Journal cover Journal topic
Geoscience Communication An interactive open-access journal of the European Geosciences Union
Journal topic
Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2019-24
© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2019-24
© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

  21 Nov 2019

21 Nov 2019

Review status
A revised version of this preprint is currently under review for the journal GC.

The human side of geoscientists: comparing geoscientists' and non-geoscientists' cognitive and affective responses to geology

Anthea Lacchia1, Geertje Schuitema1,2, and Fergus McAuliffe1 Anthea Lacchia et al.
  • 1University College Dublin, iCRAG, Irish Centre for Research in Applied Geosciences, UCD School of Earth Sciences, Dublin, Ireland
  • 2UCD (University College Dublin) School of Business, Carysfort Avenue, Blackrock, Co. Dublin, Ireland

Abstract. Geoscientists and non-geoscientists often struggle to communicate with each other. In this paper we aim to understand how geoscientists and non-geoscientists perceive geological concepts and processes, that is, how they think (cognitive responses) and feel (affective responses) about them. To this effect, using a mixed-methods approach, we compare mental models – people's representation of a phenomenon – of the subsurface, mining/quarrying, drilling, and flooding between geoscientists (n = 24) and non-geoscientists (n = 38). We identify four dominant themes which underlie their mental models: (1) degree of knowledge and familiarity, (2) beliefs about human interactions, (3) affective beliefs, and (4) beliefs about perceived impact of the processes. While the mental models of non-geoscientists focus more on the perceived negative environmental and economic impacts of geoscience, those of geoscientists focus more on human interactions. We argue that mental models are the result of beliefs, including both cognitive and affective components, and that both need to be acknowledged for effective dialogue between the two groups to take place.

Anthea Lacchia et al.

Interactive discussion

Status: final response (author comments only)
Status: final response (author comments only)
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
[Login for Authors/Editors] [Subscribe to comment alert] Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement

Anthea Lacchia et al.

Anthea Lacchia et al.

Viewed

Total article views: 627 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total Supplement BibTeX EndNote
485 96 46 627 28 52 55
  • HTML: 485
  • PDF: 96
  • XML: 46
  • Total: 627
  • Supplement: 28
  • BibTeX: 52
  • EndNote: 55
Views and downloads (calculated since 21 Nov 2019)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 21 Nov 2019)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 538 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 532 with geography defined and 6 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 

Cited

Saved

No saved metrics found.

Discussed

No discussed metrics found.
Latest update: 03 Aug 2020
Publications Copernicus
Download
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...
Citation