DIE Zeitschrift für Erwachsenenbildung

The author diagnoses a widening gap between scientific and general public: as political and social estimation of science rises, it vanishes from daily life and is taken into well-funded but not ver y well-known institutions and thus hidden from the view of the public. At the same time, ever-rising numbers of people are confronted with the results of scientific research in their daily lives and thus in a way in intimate contact with science, but at the same time unable to understand its workings, which produces insecurity. Thirdly, while to a naive view science is perceived to be the solution of all problems, an increase in information about science leads to a more realistic, which in this respect means less optimistical, view of its power. Thus, while on the one hand science plays an increasingly important role, the general public is surprisingly indifferent. The author argues in favour of a new culture of scientific education, distinguishing between a mere „diffusion of science” and the anchoring of scientific discussion in the public: the latter requiring more effor t than just the presenting of information, but promising to take science back into the public realm and thus socialising it.

The author discusses the way in which scientific knowledge and results of research are made public. He questions Gordon Shepherd’s assertion that scientists themselves are best qualified for a transmission of their results to the interested public, and rather makes a case for the expert as a mediator. In order to do so, he identifies the characteristics of science versus expertise, and defines the expert as one who, in addition to the knowledge required, also possesses communicative skill, discernment and loyalty towards her or his „clients”. In order to facilitate the communication between science and the public, he argues in favour of scientists taking over the role of experts.

Mathematics, natural science and engineering are not among the most favourite learning objectives of either pupils or adults. While they do enjoy a high esteem, they are also perceived as difficult. The authors discuss why this should be so, and give a summary over participation statistics of Volkshochschulen in the past decades, where courses in mathematics, science or technical matters have been on the decline for some time. Against this background, they present aims and methods of their project „Wissenschaft für Erwachsene – Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Förderung mathematisch-naturwissenschaftlicher Grundbildung durch Erwachsenenbildung” („Science for Adults – chances and limitations of the furthering of mathematical-scientific basic education through adult education”).

In modern society, the production of knowledge is multiplied and taken from the universities who were traditionally dedicated to this task, into the general public. The role of institutions of secondary education changes from diffusing to producing knowledge; teachers representing, in this context, the once-universal authority of science. Against this background, the authors present their DFGfunded project „Wissensgesellschaft. Umgang mit Wissen im Kontext sozialer Welten vor dem Hintergrund der universellen Institutionalisierung des Pädagogischen” („Knowledge Society. Dealing with knowledge in societal contexts in times of a universal institutionalisation of pedagogy”).

Contrary to communications scientist Kepplinger’s thesis that public opinion can be significantly influenced by journalism, the author maintains that this influence is not very substantial. Scientific journalism is shown to be relevant in three different ways: the information it conveys may simply be useful, or it may constitute a relevant aspect of our culture, or it may play its par t in decisionmaking. Finally, the author sums up the tasks and gives characteristics of good scientific journalism.