基于PUS指标的“科学文化”指数模型及效度分析
|
摘要
本文的研究主题是基于公众理解科学指标的科学文化指数模型设计和效度研究,目的在于将公众理解科学(PUS)指标与规范化科技指标体系融合,构造可以表达公众科学观的科学文化指数。
本文首先对科学技术发展对社会文化的影响以及科学文化的内涵作了阐述和分析,并对英国,美国,欧盟以及印度等国家和国际组织公众理解科学调查实践的特点和发展趋势进行引介。
经过广泛深入的文献调查和研究,研究者对国内外科技指标体系的发展趋势进行梳理,并对公众理解科学指标的体系结构,发展趋势和调查现状进行比较和分析。公众理解科学研究历经“科学素质——公众理解科学——科学与社会”的研究范式,至今已经走过近三十年的研究历史。本研究立足于公众理解科学研究领域的新趋势,探讨将公众理解科学指标与科技指标相融合的可行性,构建科学文化指标的概念和框架模型。
利用回归分析,聚类分析等社会学研究方法,对中国和欧盟27国的公众在科学知识、科学兴趣、科学态度以及科学参与程度四个维度的数据进行比较。并通过曲线方程预测的方法,将科学态度指数进行等价转化,求出公众理解科学的多元线性方程。从比较研究的结果中,分析中欧公众PUS现状的差异和原因,并针对不同群体在PUS状况中的表现特点,分析目前中国公共科学传播服务体系存在的不足和问题,提出有效的改善建议。
在数据分析和文献研究的基础上,本文提出了融合了主观科技统计指标PUS的科学文化指数的模型框架。利用主成分分析法确定“科学文化”指数的计算方程,并将中国和欧盟27国相关指标代入模拟方程进行结果计算和效度评估。以研究结果为依据,对所研究的28个国家按照STS指数,PUS指数和SCI指数进行排名,分析排名结果并作出相应的意义解读。最后就发现的问题和现象提出对国家科技政策的建议和思考和对未来公众理解科学领域的研究展望。
This dissertation studies on the Science Culture Index(SCI) on basis of the PUS(Public Understanding of Science) indicators.The intention of this research is to merge the PUS indicators with the universal standard science indicators system,then a comprehensive science culture index which stands for the public value on science and technology can be obtained.
At the very beginning, the author represented the concept of science culture and the social impact of the science and techonology development.Then a brief introduction of the PUS theory and the history of PUS survey among UK, EU, India and US was made.On the basis of an thorough and extensive literature review, this research outlined the clue on sience indicators'evolution and made an analysis on the PUS indicators system's development and future picture.
The30-year research on PUS experienced three phases of research formulars, which can be descripted as:"science literacy-public understanding of science-science and society".The author in the view of new trend in PUS study, made a feasibility research on the mergence of PUS indicators and other objective science indicators,then built up a Science Culture index conception and structure model.
The comparative analysis among China and European (EU27) countries'public understanding of science indicators (including science knowledge,science attitude,science interests and science egagment) was conducted under sociology methods such as regression analysis and cluster analysis.Via the curvey estimated method,the researcher made a equivalent transformation of the'science attitude' factor,the the multilinear equation of PUS index.
According to the result of fomer comparative analysis, the author tried to find the difference between Chinese and European people on PUS especially the difference among social groups both in China and EU, then sevral constructive advices can be given on public science communication policies and developing stragety.
Then under the research conclusion of the literature study and quantitive analysis,this dissertation brought out a structure model.A fomular of science culture index was given by applying the principal components analysis method,then the value of each country including china and EU27were calculated.On the basis of this result,28contries was ranked by PUS index,STS index and SCI index separately.A further elaboration on the ranking peononmenon and background analysis was made,then proposals for future science policy was given. At last, the author put forward some thinking of future study on public understanding of science.
