This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Michael, M. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Comprehension, Apprehension, Prehension: Heterogeneity and the Public Understanding of Science

Goldsmiths College, University of London

This article examines the main approaches to public understanding of science (PUS) in light of recent developments in social and cultural theory. While traditional and critical perspectives on PUS differ in terms of their models of the public, science, and understanding, they nevertheless share a number of commonalities, which are humanism (an emphasis on the pure person), incorporeality (a neglect of embodiment), and discrete sites (science and the public are presupposed as separate entities). These are contrasted, respectively, to versions of the person as hybridic, to treatments of embodiment drawing especially on Whitehead’s notion of prehension, and to a rhizomic view of science and public as interwoven. Throughout, it is stressed that the alternatives posed do not constitute an accusation of deficit on the part of traditional and critical PUS. Some research and political implications of interweaving these three perspectives are presented.

Science, Technology & Human Values, Vol. 27, No. 3, 357-378 (2002)
DOI: 10.1177/016224390202700302


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. Rock and P. Lail Could pets be of help in achieving health literacy? A media analysis demonstration study Health Educ. Res., February 1, 2009; 24(1): 153 - 161. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. R. Davies Constructing Communication: Talking to Scientists About Talking to the Public Science Communication, June 1, 2008; 29(4): 413 - 434. [Abstract] [PDF]

				U. Felt, M. Fochler, A. Mager, and P. Winkler Visions and versions of governing biomedicine: narratives on power structures, decision-making and public participation in the field of biomedical technology in the Austrian context. Social Studies of Science, April 1, 2008; 38(2): 233 - 257. [Abstract] [PDF]

				N. Allum, P. Sturgis, D. Tabourazi, and I. Brunton-Smith Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: a meta-analysis Public Understanding of Science, January 1, 2008; 17(1): 35 - 54. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L. Soneryd Deliberations on the Unknown, the Unsensed, and the Unsayable?: Public Protests and the Development of Third-Generation Mobile Phones in Sweden Science Technology Human Values, May 1, 2007; 32(3): 287 - 314. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. Horst Public Expectations of Gene Therapy: Scientific Futures and Their Performative Effects on Scientific Citizenship Science Technology Human Values, March 1, 2007; 32(2): 150 - 171. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. van Dijck After the "Two Cultures": Toward a "(Multi)cultural" Practice of Science Communication Science Communication, December 1, 2003; 25(2): 177 - 190. [Abstract] [PDF]