Cultural and societal influences on science literacy
On the previous page, we discussed how education relates to science literacy. Education is not the only important demographic to consider, however. In this section, we will compare how race and ethnicity impact science knowledge, recognizing the contributing factors that may impact the trends observed. Similarly, we will discuss the ways women and men differ in their level of scientific understanding and potential reasons for each. Lastly, the impact that media has on science information and conversation will be considered, an area highlighted in the survey from the Home + Background page.
Race and ethnicity, influences on science knowledge
Studies performed by the Pew Research Center show a race gap among science knowledge by white people, black people, and Hispanic people. Out of a series of 12 questions, the average person identifying as Black answered 5.9 questions correctly, while Hispanics averaged 7.1 correctly, and whites averaging 8.4 correctly (Anderson, 2015). Pew Research says that these results are consistent with previous surveys from the Center, as well as the General Social Survey (GSS) by the National Opinion Research Center (Anderson 2015). With a clear trend of disparities among the different racial and ethnic groups, a deeper understanding of the root of these causes must be considered.
Anderson shares a few potential reasons as to why certain groups, specifically Black people, and Hispanic people, tend to score lower on science- based questions than white people do. Educational attainment, or the difference in the amount of people who go to college within each racial/ ethnic group, may be responsible for such a trend (2015). Pew Research found that whites are more likely than black people or Hispanic people to earn a bachelor’s or higher- education degree (2015). Those who are not attending higher academic institutions have less educational opportunity to become informed on additional science- based topics. Similarly, Black and Hispanic groups are less likely to work in a STEM related field than white people are (Funk, et al., 2020). The misrepresentation of Black and Hispanic demographics in the STEM workforce is clear; 67% of the total American workforce was compromised of white people, but within STEM fields, whites account for 71% of workers (Funk, et al., 2020).
​
Figure 7. Percentage of groups who have high confidence in the leaders of the scientific community by race, ethnicity.
(Funk et al., 2020).
Access to science information may be another contributing factor, as marginalized and underrepresented groups are often lacking in the proper resources to educate themselves over such matters (Anderson, 2015). Language barriers and cultural dynamics are also potential contributing factors to low literacy rates, complicating the delivery of material and how it is percieved (Anderson, 2015).
Pew Research also found that Black and Hispanic groups tend to have less confidence in those of the scientific community than whites do (Funk et al., 2020). Similar to the original science knowledge survey, these results are consistent with GSS surveys overtime, as well as studies conducted by Eric Plutzer, a professor at Penn State (Funk et al., 2020). There has been historic mistrust in the science and medical community from marginalized groups, especially among Black people. Misrepresentation, mistreatment, and dishonesty from the professional side have likely left lasting impressions that still influence opinion today.
For more information on the historical and current disparities in science for the Black community, please visit this link to the American Bar Association.
Gender gaps in science knowledge
Pew Research finds that men tend to score better on science knowledge questions than women do (Funk & Goo, 2020). Out of the 12 questions asked to respondents, men average a score of 8.6 correct answers, while women tend to average a score of 7.3 correct answers (Funk & Good, 2020). Insight into the gender gap revealed education as a potentially determining factor of these results. Especially among the older-aged demographics, differences in education for women versus men have been considered as causes for the knowledge gap (Funk & Goo, 2020). Desired educational paths also differ among women and men. Funk and Goo share that government research reveals that women and men differ in their interest among science topics; for example, men tend to be more interested in the physical sciences than women (2020). These interests also influence the educational pursuits of individuals, which may further contribute to differences is science knowledge among particular segments.
Data from the United States Census Bureau provide an interesting statistic related to women in STEM fields. In 1970, only 8% of STEM workers were women, while in 2019, women accounted for 27% of the taskforce (Bureau USC, 2021). Simultaneously, 52% of United States workers are men, while also comprising 73% of all STEM workers (2021). Women, like other groups discussed previously, are underrepresented in STEM fields and jobs. It is important to make the connection that those who are applying science- knowledge in their everyday life would be more likely to retain that knowledge in the future.
Media's influence on science information and circulation
The survey from the Home + Background page regarding general attitudes towards science revealed that a majority of participants do not feel that the media is satisfactory in their circulation of science- based material. Paul Hiltin and Kenneth Olmstead at Pew Research Center analyzed Facebook posts from the top 30 most- followed science accounts, monitoring their posts for six months (2018). Hiltin and Olmstead confirm standardly accepted concepts; science accounts on Facebook have extremely high following (millions of followers) and gain their following in short- time frames (2018). 26% participants in a related survey say they follow a science- related account on social media, with 33% saying that social media is an important way that they receive their news (Hiltin & Olmstead, 2018). Further, 44% say they see information on social media that they would not have found in other places (2018). This data is visualized in Figure 7 below.
6,582 posts were analyzed from January to June of 2017, categorizing the topics of focus that are generally posted. These topics include new scientific findings, explanations, and "news you can use", a phrase used for information that readers can apply to their own lives. Of these posts, 29% related to new scientific discoveries or advancements, a positive utilization of media as it relates to science (Hiltin & Olmstead, 2018). However, some irrelevant posts were also observed. 16% of the posts were advertisements and promotions, while 7% were archived reposts, and 5% were simply unrelated to science (Hiltin & Olmstead, 2018). A full breakdown of the analyzed posts can be seen in Figure 9 to the right. Archived reposts create issues, as many users are seeing old information under the presumption that it is timely and relevant now. And with the accessibility of sharing this information easily and quickly on social media, this can have negative implications.
​
The study also found that many accounts were from individual users, not necessarily from credible science institutions like CDC, WHO, etc., (Hiltin & Olmstead, 2018). Researchers also found that engagement, or the level of interaction occurring from a particular post, is highest on posts with "visuals with little additional information" (Hiltin & Olmstead, 2018). Here, we are considering news from potentially unreliable sources with limited additional information provided. Some users may question the credibility of such posts and accounts, however, there is still a large portion of social media users who automatically assume this information to be factual.
Figure 8. Social media users' interactions with science in the media. (Hiltin & Olmstead, 2018).
Figure 9. Categorization of scientific posts from Facebook, 2017. (Hiltin & Olmstead, 2018).
​
We have just briefly covered science in the media, majorly focusing on how it pertains to Facebook. Other platforms may see similar trends if they were analyzed, however, it is difficult to find reliable information over such questions. Instagram, Twitter, TikTok, and other social media platforms likely all deal with unreliable information circulation, and not only under scientific contexts. It is also important to note that the media is not limited to social platforms, but also includes print media, television, radio, and more. These areas were not discussed under this circumstance, but likely provide further insight into the presentation of science in the media. The media's impacts on science information, and therefore, the ways in which its' consumer absorb that information, is an area for further research.