本文首先对科学技术发展对社会文化的影响以及科学文化的内涵作了阐述和分析,并对英国,美国,欧盟以及印度等国家和国际组织公众理解科学调查实践的特点和发展趋势进行引介。
经过广泛深入的文献调查和研究,研究者对国内外科技指标体系的发展趋势进行梳理,并对公众理解科学指标的体系结构,发展趋势和调查现状进行比较和分析。公众理解科学研究历经“科学素质——公众理解科学——科学与社会”的研究范式,至今已经走过近三十年的研究历史。本研究立足于公众理解科学研究领域的新趋势,探讨将公众理解科学指标与科技指标相融合的可行性,构建科学文化指标的概念和框架模型。
利用回归分析,聚类分析等社会学研究方法,对中国和欧盟27国的公众在科学知识、科学兴趣、科学态度以及科学参与程度四个维度的数据进行比较。并通过曲线方程预测的方法,将科学态度指数进行等价转化,求出公众理解科学的多元线性方程。从比较研究的结果中,分析中欧公众PUS现状的差异和原因,并针对不同群体在PUS状况中的表现特点,分析目前中国公共科学传播服务体系存在的不足和问题,提出有效的改善建议。
在数据分析和文献研究的基础上,本文提出了融合了主观科技统计指标PUS的科学文化指数的模型框架。利用主成分分析法确定“科学文化”指数的计算方程,并将中国和欧盟27国相关指标代入模拟方程进行结果计算和效度评估。以研究结果为依据,对所研究的28个国家按照STS指数,PUS指数和SCI指数进行排名,分析排名结果并作出相应的意义解读。最后就发现的问题和现象提出对国家科技政策的建议和思考和对未来公众理解科学领域的研究展望。
This dissertation studies on the Science Culture Index(SCI) on basis of the PUS(Public Understanding of Science) indicators.The intention of this research is to merge the PUS indicators with the universal standard science indicators system,then a comprehensive science culture index which stands for the public value on science and technology can be obtained.
At the very beginning, the author represented the concept of science culture and the social impact of the science and techonology development.Then a brief introduction of the PUS theory and the history of PUS survey among UK, EU, India and US was made.On the basis of an thorough and extensive literature review, this research outlined the clue on sience indicators'evolution and made an analysis on the PUS indicators system's development and future picture.
The30-year research on PUS experienced three phases of research formulars, which can be descripted as:"science literacy-public understanding of science-science and society".The author in the view of new trend in PUS study, made a feasibility research on the mergence of PUS indicators and other objective science indicators,then built up a Science Culture index conception and structure model.
The comparative analysis among China and European (EU27) countries'public understanding of science indicators (including science knowledge,science attitude,science interests and science egagment) was conducted under sociology methods such as regression analysis and cluster analysis.Via the curvey estimated method,the researcher made a equivalent transformation of the'science attitude' factor,the the multilinear equation of PUS index.
According to the result of fomer comparative analysis, the author tried to find the difference between Chinese and European people on PUS especially the difference among social groups both in China and EU, then sevral constructive advices can be given on public science communication policies and developing stragety.
Then under the research conclusion of the literature study and quantitive analysis,this dissertation brought out a structure model.A fomular of science culture index was given by applying the principal components analysis method,then the value of each country including china and EU27were calculated.On the basis of this result,28contries was ranked by PUS index,STS index and SCI index separately.A further elaboration on the ranking peononmenon and background analysis was made,then proposals for future science policy was given. At last, the author put forward some thinking of future study on public understanding of science.
引文
1许良英等编译.爱因斯坦文集：第三卷[M].北京：商务印书馆,1979.135.
刘华杰.公民科学素养测试及其困难[J].科学技术哲学.2006-(4)：40-46；
刘兵,李正伟.公众理解科学的理论研究：约翰.杜兰特的“缺失模型”[J].科学对社会的影响.2003年
曹昱.公众理解科学理论发展研究：对约翰.杜兰特的“民主模型”的反思[J].科学技术与辩证法,2004-21(5)：85-89
郭传杰,褚建勋,汤书昆,李宪奇.公民科学素质：要义、测度与几点思考[J].科普研究,2008(4)
陈发俊,史玉民,徐飞.20世纪美国“公众理解科学”活动评述[J].中国科技论坛.2007(2)
李正伟,刘兵对英国有关”公众理解科学”的三份重要报告的简要考察与分析[J].自然辩证法研究.2003(05)
史玉民,韩芳.印度公民科学素养发展概况[J].科普研究.2008(02)10
马丁·W·鲍尔,尼克.阿勒姆,史蒂夫·米勒,胡俊平.我们能从25年的“公众理解科学”调查研究中学到什么?不断解放和拓展议程[J].科普研究.2009(06)10
张正伦主编.中国公众的科学技术素养[M].北京：中国科学技术出版社.1991.
