Articles | Volume 3, issue 2
https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-3-291-2020
© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-3-291-2020
© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
The human side of geoscientists: comparing geoscientists' and non-geoscientists' cognitive and affective responses to geology
Anthea Lacchia
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
University College Dublin, iCRAG, Irish Centre for Research in Applied Geosciences, UCD School of Earth Sciences, Dublin, Ireland
Geertje Schuitema
University College Dublin, iCRAG, Irish Centre for Research in Applied Geosciences, UCD School of Earth Sciences, Dublin, Ireland
UCD (University College Dublin) School of Business, Carysfort Avenue, Blackrock, Co. Dublin, Ireland
Fergus McAuliffe
University College Dublin, iCRAG, Irish Centre for Research in Applied Geosciences, UCD School of Earth Sciences, Dublin, Ireland
Related authors
Anthea R. Lacchia and Stephen Webster
Geosci. Commun., 4, 129–145, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-4-129-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-4-129-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Ethical issues in science include research misconduct and the rightful treatment of people, animals, the environment and our planet. Based on interviews with 13 scientists, we identify a framework of virtues, and corresponding vices, in modern science. We employ the narrative structure of the late medieval poem The Divine Comedy, by Dante Alighieri, and draw on its moral universe to explore the scientific virtues and the role of virtue ethics in science.
Lucy Catherine Blennerhassett, Geertje Schuitema, and Fergus McAuliffe
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3753, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3753, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscience Communication (GC).
Short summary
Short summary
The need for critical raw materials to build green energy systems is not widely discussed between experts and the public, despite support for climate targets. This presents a clear gap in geoscience engagement. As such, we have developed a public engagement toolkit called ‘GreenDealz’ for use at informal settings like festivals which aims to tackle this gap. Refined through field testing, GreenDealz acts as an entertaining vehicle for conversation and has proven effective at enhancing knowledge.
Anthea R. Lacchia and Stephen Webster
Geosci. Commun., 4, 129–145, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-4-129-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-4-129-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Ethical issues in science include research misconduct and the rightful treatment of people, animals, the environment and our planet. Based on interviews with 13 scientists, we identify a framework of virtues, and corresponding vices, in modern science. We employ the narrative structure of the late medieval poem The Divine Comedy, by Dante Alighieri, and draw on its moral universe to explore the scientific virtues and the role of virtue ethics in science.
Cited articles
Barthel, R. and Seidl, R.: Interdisciplinary Collaboration between Natural
and Social Sciences – Status and Trends Exemplified in Groundwater
Research, PLoS ONE, 12, e0170754, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170754, 2017.
Barthes, R.: Mythologies, Lowe and Brydone, Norfolk, 1974.
Bickerstaff, K., Simmons, P., and Pidgeon, N.: Public perceptions of risk, science and governance: main findings of a qualitative study of six risk cases, Technical Report 06-03, Centre for Environmental Risk, Norwich, 2006.
Bostrom, A., Morgan, M. G., Fischhoff, B., and Read, D.: What do people know about global climate change? 1. Mental Models, Risk Anal., 14, 959–970, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00065.x., 1994.
Boudet, H., Clarke, C., Bugden, D., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., and
Leiserowitz, A.: “Fracking” controversy and communication: Using national survey data to understand public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing, Energ. Policy, 65, 57–67, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.017, 2014.
Boyatzis, R. E.: Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development, Sage, London, 1998.
Collins, H. M. and Evans, R.: The third wave of science studies: studies of
expertise and experience, Soc. Stud. Sci., 32, 235–296, 2002.
Cronin, S. J., Gaylord, D. R., Charley, D., Alloway, B. V., Wallez, S., and Esau, J. W.: Participatory methods of incorporating scientific with traditional knowledge for volcanic hazard management on Ambae Island, Vanuatu, B. Volcanol., 66, 652–668, 2004.
Curtis, A.: The science of subjectivity, Geology, 40, 95–96, https://doi.org/10.1130/focus012012.1, 2012.
Dahlstrom, M. F.: Using narratives and storytelling to communicate science
with nonexpert audiences, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 111, 13614–13620, 2014.
Davies, S. R. and Horst, M.: Deficit and Dialogue: Reframing Science
Communication Research and Practice, in: Science Communication, Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2016.
Devine-Wright, P.: Beyond NIMBYism: towards an integrated framework for
understanding public perceptions of wind energy, Wind Energy, 8, 125–139, 2005.
