Research in Science Education, 19~, 22, 178 - 187

ADULT EXPERIENCES OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY IN EVERYDAY LIFE: SOME EDUCATIONAL IMPLICATIONS

Tim Hardy University of Canberra

ABSTRACT This paper outlines a project that is focussed on examining the complex ways in which adults experience science and technology in different areas of their everyday life including paid work, the home, health and leisure. The research has inw)ived interviews with individual adults situated in a diverse range of life situations in New Zealand. A case study is presented to indicate the type of data being analysed and the implications emerging for education from the project.

INTRODUCTION Research that has focussed on the levels of scientific knowledge of the public has typically resulted in wide media reportage and pronouncements about the serious nature of the levels of ignorance displayed. Maybe the best known project of this nature is that of Durant et al in the UK (1989), and there has been similar work led by Millar in the US (National Science Board, 1988). Surveys in Australia and New Zealand have demonstrated that much of the public has limited understanding and knowledge, and ambivalent attitudes to science and technology (Eckersley, 1988; Bums, 1990; Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce, 1991).

Much of the recent research on the relationship of the public to science and technology must be critically scrutinised, for there has been a tendency to rely on large scale surveys as the favoured methodology. More seriously, much of the research has made grossly simplified assumptions about the nature of science and technology, and has not considered how adults and children obtain scientific and technological knowledge and utilise it in everyday life. According to Birke(19~J), the public has been portrayed as "inevitably deficient".

It is reassuring that there is a growing critique of the simplified methodologies, assumptions and frameworks used in the past few years in much of this research. Some research currently being undertaken in England on science and the public includes projects that are breaking new ground, and these include some that are qualitative and small scale in nature. A useful overview o f this research has been provided by Ziman (1991), and he presents some stimulating insights into where this research is heading in terms of its challenge to earlier assumptions. He notes that

a simple "deficit" model, which tries to interpret the situation solely in terms of public ignorance or scientific illiteracy, does not provide an adequate analytical framework for many of the results of our research (p.lOl).

Researchers who are examining science and technology in adult; complex situations are at the beginnings Of a major advance in development of theoretical frameworks. These advances seem to parallel those of a decade or so ago when science educators began to explore what we have come to refer to as children's science.

179

THE FOCUS OF THE PROJECT Critiques of existing research and recent theoretical developments have informed the development of the research reported here. The project has been based on a number of assumptions, viz.

* technology permeates our lives to such an extent that we can talk of a "technological texture to life" (lhde, cited in Ferre (1988, p.9), or as Wenk (1986, p.6) suggests "we not only live with technology, we live technology";

* ambivalence, inconsistency and contradiction are a common feature of individuals' attitudes to science and technology;

* technology and science are not experienced as monolithic by individuals; attitudes to science and technology arc a very restricted aspect of the total experience of individuals in these realms;

* research should not adopt an uncritical understanding of science and technology otherwise there will be a tendency to demonstrate deficit public understandings;

* there is a need for exploratory research that captures some of the complexities of adult life experiences of science and tcchnology; and

* such research will help guide our understandings of science and technology, and will have implications for the education of adults and children.

The project commenced in 1!)91, and became known as the RETEL (Research into the Experience of Technology in Everyday Life) Project. While analysis of research data is still at a preliminary stage, it is possible to report the methodological approach utilised and some initial analysis in the form of a case study, and to draw out some implications for scicnce and technology education.

Aims The basic aim of the RETEL project is to investigate the knowledge, understandings, valuing, attitudes, feelings and skills of adults in their everyday experiences of technology and science. The project aims to explore the extent to which individuals define experiences as technological/scientific experiences; the extent to which they are aware of the pervasiveness of technology in their lives; the linkages between individual experiences of technology/science and how these linkages might relate to an individual's generalised conceptions of technology and science; and the implications of the findings for technology and science education.

As educators of science and technology we assume and hope that our endeavours will have a lasting impact on our students, not only in their careers, but more generally in thcir everyday lives. But we know very little about the long term outcomes. Further, as Jenkins (1990, p.49) notes, in developing the school science curriculum we confront a major problem because "so little is known about the needs of students and adults for scientific knowledge". And we know very little about the ways this knowledge is constructed and utilised in adults' everyday life. It is an important aim of this project to throw some light on these questions.