国务院《全民科学素质行动计划纲要(2006-2010-2020年)》
潘苏东,褚慧玲.科学素养的基本内涵——三维模式[EB/OL]http://www. kexue-mag. com/artdetail. asp. name=795
刘兵,李正伟,布赖恩.温的公众理解科学理论研究：内省模型[J].科学学研究.2003-21(6)：581-585
美国科学促进会著,中国科学技术协会译.科学素养的基准[M].科学普及出版社,2001
美国科学促进会著,中国科学技术协会译.面向全体美国人的科学.科学普及出版社,2001
美国科学促进会著,中国科学技术协会译.科学素养的设计.科学普及出版社,2001
英国皇家学会著,唐英英译.公众理解科学.北京理工大学出版社.2004.
张仲梁.中国公众对科学技术的态度.中国科学技术出版社.1991.
[德]迪尔克斯格罗特主编田松等译.在理解与信赖之间：公众、科学与技术.北京理工大学出版社2006
Allum, N, Sturgis, P, Tabourazi, D and Brunton-Smith, I. (Forthcoming 2008). Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures:a meta-analysis. Public Understanding of Science.
Allum, N, D Boy & MW Bauer (2002). "European regions and the knowledge deficit model", in: Bauer MW & G Gaskell (eds) Biotechnology-the making of a global controversy. (Cambridge, CUP).
Bauer M (2000) Science in the media as a cultural indicator:contextualising surveys with media analysis, in:Dierkes M & C vonGrote (eds) Between understanding and trust:The public, Science and Technology, Amsterdam, Harwood Academic Publishers,157-178.
Bauer MW, N Allum & S Miller (2007) What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda, Public Understanding of Science,16,1,79-96.
Bauer M, J Durant and G Evans (1994). European public perceptions of science. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 6,163-186
Bauer, M (1993) Industrial and post-industrial public understanding of science, a model and some initialtests for systematic national variety in PUS, paper presented the the 1993 International Conference on The Public Understanding of Science and Technology, Chicago Academy of Sciences,24-27 October
Basu A & R Aggarwal (2006) India Science Literature in Science Citation Index:a report http://itt.nissat.tripod.com/itt0104/scirep.htm Berg M & K Bruland (ed) (1998) Technological revolutions in Europe. Historical perspectives, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.
Bishop, G. (2005) The Illusion of Public Opinion:Fact and Artifact in American Public Opinion Polls. Oxford:Rowman and Littlefield.
Bryk, A. and Raudenbusch, S. (1992) Hierarchical Linear Models:Applications and Data Analysis Methods.London:SAGE.
Butler D (2006) The data gap:statistics on science investment and performance are lacking across the Muslim world, Nature,444,2 Nov,26-27.
Chang BH & S M Chan-Olmstead (2005) Relative constancy of advertising spending, Gazette,67, 4,339-357.
Cohen, J. (1992) "A Power Primer," Psychological Bulletin 112:155-9.
Davis, R.C. (1958) "The Public Impact of Science in the Mass Media. A Report on a Nation-wide Survey for the National Association of Science Writers." Ann Arbor, University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research,
Desai M, S Fukuda-Parr, C Johansson and F Sagasti (2002) Measuring the technology achievement of nations and the capacity to participate in the network age, Journal of Human Development,3,1,95-122.
Durant J, M Bauer, C Midden, G Gaskell, and M Liakopoulos (2000) Two cultures of public understanding of science, in Dierkes M and C von Grote (eds) Between understanding and trust: the public, science and technology, (Reading, Harwood Academics Publisher),131-156.
Einsiedel, E. (2000) "Understanding'Publics'in the Public Understanding of Science," in M. Dierkes and C. von Grote (eds) Between Understanding and Trust:The Public, Science and Technology, pp.205-16. Amsterdam:Harwood.
EIS (2005) European Innovation Scoreboard, Brussels
FAPESP (2004) Science Indicators, Sao Paulo, [see chapter 12on public perceptions] [http://www.fapesp.br/english/materia.php?data[id_materia]=463
FAO (2003) Final report on an Indigenous people's initiative to establish cultural indicators for SARD, Rome,
FAO. [ftp://ftp.fao.org/SD/SDA/SDAR/sard/Cult_Indic_FAO_REPORT_FINAL..pdf]
Garg KC (2002) An overview of cross-national, national, and institutional assessment as reflected in the international journal Scientometrics, Scientometrics,56,2,169-199.
