The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Public uptake of science: a case for institutional reflexivity
Abstract
This paper attempts to advance the notion of reflexivity as a key element of improving current understanding of the public understanding of science problem, and for improving the relations between science and its public more generally. By reflexivity here I mean more systematic processes of exploration of the prior commitments framing knowledge, in the way it has been introduced in sociological debates on modernity, rather than the more methodological-epistemological principle of consistency as it has been developed in sociology of science. The dominant framing of the public understanding of science issue corresponds with wider assumptions about the relationship between science and laypeople. Laypeople are assumed to be essentially defensive, risk- and uncertainty-averse, and unreflexive. Science on the other hand is assumed to be the epitome of reflexive self-criticism. This paper draws upon research in PUS to show that laypeople display considerable reflexive negotiation of their identity in relationships to science and scientific institutions. The latter, on the other hand, show considerable deep resistance to recognizing and reconsidering the unstated models of the public which structure their scientific discourses. This only makes the public understanding problem worse. Reflexive institutions would be needed to place science-public interactions on a more constructive footing.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Cognition in Practice: Mind, Mathematics and Culture in Everyday Life
Lave, J. (1988) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511609268 · Cited by 5,148
Misunderstood misunderstanding: social identities and public uptake of science
Wynne, B. (1992) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1088/0963-6625/1/3/004 · Cited by 1,675
Self-citationMixing Humans and Nonhumans Together: The Sociology of a Door-Closer
Johnson, J. (1988) · Social Problems · doi:10.2307/800624 · Cited by 892
Cited by
Developing a framework for responsible innovation
Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008 · Cited by 3,184
Wynne, B. (2006) · Public Health Genomics · doi:10.1159/000092659 · Cited by 972
Self-citationMachine learning, social learning and the governance of self-driving cars
Stilgoe, J. (2018) · Social Studies of Science · doi:10.1177/0306312717741687 · Cited by 375
Collingridge and the dilemma of control: Towards responsible and accountable innovation
Genus, A., & Stirling, A. (2018) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2017.09.012 · Cited by 301
Futures literacy and the diversity of the future
Mangnus, A. C., Oomen, J., Vervoort, J. M., & Hajer, M. A. (2021) · Futures · doi:10.1016/j.futures.2021.102793 · Cited by 181
Metadata
- Authors
- Wynne, B.
- Venue
- Public Understanding of Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1993-10
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 321-337
- ISSN
- 0963-6625 (ISSN-L)
- 1361-6609
- OpenAlex
- W2162718077
- Cited by
- 395
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 12.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Public uptake of science: a case for institutional reflexivity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1088/0963-6625/2/4/003
- The paper
- Wynne, B. (1993). Public uptake of science: a case for institutional reflexivity. Public Understanding of Science. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/2/4/003
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.