科學溝通時的語詞解讀分歧

Complexities of Rhetoric Interpretation in Science Communication

10.6464/TJSSTM.202104_(32).0004

李一平(Yi-Ping LEE)；楊倍昌(Bei-Chang YANG)

科學溝通 ； 提問語句 ； 語言屬性 ； 次群體共識 ； science communication ； question statements ； language attributes ； subgroup consensus

科技醫療與社會

32期（2021 / 04 / 01）

187 - 232

繁體中文

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。

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.

1. 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。
   連結：
2. 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。
   連結：
3. Aguarón, Juan,Escobar, Maria T.,Moreno-Jiménez, Jose M.(2003).Consistency Stability Intervals for a Judgement in AHP Decision Support Systems.European Journal of Operational Research,145(2),382-393.
4. Alexander, Patricia A.,The Disciplined Reading and Learning Research Laboratory(2012).Reading into the Future: Competence for the 21st Century.Educational Psychologist,47,259-280.
5. Bächtold, Manuel(2013).What Do Students “Construct” According to Constructivism in Science Education?.Research in Science Education,43,2477-2496.
6. Bruine de Bruin, Wändi,Parker, Andrew M.,Fischhoff, Baruch(2007).Individual Differences in Adult Decision-Making Competence.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,92(5),938-956.
7. Buratti, Sandra,Martin, Allwood Carl(2019).The Effect of Knowledge and Ignorance Assessments on Perceived Risk.Journal of Risk Research,22(6),735-748.
8. Clore, Gerald L.,Huntsinger, Jeffrey R.(2007).How Emotions Inform Judgment and Regulate Thought.Trends in Cognitive Sciences,11(9),393-399.
9. Collins, Harry,Pinch, Trevor,李尚仁（譯）(2016).柯倫醫生吐真言：醫學爭議教我們的二三事.臺北:左岸文化.
10. Collins, Harry,劉怡維（譯）,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.臺北:左岸文化.
11. Davies, Sarah R.(2008).Constructing Communication: Talking to Scientists about Talking to the Public.Science Communication,29(4),413-434.
12. Dietrich, Cindy (2010). Decision Making: Factors that Influence Decision Making, Heuristics Used and Decision Outcomes. http://www.studentpulse.com/a?id=180 (Retrieved: June 10, 2019).
13. Falk, Hedda,Yarden, Anat(2009).Here the Scientists Explain What I Said: Coordination Practices Elicited during the Enactment of the Results and Discussion Sections of Adapted Primary Literature.Research in Science Education,39,349-383.
14. Gilbert, Daniel T.,Ebert, Jane E.J.(2002).Decisions and Revisions: The Affective Forecasting of Changeable Outcomes.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,82(4),503-514.
15. Johnson, David W.,Johnson, Roger T.(2014).Cooperative Learning in 21st Century.Annals de Psicología,30(3),841-851.
16. Juliusson, Ásgeir,Karlsson, Niklas,Gärling, Tommy(2005).Weighing the Past and the Future in Decision Making.European Journal of Cognitive Psychology,17(4),561-575.
17. Klein, Katherine J.(1999).The Relationship between Level of Academic Education and Reversible and Irreversible Processes of Probability Decision-Making.Higher Education,37(4),323-339.
18. Knorr-Cetina, Karin(1981).The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science.Oxford:Pergamon Press.
19. Komarraju, Meera,Karau, Steven J.,Schmeck, Ronald R.,Avdic, Alen(2011).The Big Five Personality Traits, Learning Styles and Academic Achievement.Personality and Individual Differences,51(4),472-477.
20. Latour, Bruno,Woolgar, Steve(1979).Laboratory Life. The Construction of Scientific Facts.Princeton:Princeton University Press.
21. Liu, Xiufeng(2009).Beyond Science Literacy: Science and the Public.International Journal of Environmental and Science Education,4(3),301-311.
22. Marsh, David M.,Hanlon, Teresa J.(2007).Seeing What We Want to See: Confirmation Biases in Animal Behavior Research.Ethology,113(11),1089-1098.
23. Nestler, Steffen,Collani, von Gernot(2008).Hindsight Bias, Conjunctive Explanations and Causal Attribution.Social Cognition,26(4),482-493.
24. Nisbet, Matthew C.,Scheufele, Dietram A.(2009).What’s Next for Science Communication? Promising Directions and Lingering Distractions.American Journal of Botany,96(10),1767-1778.
25. Pinker, Steven(1994).The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language.New York:William Morrow.
26. Richard, Philippe,Vanderhaegen, Frédéric,Benard, Vincent,Caulier, Patrice(2013).Human Stability: Toward Multi-level Control of Human Behavior.IFAC Proceedings,46(15),513-519.
27. Ricoeur, Paul,Czerny, Robert(Trans.)(1975).Rule of Metaphor.Toronto:University of Toronto Press.
28. Simis, Molly J.,Madden, Haley,Cacciatore, Michael A.,Yeo, Sara K.(2016).The Lure of Rationality: Why Does the Deficit Model Persist in Science Communication?.Public Understanding of Science,25(4),400-414.
29. Stanovich, Keith E.,West, Richard F.(2008).On the Relative Independence of Thinking Biases and Cognitive Ability.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,94(4),672-695.
30. Yeo, Sara K.,Xenos, Michael A.,Brossard, Dominique,Scheufele, Dietram A.(2015).Selecting Our Own Science: How Communication Contexts and Individual Traits Shape Information Seeking.The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,658,172-191.
31. Yore, Larry D.,Treagust, David F.(2006).Current Realities and Future Possibilities: Language and Science Literacy—Empowering Research and Informing Instruction.International Journal of Science Education,28,291-314.
32. 黃台珠（編）(2014).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.