Gerbner (1969) Towards 'cultural indicators':the analysis of mass media mediated message systems, AV Communication Review,17,137-148.
Godin B & Y Gingras (2000) What is science and technological culture and how it is measured? A multidimensional model, Public Understanding of Science,9,43-58.
Godin B (2005) Measurement and Statistics on Science and Technology-1920 to the present, London, Routledge (vol 22 of series).
Grimston, M.C. (1994) "Public Opinion Surveys in the UK," Nuclear Europe Worldscan 14(7-8): 98.
Grove-White, R., Macnaghten, P. and Wynne, B. (2000) "Wising Up:the Public and New Technologies," Lancaster,Lancaster University, Centre for the Study of Environmental Change (CSEC).
Hayes, B.C. and Tariq, V.N. (2000) "Gender Differences in Scientific Knowledge and Attitudes toward Science:a Comparative Study of Four Anglo-American Nations," Public Understanding of Science 9(4):433-47.
Hayes, B.C. and Tariq, V.N. (2001) "Gender Differences in Scientific Knowledge and Attitudes toward Science:a Reply to a Reply," Public Understanding of Science 10(4):431-3.
Hox, J.J. (2002) Multilevel Analysis:Techniques and Applications. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.Inglehart, R. (1990) Culture Shift in Advanced Societies. Princeton:Princeton University Press.
Inonu E (2003) the influence of cultural factors on science production, Scientometrics,56,1, 137-146.
Inglehart A (1990) Culture shift in advanced industrial society, Princeton, NJ, PUP.
International Labour Organisation (2001) World Employment Report. Geneva:ILO.International Research Associates Europe (INRA) (1993) Europeans, Science and Technology:Public Understanding and Attitudes. Brussels.
Irwin, A. and Michael, M. (2003) Science, Social Theory and Public Knowledge. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Irwin, A. and Wynne, B. (1996) Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Klein LR and Ozmucur S (2002/2003). The Estimation of China's Economic Growth. Journal of Economic and Social Measurement,62 (8),187-202.
Klieme E & J Baumert (2001) Identifying national cultures of mathematics education:analysis of cognitive demands and differential item functioning in TIMSS, European Journal of Psychology of Education,16,4,385-402.
Klingemann, HD, PP Mohler & RP Weber (1982) Cultural indicators based on content analysis:a secondary analysis of Sorokin's data on fluctuations of systems of truth, Quality and Quantity, 16,1-18.
Lambert, P. and Abrams, K. (1995) "Meta-analysis Using Multilevel Models," Multilevel Modelling Newsletter 7(2):16-18.
Martin, S. and Tait, J. (1992) "Attitudes of Selected Public Groups in the U.K. to Biotechnology," in J. Durant (ed.) Biotechnology in Public:a Review of Recent Research, pp.28-41. London: Science Museum Publications.
McBeth, M.K. and Oakes, A.S. (1996) "Citizens'Perceptions of Risks Associated with Moving Radiological Waste,"Risk Analysis 16:421-7.
Melischek G, KE Rosengren & J Stoppers (eds) (1984) Cultural indicators:an international symposium, Vienna, Austrian Academy of Sciences.
Michael, M. (1996) "Ignoring Science:Discourses of Ignorance in the Public Understanding of Science," in A. Irwin and B. Wynne (eds) Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology,pp.107-25. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Michael, M. (2002) "Comprehension, Apprehension, Prehension:Heterogeneity and the Public Understanding of Science," Science, Technology & Human Values 27(3):357-8.
Miller, J.D. (1983) "Scientific Literacy:a Conceptual and Empirical Review," Daedalus 11: 29-48.
Miller, J.D. (1998) "The Measurement of Scientific Literacy," Public Understanding of Science 7: 203-23.
Miller, J.D. (2004) "Public Understanding of, and Attitudes toward, Scientific Research:What We Know and What We Need to Know," Public Understanding of Science 13(3):273-94.
Miller, J.D., Pardo, R. and Niwa, F. (1997) Public Perceptions of Science and Technology:a Comparative Study of the European Union, the United States, Japan and Canada. Bilbao: Fundacion BBV.
Nagar AL and Basu SR (2002) Weighting Socio-Economic Indicators of Human Development:A Latent Variable Apporach, in Ullah A et al. (eds) Handbook of Applied Econometrics and Statistical Inference. Marcel Dekker, New York.
