The Role of Research Process Presentations in Science Education

Perceptions of Credibility and Tentativeness in Research Findings

verfasst von: Julia Cathérine Thomas, Katharina Düsing, Vanessa van den Bogaert, Hannah Greving, Till Bruckermann, Anke Schumann, Miriam Brandt, Daniel Lewanzik, Christian Voigt, Joachim Kimmerle
Abstract: Laypeople often struggle to understand the provisional nature of scientific knowledge. While scientific knowledge may be widely accepted within the scientific community, it is continually subject to revision and further development as new studies are published. These characteristics of science, where findings build upon each other over time rather than being entirely replaced by new discoveries, are not always well understood by the public. This becomes particularly problematic when research process presentations that emphasize the evolving, provisional nature of scientific knowledge are perceived as less credible, reinforcing misconceptions about the integrity and nature of science. In two experimental online studies on science education (n1 = 99; n2 = 184), we examined how different representations of the scientific process affect perceptions of credibility and tentativeness using text- and video-based presentations in the context of bat ecology as an example. In both studies, we varied the presentation of scientific practices (without explanations vs. with explanations) and the portrayal of the scientist’s deliberations (canonized vs. authentic). Our findings indicate that, although scientific knowledge is perceived as provisional, the way it is communicated can influence its perceived credibility. In both studies, perceived tentativeness was negatively correlated with perceived credibility, highlighting a challenge in science communication: the need to convey the evolving nature of scientific knowledge without undermining trust in its reliability.
Organisationseinheit(en): Institut für Erziehungswissenschaft
Typ: Preprint
Publikationsdatum: 03.02.2025
Publikationsstatus: Elektronisch veröffentlicht (E-Pub)
Elektronische Version(en): https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5872938/v1 (Zugang: Offen)

BibTeX

@techreport{19a522ce029b4c80b11fed95b94fcbc8,
title = "The Role of Research Process Presentations in Science Education: Perceptions of Credibility and Tentativeness in Research Findings",
abstract = "Laypeople often struggle to understand the provisional nature of scientific knowledge. While scientific knowledge may be widely accepted within the scientific community, it is continually subject to revision and further development as new studies are published. These characteristics of science, where findings build upon each other over time rather than being entirely replaced by new discoveries, are not always well understood by the public. This becomes particularly problematic when research process presentations that emphasize the evolving, provisional nature of scientific knowledge are perceived as less credible, reinforcing misconceptions about the integrity and nature of science. In two experimental online studies on science education (n1 = 99; n2 = 184), we examined how different representations of the scientific process affect perceptions of credibility and tentativeness using text- and video-based presentations in the context of bat ecology as an example. In both studies, we varied the presentation of scientific practices (without explanations vs. with explanations) and the portrayal of the scientist{\textquoteright}s deliberations (canonized vs. authentic). Our findings indicate that, although scientific knowledge is perceived as provisional, the way it is communicated can influence its perceived credibility. In both studies, perceived tentativeness was negatively correlated with perceived credibility, highlighting a challenge in science communication: the need to convey the evolving nature of scientific knowledge without undermining trust in its reliability.",
author = "Thomas, {Julia Cath{\'e}rine} and Katharina D{\"u}sing and {van den Bogaert}, Vanessa and Hannah Greving and Till Bruckermann and Anke Schumann and Miriam Brandt and Daniel Lewanzik and Christian Voigt and Joachim Kimmerle",
year = "2025",
month = feb,
day = "3",
doi = "10.21203/rs.3.rs-5872938/v1",
language = "English",
type = "WorkingPaper",
}