↓ Skip to main content

Mismatches between ‘Scientific’ and ‘Non-Scientific’ Ways of Knowing and Their Contributions to Public Understanding of Science

Overview of attention for article published in Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, March 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#8 of 288)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
118 Mendeley
Title
Mismatches between ‘Scientific’ and ‘Non-Scientific’ Ways of Knowing and Their Contributions to Public Understanding of Science
Published in
Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, March 2011
DOI 10.1007/s12124-011-9157-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna Mikulak

Abstract

As differentiation within scientific disciplines increases, so does differentiation between the sciences and other ways of knowing. This distancing between 'scientific' and 'non-scientific' cultures reflects differences in what are considered valid and reliable approaches to acquiring knowledge and has played a major role in recent science-oriented controversies. Scientists' reluctance to actively engage in science communication, coupled with journalists' reliance on the norms of balance, conflict, and human interest in covering scientific issues, have combined to exacerbate public mistrust of science on issues like the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine. The failure of effective communications between scientists and non-scientists has hindered the progress of both effective science and effective policy. In order to better bridge the gap between the 'scientific' and 'non-scientific' cultures, renewed efforts must be made to encourage substantive public engagement, with the ultimate goal of facilitating an open, democratic policy-making process.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 118 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ireland 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Serbia 1 <1%
Unknown 111 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 22%
Student > Master 17 14%
Researcher 13 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Other 21 18%
Unknown 23 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 33 28%
Psychology 12 10%
Arts and Humanities 8 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Other 26 22%
Unknown 28 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 October 2021.
All research outputs
#1,396,252
of 23,975,976 outputs
Outputs from Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science
#8
of 288 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,439
of 111,758 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science
#1
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,975,976 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 288 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 111,758 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them