NSF (2006) Science Indicators Report, Washington, NSF
OECD (1992) Technology and the economy. The key relationships, Paris, OECD
OECD (2004) S&T Statistical Compendium 2004, Paris, OECD.
Pardo, R. and Calvo, F. (2002) "Attitudes toward Science among the European Public:a Methodological Analysis,"Public Understanding of Science 11:155-95.
Pardo, R. and Calvo, F. (2004) "The Cognitive Dimensions of Public Perceptions of Science: Methodological Issues," Public Understanding of Science 13:203-27.
Peters, H.P. (2000) "From Information to Attitudes? Thoughts on the Relationship between Knowledge about Science and Technology and Attitudes toward Technology," in M. Dierkes and C. von Grote (eds) Between Understanding and Trust:The Public, Science and Technology, pp.265-86. Amsterdam:Harwood.
Polino C, ME Fazio & J Castelfranchi (2005) Surveys on the public perception of science in Ibero-American Countries, the RICYT's experience, paper presented AAAS meeting, Washington,17-21 Feb 2005.
Price DJ de Solla (1963) Little science, big science, New York, Columbia University Press.
Rasbash, J., Steele, F., Browne, W. and Prosser, B. (2004) A User's Guide to MLwiN Version 2.0. London:Institute of Education.
Rosenthal, R. (1991) Meta-analysis Procedures for Social Research. Newbury Park, CA:SAGE.
Sterling, T.D., Rosenbaum, W.L. and Weinkam, J.J. (1995) "Publication Decisions Revisited:The Effect of the Outcome of Statistical Tests on the Decision to Publish and Vice Versa," American Statistician 49(1):108-12.
Shukla, Rajesh (2005) India Science Report:Science education, human resources and public attitudes, Delhi, NCAER.
Sturgis, P.J. and Allum, N.C. (2000) "The Impact of Knowledge on Attitudes toward Biotechnology:Using Regression Models to Simulate a. Better-informed Public," Paper presented at the British Psychological Society (Social Psychology Section), Nottingham.
Sturgis, P.J. and Allum, N.C. (2001) "Gender Differences in Scientific Knowledge and Attitudes toward Science:Reply to Hayes and Tariq," Public Understanding of Science 10(4):427-30.
Sturgis, P.J. and Allum, N.C. (2004) "Science in Society:Re-evaluating the Deficit Model of Public Attitudes,"Public Understanding of Science 13(1):55-74.
Thornton, A. and Lee, P. (2000) "Publication Bias in Meta-analysis:Its Causes and Consequences," Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 53(2):207.
Turner CF & E Krauss (1978) Fallible indicators of the subjective state of the nation, American Psychologist, May,456-470.
UN (2003) Report on statistics of science and technology, UN Economic and Social Council, E/CN.3/2004/15
Welzel C (2006) Democratisation as an emancipative process:the neglected role of mass motivations,European Journal of Political Research 45:871-896,
Withey, S.B. (1959) "Public Opinion about Science and Scientists," Public Opinion Quarterly 23: 382-8.
Wolf, F.M. (1986) Meta-analysis:Quantitative Methods for Research Synthesis. Thousand Oaks, CA:SAGE.
Work Foundation (2007) Staying ahead:the economic performance of the UK's creative industries, London, Work Foundation [www.work.foundation/]
Wynne, B. (1996) "May the Sheep Safely Graze? A Reflexive View of the Expert-Lay Knowledge Divide," in S. Lash, B. Szerszynski and B. Wynne (eds) Risk, Environment and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology.pp.44-83. London:SAGE.
Wynne, B. (2001) "Expert Discourses of Risk and Ethics on Genetically Manipulated Organisms: the Weaving of Public Alienation," Politeia 17(62):51-76.54 Public Understanding of Science 17(1)
刘华杰.公民科学素养测试及其困难[J].科学技术哲学.2006-(4)：40-46；
刘兵,李正伟.公众理解科学的理论研究：约翰.杜兰特的“缺失模型”[J].科学对社会的影响.2003年
曹昱.公众理解科学理论发展研究：对约翰.杜兰特的“民主模型”的反思[J].科学技术与辩证法,2004-21(5)：85-89
郭传杰,褚建勋,汤书昆,李宪奇.公民科学素质：要义、测度与几点思考[J].科普研究,2008(4)
陈发俊,史玉民,徐飞.20世纪美国“公众理解科学”活动评述[J].中国科技论坛.2007(2)
李正伟,刘兵对英国有关”公众理解科学”的三份重要报告的简要考察与分析[J].自然辩证法研究.2003(05)
史玉民,韩芳.印度公民科学素养发展概况[J].科普研究.2008(02)10
马丁·W·鲍尔,尼克.阿勒姆,史蒂夫·米勒,胡俊平.我们能从25年的“公众理解科学”调查研究中学到什么?不断解放和拓展议程[J].科普研究.2009(06)10
张正伦主编.中国公众的科学技术素养[M].北京：中国科学技术出版社.1991.