Dutt, K., Pfaff, D. L., Bernstein, A. F., Dillard, J. S., and, Block, C. J.:
Gender differences in recommendation letters for postdoctoral fellowships in
geoscience, Nat. Geosci., 9, 805–808, 2016.
Gibson, H., Stewart, I. S., Pahl, S., and Stokes, A.: A “mental models” approach to the communication of subsurface hydrology and hazards, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 1737–1749, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-1737-2016, 2016.
Goel, V.: Anatomy of deductive reasoning, Trends Cogn. Sci., 11, 435–441, 2007.
Gottfried, K. and Wilson, K. G.: Science as a social construct, Nature, 386, 545–547, 1997.
GSI (Geological Survey of Ireland): Review of Key Issues Around Social Acceptance of Geoscience Activities & Earth Resources in Ireland, research conducted by: SLR Consulting, GSI PROC 24/2015, 2016.
Hooks, T., Schuitema, G., and McDermott, F.: Risk Perceptions Toward Drinking
Water Quality Among Private Well Owners in Ireland: The Illusion of
Control, Risk Anal., 39, 1741–1754, https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13283, 2019.
Johnson, J. K. and Reynolds, S. J.: Concept sketches: Using student- and
instructor-generated annotated sketches for learning, teaching, and
assessment in geology courses, Journal of Geoscience Education, 53, 85–95, 2006.
Johnson-Laird, P. N.: Mental Models: towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1983.
Johnson-Laird, P. N.: Mental Models and human reasoning, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 107, 18243–18250, 2010.
Johnson-Laird, P. N.: Mental models and cognitive change, J. Cogn. Psychol., 25, 131–138 https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2012.759935, 2013.
Juang, C. S., Stanley, T. A., and Kirschbaum, D. B.: Using citizen science to
expand the global map of landslides: Introducing the Cooperative Open Online
Landslide Repository (COOLR), PLoS ONE, 14, e0218657, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0218657, 2019.
Libarkin, J., Beilfuss, M., and Kurdziel, J.: Research methodologies in
Science Education: mental models and cognition in education, Journal of Geoscience Education, 51, 121–126, 2003.
Loewenstein, G. F., Hsee, C. K., Weber, E. U., and Welsh, N.: Risk as feelings, Psychol. Bull., 127, 267–286, 2001.
Marincioni, F., Appiotti, F., Ferretti, M., Antinori, C., Melonaro, P.,
Pusceddu, A., and Oreficini-Rosi, R.: Perception and Communication of Seismic
Risk: the 6 April 2009 L'Aquila Earthquake Case Study, Earthq. Spectra, 28, 159–183, 2012.
Marshall, C. and Rossman, G. B.: Designing qualitative research, 3rd edn., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1999.
Mearns, K. and Flin, R.: Risk perception and attitudes to safety by personnel
in the offshore oil and gas industry: a review, J. Loss. Prevent. Proc., 8, 299–305, 1995.
Michael, M.: Lay discourses of science: science-in-general, science-in-particular, and self, Sci. Technol. Hum. Val., 17, 313–333, 1992.
Mitroff, I.: Norms and Counter-Norms in a Select Group of the Apollo Moon
Scientists: A Case Study of the Ambivalence of Scientists, Am. Sociol. Rev., 39, 579–595, 1974.
Nature (Editorial): The best research is produced when researchers and
communities work together, Nature, 562, 7, https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-06855-7, 2018.
Partridge, T., Thomas, M., Pidgeon, N., and Harthorn, B. H.: Disturbed Earth:
Conceptions of the Deep Underground in Shale Extraction Deliberations in the
US and UK, Environ. Value., 28, 641–663, 2019.
Peterson, R. A.: A meta-analysis of Cronbach's coefficient alpha, J. Consum. Res., 21, 381–391, 1994.
Pidgeon, N. and Fischhoff, B.: The role of social and decision sciences in
communicating uncertain climate risks, Nat. Clim. Change, 1, 35–41, 2011.
Richardson, V.: The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach, in:
Handbook of research on teacher education, edited by: Sikula, J., Macmillan, New York, 102–119, 1996.
Rodriguez-Sanchez, C., Schuitema, G., Claudy, M., and Sancho-Esper, F.: How
trust and emotions influence policy acceptance: The case of the Irish water
charges, Brit. J. Soc. Psychol., 57, 610–629, 2018.