Method A diverse group of sixteen individuals is being selected for interviewing on the basis of preliminary information about their occupations, life situation, age, gender, ethnicity, social class. Equal numbers of males and females are being chosen. Eight individuals in

180

NewZealand have been interviewed during 199l and 1992; and the remainder will be chosen and interviewed in Australia,

An interview schedule is structured to collect background data on the subject; explore an individual's experiences in an aspect of housework, paid work/unemployment, health, and leisure or transport (with the particular aspect in each area nominated by the subject as having major significance for them); explore a subject's generalised conceptions of technology, science and their inter-relationship: ask subjects whether they perceive technology/science in each of the aspects of their everyday life previously discussed: and finally, allow free-ranging discussion of my perceptions of inconsistencies and uncertainties during the interview. As the interview proceeds, then, there is a gradual shift in my stance from that of a naive listener to a challenger of subjects' positions.

CENTRAL THEMES: A CASE STUDY

There are two major themes emerging from the interview data analysis: a. the contexts in which knowledge of technology and science is constructed and utilised in everyday life situations, and b. the subject's generalised conceptions of technology and science and how these relate to specific conceptions of these areas in particular everyday situations.

To share initial insights into these two aspects of the RETEL project, we turn to a case study of one subject, George Lane (a pseudonym), who is a 33 year old dairy farmer in the Waikato District of New Zealand. George grew up on a dairy farm, and completed high school and a diploma in architectural drafting (but has never practised). George has spent virtually all of his adult life in dairy farming, and the farm that he owns has 300 cows. He employs some labour, is married and has a baby daughter.

The Contexts of Everyday Knowledge of Technology and Science In the construction and use of everyday knowledge we can identify: key factors that constitute the context, motivations for seeking knowledge, sources of knowledge, and the breadth and depth of the knowledge constructed.

* Key factors that constitute the contcxt An overarching factor in the context in which George works is the economic one. He notes that

We're on touch and go. If this situation stays for say three years we'd be a marginal farm . . . . in the situation we are in, in the spring, I can make a decision that will consequently affect my season's production. It could very easily knock anything up to thirty/forty thousand dollars off my income.

George recounts "one of the hardest lessons that I've ever learned" when a decision he made about grazing his cows one year resulted in such a loss. He says people are not aware of this "management side" to farming and how mistakes cannot readily be rectified.

George's network of social relationships is a wide one, and it is crucial in providing him with many knowledge resources that relate to his farming activity, and this is discussed further below. One important aspec! of the social context identified by George is his

181

family: for example, the pregnancy of his wife and the recent birth of his daughter quite clearly have affected the way that he now treats his knowledge about poison sprays. This reminds us that contexts are dynamic: that as they change so will the need, and perceived need for knowledge change. Further, existing knowledge that has been constructed may well be reconceptualized.

* Motivations for seeking knowledge Economic aspects of the context both allow and demand of George to seek knowledge. His position in the economic structure as an owner-farmer gives him a significant level of control over his production activities, but for economic viability and success there are pressures. This is clearly why George says "I don't think you can ever stop learning" and that "you have got to be open to suggestions all the time because just the slightest little difference".

Another significant factor in George's motivation to seek knowledge about farming is his admitted fascination with technological innovation and artefacts-and this marked interest is not simply driven by economic concerns, as we will see later.

* Sources of knowledge One is struck by the great range of sources from which George seeks and obtains knowledge about his everyday practices on the farm. These sources include past farming experiences, his dairy farming brother (" the guru of growing grass"), a veterinary friend, dairy companies who provide d~tily production reports, a consultant from the Ministry of Agriculture (for whose advice he pays $4000 per annum), Field Days, conferences, open days, other farmers, the mass media and controlled experimentation on his farm. There is clearly great complexity in the ways which George will make sense of information and develop understandings from these sources which may well be conflicting.

* Breadth and depth of the knowledge constructed The breadth and depth of knowledge is a vital question for the individual in everyday life situations. In George's case there is obvious awareness on his part about many aspects of the ways he seeks out and selects knowledge. He comments:

1 feel myself that the way I operate here . . . . that ! shouldn't get too involved in any one aspect of it rather than have a basic knowledge of a lot of it. Because . . . the whole reason why 1 am here is that if I can't make a profit at the end of the day, 1 am not going to be here much longer. So what I'd like to do is to know as much as I need to know to be effective in that area . . . . But why the hell know more if I can get by with knowing that much and still do a good job? . . . . I think with the wide variety of things I have got to know . . .I've got to be a horticulturalist, I've got to be a veterinarian, I've got to be a mechanic and I've also got to be a businessman. Now if 1 try to do all four of those skills very well, I am not going to make the grade.