国务院《全民科学素质行动计划纲要(2006-2010-2020年)》
潘苏东,褚慧玲.科学素养的基本内涵——三维模式[EB/OL]http://www. kexue-mag. com/artdetail. asp. name=795
刘兵,李正伟,布赖恩.温的公众理解科学理论研究：内省模型[J].科学学研究.2003-21(6)：581-585
美国科学促进会著,中国科学技术协会译.科学素养的基准[M].科学普及出版社,2001
美国科学促进会著,中国科学技术协会译.面向全体美国人的科学.科学普及出版社,2001
美国科学促进会著,中国科学技术协会译.科学素养的设计.科学普及出版社,2001
英国皇家学会著,唐英英译.公众理解科学.北京理工大学出版社.2004.
张仲梁.中国公众对科学技术的态度.中国科学技术出版社.1991.
[德]迪尔克斯格罗特主编田松等译.在理解与信赖之间：公众、科学与技术.北京理工大学出版社2006
Allum, N, Sturgis, P, Tabourazi, D and Brunton-Smith, I. (Forthcoming 2008). Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures:a meta-analysis. Public Understanding of Science.
Allum, N, D Boy & MW Bauer (2002). "European regions and the knowledge deficit model", in: Bauer MW & G Gaskell (eds) Biotechnology-the making of a global controversy. (Cambridge, CUP).
Bauer M (2000) Science in the media as a cultural indicator:contextualising surveys with media analysis, in:Dierkes M & C vonGrote (eds) Between understanding and trust:The public, Science and Technology, Amsterdam, Harwood Academic Publishers,157-178.
Bauer MW, N Allum & S Miller (2007) What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda, Public Understanding of Science,16,1,79-96.
Bauer M, J Durant and G Evans (1994). European public perceptions of science. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 6,163-186
Bauer, M (1993) Industrial and post-industrial public understanding of science, a model and some initialtests for systematic national variety in PUS, paper presented the the 1993 International Conference on The Public Understanding of Science and Technology, Chicago Academy of Sciences,24-27 October
Basu A & R Aggarwal (2006) India Science Literature in Science Citation Index:a report http://itt.nissat.tripod.com/itt0104/scirep.htm Berg M & K Bruland (ed) (1998) Technological revolutions in Europe. Historical perspectives, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.
Bishop, G. (2005) The Illusion of Public Opinion:Fact and Artifact in American Public Opinion Polls. Oxford:Rowman and Littlefield.
Bryk, A. and Raudenbusch, S. (1992) Hierarchical Linear Models:Applications and Data Analysis Methods.London:SAGE.
Butler D (2006) The data gap:statistics on science investment and performance are lacking across the Muslim world, Nature,444,2 Nov,26-27.
Chang BH & S M Chan-Olmstead (2005) Relative constancy of advertising spending, Gazette,67, 4,339-357.
Cohen, J. (1992) "A Power Primer," Psychological Bulletin 112:155-9.
Davis, R.C. (1958) "The Public Impact of Science in the Mass Media. A Report on a Nation-wide Survey for the National Association of Science Writers." Ann Arbor, University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research,
Desai M, S Fukuda-Parr, C Johansson and F Sagasti (2002) Measuring the technology achievement of nations and the capacity to participate in the network age, Journal of Human Development,3,1,95-122.
Durant J, M Bauer, C Midden, G Gaskell, and M Liakopoulos (2000) Two cultures of public understanding of science, in Dierkes M and C von Grote (eds) Between understanding and trust: the public, science and technology, (Reading, Harwood Academics Publisher),131-156.
Einsiedel, E. (2000) "Understanding'Publics'in the Public Understanding of Science," in M. Dierkes and C. von Grote (eds) Between Understanding and Trust:The Public, Science and Technology, pp.205-16. Amsterdam:Harwood.
