On the perception of science by Poles: corpus-based descriptive study of public consultation data
Małgorzata Dzimińska
Uniwersytet ŁódzkiŁukasz Grabowski
Uniwersytet OpolskiAneta Krzewińska
Uniwersytet ŁódzkiIzabela Warwas
Uniwersytet ŁódzkiАнотація
This descriptive study, conducted using corpus linguistic research methods, examines the ways the Polish public perceives science. Starting from selected assumptions of Critical Discourse Analysis and the Linguistic Picture of the World, whereby language is seen primarily as a social practice and as a carrier of knowledge, opinions, beliefs and attitudes, we analyse the data obtained during public consultations on science communication which were held in 2019 in Poland, as part of the CONCISE project. The combined quantitative and qualitative analyses focus on selected collocations of a high-frequency noun nauka (‘science’) and aim to identify patterns of reference and agency within the discourse.
The findings revealed citizens’ expectations concerning science, including its clarity,
accessibility, understandability, visibility and credibility.
Ключові слова:
perception of science, science communication, society, public consultation, corpus linguisticsПосилання
Ajdukiewicz K. (1985): Język i poznanie. T. II. Warszawa. Google Scholar
Baker P., Gabrielatos C., Khosravinik M., Krzyzanowski M., McEnery T., Wodak R. (2008): A useful methodological synergy? Combining critical discourse analysis and corpus linguistics to examine discourses of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK press. “Discourse & Society” 19/3, pp. 273–305.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Bartmiński J. (2010): Pojęcie językowego obrazu świata i sposoby jego operacjonalizacji. [In:] Jaka antropologia literatury jest dzisiaj możliwa. P. Czapliński, A. Legeżyńska and M. Telicki (eds). Poznań, pp. 155–178. Google Scholar
Bauer M.W. (2009): The evolution of public understanding of science – discourse and comparative evidence. “Science, Technology and Society” 14/2, pp. 221–240.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Bhatia V., Flowerdew J., Jones R. (2008): Approaches to discourse analysis. [In:] Advances in Discourse Studies. V. Bhatia, J. Flowerdew, R. Jones (eds). London, pp. 1–18.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Blei D. (2012): Probabilistic Topic Models. “Communications of the ACM” 55/4, pp. 77–84.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Calsamiglia H., Van Dijk T. (2004): Popularization discourse and knowledge about the genome. “Discourse & Society” 15/4, pp. 369–389.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Chalmers A.F. (1976): What is this thing called Science? Indianapolis. Google Scholar
Fairclough N., Wodak R. (1997): Critical discourse analysis. [In:] Discourse and social interaction. T.A. Van Dijk (ed.). London, pp. 4–31. Google Scholar
Hurtado M.C., Cerezo J.A.L. (2012): Political dimensions of scientific culture: Highlights from the Ibero-American survey on the social perception of science and scientific culture. “Public Understanding of Science” 21/3, pp. 369–384.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Kappel K., Holmen S.J. (2019): Why Science Communication, and Does It Work? A Taxonomy of Science Communication Aims and a Survey of the Empirical Evidence. “Frontiers in Communication” 4, pp. 1–12.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Kilgarriff A., Baisa V., Bušta J., Jakubícek M., Kovář V., Michelfeit J., Rychlý P., Suchomel V. (2014): The Sketch Engine: ten years on. “Lexicography” 1/1, pp. 7–36.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Kopytowska M., Grabowski Ł. (2017): European security under threat: mediating the crisis and constructing the Other. [In:] Europe in Times of Crisis: Doing and Undoing Europe. Ch. Karner, M. Kopytowska (eds). Bingley, pp. 83–112.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Kopytowska M., Grabowski Ł., Woźniak J. (2017): Mobilizing against the Other: cyberhate, refugee crisis and proximization. [In:] Contemporary Discourses of Hate and Radicalism across Space and Genres. M. Kopytowska (ed.). Amsterdam, pp. 57–97.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Krzewińska A., Dzimińska M., Warwas I., Wiktorowicz J. (2021): Komunikacja naukowa w Polsce. Szczepionki, Medycyna alternatywna, Zmiany klimatyczne, GMO – pod lupą. Łódź.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Lewandowsky S., Ecker U.K.H., Cook J. (2017): Beyond Misinformation: Understanding and Coping with the “Post-Truth” Era. “Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition” 6/4, pp. 353–369.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Lutyński J. (1994): Metody badań naukowych. Wybrane zagadnienia. Łódź. Google Scholar
Mahner M. (2007): Demarcating Science from Non-Science. [In:] Handbook of the Philosophy of Science: General Philosophy of Science – Focal Issues. T. Kuipers (ed.). Amsterdam, pp. 515–575.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Murakami A., Thompson P., Hunston S., Vajn D. (2017): ‘What is this corpus about?’: Using topic modelling to explore a specialised corpus. “Corpora” 12/2, pp. 243–277.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Nagel E. (1961): The Structure of Science. Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation. New York. Google Scholar
Noy S., O’Brien T.L. (2019): Science for good? The effects of education and national context on perceptions of science. “Public Understanding of Science” 28/8, pp. 897–916.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Omyła-Rudzka M. (2019): Które zawody poważamy? Komunikat z badań Nr 157/2019, CBOS. Warszawa. Google Scholar
Ossowski S. (1967): O nauce. Warszawa. Google Scholar
Prpić K. (2011): Science, the public, and social elites: How the general public, scientists, top politicians and managers perceive science. “Public Understanding of Science” 20/6, pp. 733–750.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Ravetz J.R. (1996): Scientific Knowledge and its Social Problems. New Brunswick, London. Google Scholar
Rychly P. (2008): A lexicographer-friendly association score. [In:] Proceedings of Second Workshop on Recent Advances in Slavonic Natural Languages Processing, RASLAN 2008. P. Sojka, A. Horák (eds). Brno, pp. 6–9. Google Scholar
The State of Science Index (2021), 3M. Online: https://www.3mpolska.pl/3M/pl_PL/firma-pl/. Google Scholar
Sturgis P., Allum N. (2004): Science in Society: Re-Evaluating the Deficit Model of Public Attitudes. “Public Understanding of Science” 13, pp. 55–74.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Warwas I., Dzimińska M., Krzewińska A. (eds) (2021): Komunikacja naukowa w Polsce. Partycypacja, Dialog, Zaufanie. Łódź.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Wodak R., Meyer M. (2009): Critical discourse analysis: history, agenda, theory and methodology. [In:] Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. R. Wodak, M. Meyer (eds). London, pp. 1–33. Google Scholar
Xenitidou M., Gunnarsdóttir K. (2019): The power of discourse: How agency is constructed and constituted in discourse of smart technologies, systems and associated developments. “Discourse & Society” 30/3, pp. 287–306.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Ziman J.M. (1968): Public Knowledge: An Essay Concerning the Social Dimension of Science. Cambridge. Google Scholar
Uniwersytet Łódzki
Uniwersytet Opolski
Uniwersytet Łódzki
Uniwersytet Łódzki
Ліцензія
![Creative Commons License](http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-nc-nd/4.0/88x31.png)
Ця робота ліцензується відповідно до Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.