The complexity of the context in which he works clearly places demands on George that must limit the time he has to construct detailed knowledge in some areas. For example, George recounts his selection of knowledge from his veterinary friend:

182

he'll ... start talking about a reason for this happening. Now 1 will take the information I want from ... 1'11 let him talk�9 1'11 ask basic questions to find out, OK, how 1 can improve that and that but he'll tell me ... why it's happening and how it's happening and everything. I'll extract the information I need to rectify it and that's it. As far as the rest of it goes I don't want to know about it.

In referring to the ceritral activity of growing grass, George states that, it is not really necessary for him to know the details of the biochemistry involved�9 Further, he can depend on another's detailed knowledge:

what I go and look for is 1 want to grow a plant, that nice, beautiful, healthy plant �9 Now 1 basically know how to do it as far as what I put on that to make that grow like that. Now I don't know the chemistry attached to growing that .... I suppose I should know ... but to mc 1 don't think 1 should know . . . . Well, 1 should know in the sense that it could be valuable and if it doesn't grow I could then do it myself, i suppose 1 am lucky i've got a guy who's had forty years of experience of growing grass�9 Now I've got his information 1 can tap into.

Here we see a distinction being made between different types of knowledge: it is not simply a case of knowing more or less. George is content with "knowing how" and is not as concerned with "knowing why", but does rccognise its potential value.

Gencralised Conceptions of Technology and Science We now examine general conceptions of and feelings about technology and science held by George and their links to his everyday experience in specific situations.

Technology in general is seen in a very positive light by George. He thinks that:

It's exciting ... 1 think it is good in the sense that it is an advancement. Continually advancing which 1 think is necessary . . . . To mc technology is like the science of trying to make everything bcltcr.

His enthusiasm is buoyed up by frequent visits to places t h a t involve technological innovation and he is intrigued by the inventiveness involved in technology:

! love going to places and finding out new little bits and pieces, how people have thought out different ways of doing things differcnt . . . . like field d a y s . . , in the back of my mind when i sec something like that, 1 think well, some brainy bugger's done that, Now someone's sat down and thought that out. How clever he must bc . . . .

He is also motivated to be interested because of the potential innovations have for his life. But it is interesting to note that when asked "How much technology do you think you use in your life?" hc did not immediately recognise its pervasiveness:

1 suppose wc use a fair bit. Like bits and pieces. Like ycah, ! suppose w e d o . . . like I'm forever trying . . . we're forever trying different things to improve other things, you know what ! mean? Like using the technology available to improve what we've already got. 1 think yeah, no, we use it a bit, yeah.

183

The initial comments made by George concerning science are stereotypical ones, and their negativity contrasts sharply with his general valuing of technology. He speaks of " a whole lot of mad scientists. . .Like people looking down test tubes and figuring things out." He sees them as very narrow, preoccupied with little facts and experiments. But on reflection he has a somewhat more positive image of science recognising that scientists have "developed new products for the dairy industry".

As has been found for some other project subjects, science is identified by George with one of the sciences:

when you say science I think of chemistry. That's the first thing I think of and then I think, "Oh no, you have got your physics and your biology so" and that type of thing. But that's the first thing. As soon as you say science, I think of chemistry.

His negative feelings about science, it appears, are largely an outcome of school science: George notes that he "hated it as a subject at school and that's stayed ..." These negative conceptions and feelings about science are continuing to have important impacts on George's behavior and his openness to scientific knowledge. He.comments on field day visits:

You can go down and look at soil samples and that type of thing. [But] I'll walk straight past that. OK. That's one thing that 1 should look at because it is directly in relation to [my farm]. I fecl that the information they are going to give me is above what I can understand. That would be my biggest fear . . . . 1 wouldn't want to go along there and get something thrown at mc and then walk away and sort of think that I couldn't understand.

And this fear emerged in school science, for as George notes "as far as the chemical side and that type of thing, no, I just couldn't understand it".

Everyday knowledge and generaliscd conceptions of technology and science We have only begun to explore the relationships that exist between generalised conceptions of technology and science and particular knowledge that has been constructed in specific, concrete situations. But for George we can provide some glimpses of the complex emerging picture.

George recognises that he is dependent on technology "for the improvement of our operations. I think it's all very important for everything you do . . . . " Given what we have seen are George's quite restricted conceptions of science, it is not surprising that he is less certain about the relation of science to his everyday operations.