EIS (2005) European Innovation Scoreboard, Brussels
FAPESP (2004) Science Indicators, Sao Paulo, [see chapter 12on public perceptions] [http://www.fapesp.br/english/materia.php?data[id_materia]=463
FAO (2003) Final report on an Indigenous people's initiative to establish cultural indicators for SARD, Rome,
FAO. [ftp://ftp.fao.org/SD/SDA/SDAR/sard/Cult_Indic_FAO_REPORT_FINAL..pdf]
Garg KC (2002) An overview of cross-national, national, and institutional assessment as reflected in the international journal Scientometrics, Scientometrics,56,2,169-199.
Gerbner (1969) Towards 'cultural indicators':the analysis of mass media mediated message systems, AV Communication Review,17,137-148.
Godin B & Y Gingras (2000) What is science and technological culture and how it is measured? A multidimensional model, Public Understanding of Science,9,43-58.
Godin B (2005) Measurement and Statistics on Science and Technology-1920 to the present, London, Routledge (vol 22 of series).
Grimston, M.C. (1994) "Public Opinion Surveys in the UK," Nuclear Europe Worldscan 14(7-8): 98.
Grove-White, R., Macnaghten, P. and Wynne, B. (2000) "Wising Up:the Public and New Technologies," Lancaster,Lancaster University, Centre for the Study of Environmental Change (CSEC).
Hayes, B.C. and Tariq, V.N. (2000) "Gender Differences in Scientific Knowledge and Attitudes toward Science:a Comparative Study of Four Anglo-American Nations," Public Understanding of Science 9(4):433-47.
Hayes, B.C. and Tariq, V.N. (2001) "Gender Differences in Scientific Knowledge and Attitudes toward Science:a Reply to a Reply," Public Understanding of Science 10(4):431-3.
Hox, J.J. (2002) Multilevel Analysis:Techniques and Applications. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.Inglehart, R. (1990) Culture Shift in Advanced Societies. Princeton:Princeton University Press.
Inonu E (2003) the influence of cultural factors on science production, Scientometrics,56,1, 137-146.
Inglehart A (1990) Culture shift in advanced industrial society, Princeton, NJ, PUP.
International Labour Organisation (2001) World Employment Report. Geneva:ILO.International Research Associates Europe (INRA) (1993) Europeans, Science and Technology:Public Understanding and Attitudes. Brussels.
Irwin, A. and Michael, M. (2003) Science, Social Theory and Public Knowledge. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Irwin, A. and Wynne, B. (1996) Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Klein LR and Ozmucur S (2002/2003). The Estimation of China's Economic Growth. Journal of Economic and Social Measurement,62 (8),187-202.
Klieme E & J Baumert (2001) Identifying national cultures of mathematics education:analysis of cognitive demands and differential item functioning in TIMSS, European Journal of Psychology of Education,16,4,385-402.
Klingemann, HD, PP Mohler & RP Weber (1982) Cultural indicators based on content analysis:a secondary analysis of Sorokin's data on fluctuations of systems of truth, Quality and Quantity, 16,1-18.
Lambert, P. and Abrams, K. (1995) "Meta-analysis Using Multilevel Models," Multilevel Modelling Newsletter 7(2):16-18.
Martin, S. and Tait, J. (1992) "Attitudes of Selected Public Groups in the U.K. to Biotechnology," in J. Durant (ed.) Biotechnology in Public:a Review of Recent Research, pp.28-41. London: Science Museum Publications.
McBeth, M.K. and Oakes, A.S. (1996) "Citizens'Perceptions of Risks Associated with Moving Radiological Waste,"Risk Analysis 16:421-7.
Melischek G, KE Rosengren & J Stoppers (eds) (1984) Cultural indicators:an international symposium, Vienna, Austrian Academy of Sciences.
Michael, M. (1996) "Ignoring Science:Discourses of Ignorance in the Public Understanding of Science," in A. Irwin and B. Wynne (eds) Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology,pp.107-25. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Michael, M. (2002) "Comprehension, Apprehension, Prehension:Heterogeneity and the Public Understanding of Science," Science, Technology & Human Values 27(3):357-8.
Miller, J.D. (1983) "Scientific Literacy:a Conceptual and Empirical Review," Daedalus 11: 29-48.
Miller, J.D. (1998) "The Measurement of Scientific Literacy," Public Understanding of Science 7: 203-23.
