pitigraisorn, P. (2020). Disinformation, science communication and trust: Food rumours in Thailand (Doctoral Dissertation). UK: University of Essex.
Post Today News (2014). Smuggled cosmetics all over the Internet, Dangers that should not be overlooked [Khrueang Sam-ang Thuean Kluean Net, An-ta-rai Thi Mai Khuan Mong Kham]. Retrieved from https://www.posttoday.com/politic/report/305095.
Post Today News Online. (2015) Taking weight loss pills, risk of hallucinations, risk of death [Kin Ya Lot Ouan, Siang Lhon Siang Tai]. Retrieved from https://www.posttoday.com/politic/report/393113.
Priest, S. (2013). Critical science literacy. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 33(5-6), 138-145.
Schiele, B., Gascoigne, T., & Schiele, A. (2021). Communicating science: Heterogeneous, multiform and polysemic (pp. 3-45). In Schiele, B., Liu, X., & Bauer, M.W. (Eds.). Science cultures in a diverse World: Knowing, sharing, caring. Singapore: Springer Singapore.
Shaffer, V. A., & Zikmund-Fisher, B. J. (2013). All stories are not alike: A purpose-, content-, and valence-based taxonomy of patient narratives in decision aids. Medical Decision Making, 33(1), 4-13.
Sjöström, J., & Eilks, I. (2018). Reconsidering different visions of scientific literacy and science education based on the concept of bildung (pp. 65-88). In Dori, Y. J., Mevarech, Z. R., & Baker, D. R. (Eds.). Cognition, metacognition, and culture in STEM education. Cham: Springer.
Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2004). Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk and rationality. Risk Analysis, 24(2), 311-322.
Sook-Kyoung, C. (2012). An experience of science communication in Korea: The space-sharing project with mass media (pp.169-179). In Schiele, B., Claessens, M., & Shi, S. (Eds.). Science communication in the world: Practices, theories and trends. London: Springer.
Stanifer, S., Hoover, A. G., Rademacher, K., Rayens, M. K., Haneberg, W., & Hahn, E. J. (2022). Citizen science approach to home radon testing, environmental health literacy and efficacy. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 7(1), 1-13
Sugiono, S., & Salamah, U. (2019). Science communication by government public relation from a network organization perspective (pp.285-295). In Proceedings of the Asia-Pacific Research in Social Sciences and Humanities Universitas Indonesia Conference (APRISH 2019). Jakarta, Indonesia: Universitas Indonesia.
Sykes, J. B. (1999). Concise oxford dictionary (10th eds.). Spain: Oxford University Press España
Thairath News Online. (2023, April 26). The dangerous weight loss pills were discovered in a well-known factory in the public sector, containing the controversial substance sibutramine, and were widely promoted on social media [Thalai Ya Lot Khwam Ouan An-ta-rai Pho kho Bor - Aor Yor Buk Laeng Pha Lhit Phop Phasom San Sibutramine Yiiho Dang Khai Nai Social]. Retrieved from https://www.thairath.co.th/news/local/bangkok/2689066.
The American Association for The Advancement of Science. (2023). Why Public Engagement Matters. Retrieved from https://www.aaas.org/resources/communication-toolkit/what-public-engagement.
The American Association for The Advancement of Science. (2024). Many Approaches to Public Engagement. Retrieved from https://www.aaas.org/resources/communication-toolkit/many-approaches-public-engagement.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.
Willig, C. (2013). Introducing qualitative research in psychology (3rd eds.). Berkshire, England: Open University Press.
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35-62.