I think I should ... [when it's] all said and done I use it a lot more than I actually give credit for it. Like I'll use the science of chemicals to try and grow grass, I also use the biological side of it to make my cows health very good. Which are two very important things on my farm and yet I don't like to get involved in it.

Very significantly George has some very fixed notions of where science and where technology is located in his farm life. These emerge from his deeply held distinction between these areas. For instance, George was insistent that fertilisers are not technology but science, because fertilisers evoke ideas about "pHs, nitrogens" and this is chemistry, a central aspect of science. We might consider that in growing grass there is

184

a great deal of technology, but again this is not George's conception. He emphasises that it is "more as science of growing grass"

A most interesting set of distinctions is made by George while explaining the workings of his motorbike. He sees the technology in the motorbike as "just the mechanics of it, just the workings of it . . . . To me science is in the combustion part of it, then everything else around it is technology." Combustion involves two products being mixed to create an explosion and "to me that's science". Braking for George is clearly technology because it involves mechanics. Such distinctions might surprise us, but there is much consistency in George's position that tends to equate anything to do with chemistry (and biology) with science, and physics with technology. School science appears to have left its impact.

Behaviors, Contexts and Everyday Knowledge From the analysis of data, it is possible to develop a typology that helps us understand how patterns of behaviors, contexts and everyday knowledge are interrelated, and these typologies draw together threads of the previous analysis. In particular the typology helps us understand how knowledge comes to be utilised. Four types have been identified for George, and these can be referred to in terms of his behavior which is marked by Constraint, Experimentation, Uncertainty, and Ambivalence.

* Constraint In this type a major element of constraint comes from the context; not only will knowledge be constructed within significant contextual constraints, but constructed knowledge cannot bc utilised in the way most desired by the individual.

Part of his legal context is governmental regulation of weed growth: if George does not control noxious weeds he is liable to prosecution. George complies by using weed sprays, but he is far from happy about this because he has knowledge of the sprays' constituents and the possibility "they could make you sterile or that type of thing". Recent changes in his family situation have altered the context in which spraying occurs and have increased his sensitivity to what is happening. His wife has had a baby: as a result George has been "enlightened to those type of things that are happening. And it scares me". Clearly we can see tensions between the context, George's behavior and his existing knowledge.

* Experimentation Experimentation occurs his relatively free economic context and involves active use of existing knowledge and a seeking for additional knowledge. For George, economic factors do loom large. George's ownership of the farm allows him to experiment, but the economic context also prompt these attempts to lift productivity.

In one instance, George has knowledge about overseas practices in dairy farming and is convinced that there may be merit in these for him. Openness to new ideas is an approach that George claims for himself, and this is evidenced by his willingness to give a radically new approach a trial. He has reduced his cow numbers "which some people say is crazy ". As a result of the experiment he has increased production while saving costs in a number of areas. Through experimentation he has constructed knowledge that the new approach ~'works", and in this case there is a congruity between knowledge, context, ~and behavior.

185

* Uncertainty Behavior marked by uncertainty occurs when the effects of a technological artefact are not considered to be known with confidence, but typically factors in the context support the continuing use of the artefact. A nice case of such a context revolves around George's relationship to the home microwave oven.

Five years ago when he began to use the microwave he reports that "I wasn't too sure about it" having been warned he was "just nuking food". In spite of this comment he persisted with its usage, values it highly for its convenience, and admits he has become dependent on this artefact. Indeed the arrival of the baby in the family has made him learn more about it "because we're trying to get food faster an d quicker". However, many uncertainties linger, and he says that he is sometimes "a bit nervous about it . . . because you might put your hand in there and you will feel the xfaves whistling around". When George is asked about his understandings of the science involved in the microwave oven he is unsure, stating that he does not fully "understand the principles of how it actually does it". But according to George this ignorance does not matter, because he can rely on the knowledge of a mechanical engineer friend who he regards as "a health freak" and goes into "things too deeply". His friend "loves" his microwave, so it must not be dangerous. Questions arise as to whether George might be more certain about the use of the microwave oven if he too had constructed understandings for himself more "deeply".