Miller, J.D. (2004) "Public Understanding of, and Attitudes toward, Scientific Research:What We Know and What We Need to Know," Public Understanding of Science 13(3):273-94.
Miller, J.D., Pardo, R. and Niwa, F. (1997) Public Perceptions of Science and Technology:a Comparative Study of the European Union, the United States, Japan and Canada. Bilbao: Fundacion BBV.
Nagar AL and Basu SR (2002) Weighting Socio-Economic Indicators of Human Development:A Latent Variable Apporach, in Ullah A et al. (eds) Handbook of Applied Econometrics and Statistical Inference. Marcel Dekker, New York.
NSF (2006) Science Indicators Report, Washington, NSF
OECD (1992) Technology and the economy. The key relationships, Paris, OECD
OECD (2004) S&T Statistical Compendium 2004, Paris, OECD.
Pardo, R. and Calvo, F. (2002) "Attitudes toward Science among the European Public:a Methodological Analysis,"Public Understanding of Science 11:155-95.
Pardo, R. and Calvo, F. (2004) "The Cognitive Dimensions of Public Perceptions of Science: Methodological Issues," Public Understanding of Science 13:203-27.
Peters, H.P. (2000) "From Information to Attitudes? Thoughts on the Relationship between Knowledge about Science and Technology and Attitudes toward Technology," in M. Dierkes and C. von Grote (eds) Between Understanding and Trust:The Public, Science and Technology, pp.265-86. Amsterdam:Harwood.
Polino C, ME Fazio & J Castelfranchi (2005) Surveys on the public perception of science in Ibero-American Countries, the RICYT's experience, paper presented AAAS meeting, Washington,17-21 Feb 2005.
Price DJ de Solla (1963) Little science, big science, New York, Columbia University Press.
Rasbash, J., Steele, F., Browne, W. and Prosser, B. (2004) A User's Guide to MLwiN Version 2.0. London:Institute of Education.
Rosenthal, R. (1991) Meta-analysis Procedures for Social Research. Newbury Park, CA:SAGE.
Sterling, T.D., Rosenbaum, W.L. and Weinkam, J.J. (1995) "Publication Decisions Revisited:The Effect of the Outcome of Statistical Tests on the Decision to Publish and Vice Versa," American Statistician 49(1):108-12.
Shukla, Rajesh (2005) India Science Report:Science education, human resources and public attitudes, Delhi, NCAER.
Sturgis, P.J. and Allum, N.C. (2000) "The Impact of Knowledge on Attitudes toward Biotechnology:Using Regression Models to Simulate a. Better-informed Public," Paper presented at the British Psychological Society (Social Psychology Section), Nottingham.
Sturgis, P.J. and Allum, N.C. (2001) "Gender Differences in Scientific Knowledge and Attitudes toward Science:Reply to Hayes and Tariq," Public Understanding of Science 10(4):427-30.
Sturgis, P.J. and Allum, N.C. (2004) "Science in Society:Re-evaluating the Deficit Model of Public Attitudes,"Public Understanding of Science 13(1):55-74.
Thornton, A. and Lee, P. (2000) "Publication Bias in Meta-analysis:Its Causes and Consequences," Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 53(2):207.
Turner CF & E Krauss (1978) Fallible indicators of the subjective state of the nation, American Psychologist, May,456-470.
UN (2003) Report on statistics of science and technology, UN Economic and Social Council, E/CN.3/2004/15
Welzel C (2006) Democratisation as an emancipative process:the neglected role of mass motivations,European Journal of Political Research 45:871-896,
Withey, S.B. (1959) "Public Opinion about Science and Scientists," Public Opinion Quarterly 23: 382-8.
Wolf, F.M. (1986) Meta-analysis:Quantitative Methods for Research Synthesis. Thousand Oaks, CA:SAGE.
Work Foundation (2007) Staying ahead:the economic performance of the UK's creative industries, London, Work Foundation [www.work.foundation/]
Wynne, B. (1996) "May the Sheep Safely Graze? A Reflexive View of the Expert-Lay Knowledge Divide," in S. Lash, B. Szerszynski and B. Wynne (eds) Risk, Environment and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology.pp.44-83. London:SAGE.
Wynne, B. (2001) "Expert Discourses of Risk and Ethics on Genetically Manipulated Organisms: the Weaving of Public Alienation," Politeia 17(62):51-76.54 Public Understanding of Science 17(1)