Image by Chris KP, based on photos by Ed Uthman and MollybobA couple of months ago ANU (the Australian National University) published a study examining attitudes of the Australian community to science. The study by Rod Lamberts, Will Grant and Aaron Martin, is based on interviews with 1,200 people and considers attitudes towards a wide range of issues and interests.

The media release excitedly claimed that Australians are more interested in science than sport and that they feel politicians do not pay enough heed to the nation’s scientists. And well they might be excited. These results support the belief held by many that there is more to being Australian than sport, beer and American TV, but of course there is. There is always more depth and breadth than that which is provided by a stereotype.

Now I’m as big a sucker for an insightful social study as the next person, but it is the details that I find truly engrossing. Hinted at and hidden within the data lie the subtleties and contradictions that together form the truth, in this case a truth that is perhaps always changing.

The study did ask for demographic information, such as gender, age, children in house (number and age), country of birth, education, religious beliefs (and behavior), vocation and income, but this was not included in the poll results that were released publicly. That seems a pity, because any understanding of someone’s opinion or beliefs is best understood in the context of the rest of their life. Certainly if we are to get any clue as to why someone holds the beliefs they do, we need to know “who they are”. Ideally this should include some information about their existing beliefs about, understanding of and experiences of – in this case - science.

Any effort to build a scientifically literate society must consider what attitudes and beliefs those being studied already have. Furthermore any effort to evaluate the impact of a given science engagement initiative needs to include information about those who were (hopefully) being engaged. That said, I understand the authors are hoping to have the study published in a peer-reviewed publication and I’m sure this will include far more detail.

Survey respondents were asked to rate the contribution of a range of professions to society. These included doctors, teachers, police, politicians, journalists, priests, lawyers and the military, as well as scientists, engineers, entertainers and artists. Unfortunately there was no scope in the survey to discuss what these terms mean, specifically what they mean to the respondent. Of course it’s perfectly understandable that there was no a discussion of these terms. It would take rather a lot of time, which might be an imposition on both respondent and researcher.

As someone who works in science education/communication and the performing arts, however I’m be interested in how respondents define terms such as “scientist”, “artist” and "entertainer". It’s not that there are correct or incorrect definitions for such terms, but what someone understands them to mean and what their experiences have been of those vocations will surely have an impact on how they value them. Does the respondent by chance work within the particular profession they are evaluating? When articulating their position on “artists” are they including dancers, sculptors, stencil artists, and comic strip producers? Does the descriptor “entertainer” include TV actors, stand-up comedians, radio hosts and buskers?

I was pleased to learn that the questions about the most important challenges facing Australia were completely open-ended, that is respondents could suggest anything they felt was a problem or a challenge. The resulting list includes a wide range of issues from industrial relations and global warming to taxation, education, and young people’s behaviour. The breadth of the list reflects the diversity of the Australian community. Coupled with the data about frequency of response, it gives a real sense of how people feel across the community, perhaps more than any other section of the poll. 

Social science carries the baggage of complex variables that are impossible to control completely. One challenge facing researchers is to recognise the impact of these variables on the interpretation of their data. Another is finding the balance between the burden that additional data can bring and the deeper insight it might provide. You don’t want to miss an opportunity to better understand the detail and basis of respondent’s responses.

The ANU poll is incisive and I recommend you check it out. It is designed for public consumption, so it is an easy read. It’d be great to see newspaper editors and TV producers take heed, but don’t hold your breath. You can find (and download) the survey results here.