* Ambivalence. An ambivalent context is one where technology has insinuated itself - but also been chosen - in an individual's life, and where the individual has both conceptions and feelings about the technology which are unstable

Before he purchased a motorbike four years ago, George happily "used to walk everywhere" over his farm. George now values highly the motorbike for reducing work time. But he is now dependent on it and this dependency "gets worse". It has got to the point where when "you know it is there you tend to get on it and do these things before you actually stop and think ..." Then its usage is often seen by George as uneconomic. We can see here then that a technological artefact purchased to increase productivity has had unforseen consequences which are known and are viewed negatively. But in spite of his knowledge this technology is not within the total control of George: as he says"[the I more you use it the more and more you just tend to do those things,'. In this complex of relationships between context, knowledge and behaviors, interesting questions are prompted about "rational" behavior and the relative influence of knowledge about technology on that behavior.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR E D U C A T I O N

It is not possible from this single case study of a male dairy farmer to draw generalisable conclusions, but it is possible to point to an emerging framework of concepts and questions which can be used to analyse everyday experiences of science and technology. We can also begin to see how these might impinge on our work in education. While some of the ideas and implications may not be new ones for science educators, they may well reinforce principles of effective teaching and learning that have been advocated from different starting points. The following appear to be significant findings arising in the study reported here:

186

* Everyday technological and scientific knowledge is constructed by individuals in dynamic contexts, economic and social elements being critical elements.

* Individuals have multiple sources from which to construct technological and scientific knowledge and there is a real potential for conflict in this knowledge that will require evaluation and some form of resolution by the individual.

* The breadth and_ depth of scientific/technological knowledge of the individual is influenced by the context in which the knowledge is constructed and to be utilised. Many factors influence the individual's motivations to seek and select knowledge.

* Individuals' generalised conceptions of technology and science include distinctions that affect their everyday life.

* Experiences of school science can have a lasting impact on adult conceptions and feelings associated with science and technology.

* It is likely that the relationship between generalised conceptions of technology and science and their recognition in everyday activities is highly complex and varied.

* There is a complex interaction between everyday knowledge of technology and science, contexts and individual behaviors. For the individual the inter-relationships are frequently shifting.

I suggest that such findings support education in science and technology that:

emphasises the changing social, economic, political contexts in which they occur; assists students to distinguish, but also to relate, science and technology; relates science and technology to the everyday lives of students in a critical and reflective manner; assists students to evaluate the worth of knowledge of different kinds and from different sources; recognises that feelings, values and constraints of a context will always affect the student's and adult's construction of knowledge and that this is not necessarily irrational; and* is concerned with developing self-esteem for all students in science and technology.

It is obvious from the interviews completed that there are also implications for the education of adults. I have been struck by the marked interest shown by the subjects in the project: a number wanted to prolong the lengthy interviews. It appears that the interviews allow subjects to explore their ambivalence, uncertainty, and constraint in their experiencies of technology and science. This suggests that maybe we should give consideration to the provision of educational forums in which adults could work through these experiences . This might then help adults develop more effective control over their scientifically and technologically textured lives.

Acknowled~,ements

My thanks to 'George Lane' and other New Zealanders for being willing to be interviewed at length. I wish to acknowledge the assistance and support for the project of members of the Centre for Science and Mathematics Education Research at the University of Waikato during a period of study leave in 1991. I also acknowledge the support of a research grant from the Faculty of Education, University of Canberra.

187

REFERENCES

Birkc, L. (1990). Selling science to the public. New Scientist, 127 (1730), 40-44. Burns, J. (1090). Public attitudes towards and understanding of science and technology

in New Zealand: Implications relating to women. Report to the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology. Wellington.

Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce. (1991). An evaluation of the attitudes of Australians to science and technology. Conducted for the Science and Technology Awareness Programme, DITAC.

Durant, J. R., Evans, G.A. and Thomas, G.P. (1989). The public understanding of science. Nature, 340, 11 - 14.

Eckersley, R. (1988). Australian attitudes to science and technology and the future. A report for the Commission for the Future. Canberra: A.G.P.S.

Fcrre, F. (1988). Philosophy of technology. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Jenkins, E. (1990). Scientific lilcracy and school science education. School Scienc~ Revicw, 71(256), 43-51.

National Science Board, (1988). Science and cngincering indicators - 1987. Washington, D.C.: Governmcnt Printing Office.

Wenk, E. Jr. (1986). Trade0t'fs: lmpcrativcs of choice in a high-technology world. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

Ziman, J. (1991). Public understanding of scicncc. Science, technology and human valucs, 16(I ), 99-105.

ALITHOR

DR. TIM HARDY, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Education, University of Canberra, P.O. Box 1, Belconnen, ACT 2616. Specializations: science teacher education, science curriculum dcvclopment, science and technology in society.