Seigo, S. L., Arvai, J., Dohle, S., and Siegrist, M.: Predictors of risk and
benefit perception of carbon capture and storage (CCS) in regions with
different stages of development, Int. J. Greenh. Gas Con., 25, 23–32, 2014.
Sell, K. S., Herbert, B. E., Stuessy, C. L., and Schielack, J.: Supporting
Student Conceptual Model Development of Complex Earth Systems Through the
Use of Multiple Representations and Inquiry, Journal of Geoscience Education, 54, 396–407, 2006.
Shipton, Z. K., Roberts, J. J., Comrie, E. L., Kremer, Y., Lunn, R. J., and
Caine, J. S.: Fault Fictions: Systematic biases in the conceptualization of
fault zone architecture, Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 496, 125–143, https://doi.org/10.1144/SP496-2018-161, 2019.
Sjöberg, L.: Emotions and risk perception, Risk Manag., 9, 223–237, https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.rm.8250038, 2007.
Skarlatidou, A., Cheng, T., and Haklay, M.: What do lay people want to know
about the disposal of nuclear waste? A Mental Model Approach to the Design
and Development of an Online Risk Communication, Risk Anal., 32, 1496–1511, 2012.
Stewart, I.: Sustainable geoscience, Nat. Geosci., 9, 262, https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2678, 2016.
Stewart, I. and Lewis, D.: Communicating contested geoscience to the public:
Moving from “matters of fact” to “matters of concern”, Earth-Sci. Rev., 174, 122–133, 2017.
Thomas, M., Pidgeon, N., Whitmarsh, L., and Ballinger, R.: Mental models of
sea-level change: A mixed methods analysis on the Severn Estuary, UK, Global Environ. Chang., 33, 71–82, 2015.
Thomas, M., Pidgeon, N., Evensen, D., Partridge, T., Hasell, A., Enders, C.,
Herr Harthorn, B. H., and Bradshaw, M.: Public perceptions of hydraulic
fracturing for shale gas and oil in the United States and Canada, WIREs Clim.
Change, 8, e450, https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.450, 2017.
Titus, S. and Horsman, E.: Characterizing and Improving Spatial Visualization Skills, Journal of Geoscience Education, 57, 242–254, 2009.
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D.: Judgement under Uncertainty: Heuristics and
Biases, Science, 185, 1124–1131, 1974.
Vera, C.: Farmers transformed how we investigate climate, Nature, 562, 9,
https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-06856-6, 2018.
Visschers, V. H. M. and Siegrist, M.: Exploring the triangular relationship
between trust, affect, and risk perception: A review of the literature,
Risk Manag., 10, 156–167, https://doi.org/10.1057/rm.2008.1, 2008.
Visschers, V. H. M. and Siegrist, M.: Find the differences and the
similarities: Relating perceived benefits, perceived costs and protected
values to acceptance of five energy technologies, J. Environ. Psychol., 40, 117–130, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.05.007, 2014.
Vosniadou, S. and Brewer, W. F.: Mental models of the earth: A study of
conceptual change in childhood, Cognitive Psychol., 24, 535–585, 1992.
Wilsdon, J. and Willis, R.: See-through Science. Why public engagement needs to move upstream, Project Report, Demos, London, 2004.
Willig, C.: Grounded theory, in: Introducing qualitative research in psychology – adventures in theory and method, edited by: Willig, C., Open
University Press – McGraw Hill Education, Maidenhead, 34–51, 2008.
Wynne, B.: May the Sheep Safely Graze? A Reflexive View of the Expert-Lay
Knowledge Divide, in: Risk, Environment and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology, edited by: Lash, S., Szerszynski, B., and Wynne, B., Sage, London, 40, 44–83, 1996.
Zaunbrecher, B. S., Kluge, J., and Ziefle, M.: Exploring Mental Models of
Geothermal Energy among Laypeople in Germany as Hidden Drivers for Acceptance, Journal of Sustainable Development of Energy, Water and Environment Systems, 6, 446–463, 2018.
Short summary
Geoscientists can struggle to communicate with non-geoscientists, especially around contentious geoscience issues. We compare the thoughts and feelings of geoscientists and non-geoscientists around the subsurface, mining/quarrying, drilling and flooding. We find that geoscientists focus more on human interactions when thinking about these processes, while non-geoscientists focus more on economic and environmental impacts. Understanding these differences and similarities can help enable dialogue.
Geoscientists can struggle to communicate with non-geoscientists, especially around contentious...
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint