Have library access?
IP:44.211.26.178
  • Journals

科學溝通時的語詞解讀分歧

Complexities of Rhetoric Interpretation in Science Communication

Abstracts


科技溝通的過程中,詮釋科學內容的差異是引發爭議的導火線。為了呈現個人理解科學議題的差異性,本研究以生物醫學教學場域為田野,由188場專題討論課,收集50則提問語句,並由生醫、社會、人文等28位不同知識背景的人分析其語意屬性,並且比較不同句型,以及資訊量對於判斷的影響。本研究設計了兩種語意分類框架:「問題內容與屬性框架」及「思維結構框架」。前者,以科學實作經驗為基礎,內容分成緣由性、基礎性、延伸性、質疑性與比較性問題等五大類,內含30細項。後者,區分出整體概念架構、數據評價、邏輯判斷及其他等四大類,含10細則。結果指出人的判斷大約有四成的共通性,但是也很容易改變自己的想法,天生的改變機率可能達到六成。而且共識是一種特定次群體的核心判斷,穩定度比較高,它與知識背景訓練以及個人判斷語句的傾向有關。綜合研究結論指出科技溝通的過程可以利用次群體共識可作為基礎,並且應精煉對話語句、以及辨識不同關係人所注重的知識面。

Parallel abstracts


The most common stumbling block in science communication is stakeholders' differing interpretations of scientific knowledge, which often leads to controversy. To describe the interpretation spectrum in science communication, we collected 50 questions raised by participants 188 seminars taught at a biomedical center in Taiwan on the theme of "medical science frontiers." Next, 28 people from different educational backgrounds, including life sciences, social science and humanities were recruited to classify those questions by their linguistic attributes. Two classification frameworks were used: (1) Question Content and Attribute Framework and (2) Thinking Structure Framework. Developed by the authors, the first one based on laboratory experiences consists of five categories: reasoning, essence, extensibility, justifiability and comparison. The second one emphasizes cognition and has four categories: overall conceptual architecture, data evaluation, logical judgment and "others." Consensus of participants' interpretations by group was roughly 40%. Interestingly, people changed their minds frequently over time. The difference between first and second interpretations on the same question set was higher than 60% in some cases. Subgroup consensus within each group was relatively stable and knowledge background- and personal tendency-dependent. Our results indicate that subgroup consensus-based dialogue in a focus group setting, language refinement and awareness of stakeholder interests may be useful in communication concerning controversial scientific issues.

References


李松濤(2017),〈 大學生對於科學研究資訊的閱讀表現探究:以網路科學新聞為例 〉。《中華傳播學刊 》32: 91-128。
黃台珠(2014),〈 黃台珠的調查 〉,見黃台珠主編,《2012 年臺灣公民科學素養概況 》。高雄:中山大學公民素養推動研究中心,頁53-74; 177-178。
楊倍昌(2016),〈 知識辯證的微觀動態:當代生物科學期刊如何接受一篇論文?〉。《科技、醫療與社會 》22: 109-158。
Collins, Harry and Trevor Pinch著,李尚仁譯( 2016),《 柯倫醫生吐真言:醫學爭議教我們的二三事 》( Dr. GOLEM: How to Think about Medicine)。臺北:左岸文化,頁257-316。
Collins, Harry著,劉怡維、秦先玉譯(2018),《 重力的幽靈:關於實驗室、觀測,以及統計數據在21 世紀的科學探險 》(Gravity’s Ghost: Scientific Discovery in the Twenty-first Century)。臺北:左岸文化。

Read-around