American Journal of Sociology

2100

American Journal of Sociology


No.6 (2), May 2017 VOLUME 122

2017

American Journal of Sociology, No.6 (2), (May). Volume 122. The University of Chicago Press, 2017. - Pages 2100-2385. Proceedings of the Journal are located in the Databases Scopus and Web of Science. Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP): 3.793 SCImago Journal Rank (SJR): 5.175 InCites-JCR ranking: #7 out of 142 in Sociology Impact factor: 2.574 2015 Journal Citation Reports®, Thomson Reuters EDITOR Andrew Abbott ASSOCIATE EDITORS Cheol-Sung Lee Jane McCamant Alicia Riley Xi Song Jenny Trinitapoli BOOK REVIEW EDITOR Forrest Stuart ASSOCIATE EDITORS, BOOK REVIEW Wan-Zi Lu Melissa Osborne Sarah Outland Allison Reed Lucas Wehrwein Jaclyn Wong MANAGING EDITOR Susan Allan EDITORIAL ASSOCIATES Sharon Brinkman Sandy Melnyczenko CONSULTING EDITORS Kendra Bischoff Matt Desmond Marc Dixon Martin Hällsten Jennifer Hook Ho-Fung Hung Robert Jansen Christal Kesler Marissa King Clemens Kroneberg Ko Kuwabara

Karyn Lacy Hannah Landecker Do-Hoon Lee Kevin Lewis Chaeyoon Lim Andrew Papachristos Simone Polillo Dylan Riley Anthony Spires Iddo Tavory Balazs Vedres Janet Vertesi Lori Yue Hui Zheng DESIRE JM ANASTASIA AND STUART HENRY,* SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY, SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, USA A SOCIOLOGICALLY INFORMED ETHICS OF AMERICAN SCIENCE LITERACY: TOWARD A TRANSDISCIPLINARY UNDERSTANDING

Kathleen A. Cagney Karin Knorr Cetina Terry N. Clark Elisabeth S. Clemens James Evans Marco Garrido Andreas Glaeser Kimberly Hoang Hans Joas Edward O. Laumann John Levi Martin Omar McRoberts Kristen Schilt Ross M. Stolzenberg Linda Waite Kazuo Yamaguchi Dingxin Zhao

ISSN: 0002-9602

© The University of Chicago Press, 2017

E-ISSN: 1537-5390

© The University of Chicago, 2017

2104


CONTENTS Desire J.M. Anastasia, Stuart Henry A Sociologically Informed Ethics of American Science Literacy: Toward a Transdisciplinary Understanding........................................................................................2106 Alison Marganski, Kelly Fauth Hooking up in the Twenty-First Century.............................................................................................2128 Kostas Rontos, Luca Salvati, Ioannis Vavouras Socioeconomic and Political Dimensions of Development Worldwide.............................................2146 Hisham H. Abdelbaki Assessment the Impact of Zakat on Aggregate Consumption and Poverty: Evidence from Egypt.......................................................................................................2167 Venelin Terziev, Ekaterina Arabska Deinstitutionalisation of children as part of the development of social services in Bulgaria...........2191 Gulchehra Rakhimova Environmental problems of industrial Andijan..................................................................................2211 Igor Snegirev The concept of nonlinear development of social systems in the context of the theory of self-organization .............................................................................................................................2218 I.A. Polyakova, E.P. Simonova Lexical explication of the concept of «Homeland» in the Russian national picture of the world in the system of value representations of social groups (linguistic and cognitive approach)......................................................................................................2228 Vladimir Harutyunyan, Tigran Harutyunyan The issues of improvement of tax relations and implementation of tax policy in the Republic of Armenia..................................................................................................................2237 Mirza Rzayev The role of the economic and social strategy in ensuring the economic security...............................2242 Sergey Lavrinenko, Irina Sokolova, Alexey Abramovskikh, Pavel Polikarpov Research of Internet addiction disorder among Russian first year students......................................2250 Viktoria Timachova Related structural attributes take political sphere abstract modern society: political system..........2259 Gayane Tovmasyan The models of assessing the quality of hotel services and its application in the RA.........................2266 Dariusz Sarzała, Wojciech Рiestrzyński Aggressive behavior of prisoners in adolescence and their self-esteem in adulthood.......................2272 Iryna Tkachuk Social responsibility of Ukrainian NGOs ...........................................................................................2287 Vladimir Harutyunyan, Tigran Harutyunyan Persectives of development of the RA tax system in the context of business environment...............2297 Vladimir Harutyunyan, Tigran Harutyunyan Tax administration and business environment in the Republic of Armenia......................................2311


2105

Alona Tyron Konrad Adenauer’s internal policy in the context of geopolitical transformations..........................2317 Vladimir Harutyunyan, Tigran Harutyunyan Persectives of development of the RA tax system in the context of business environment...............2325 Lilit Sargsyan Impact of foreign direct investment on economic growth in the world and in Armenia..................2339 Vladimir Harutyunyan, Tigran Harutyunyan Assessment of tax potential and ways to increase efficiency of tax administration in the RA..........2348 Vladimir Harutyunyan Practice of changing the image of tax and customs officers of developed and developing countries.....................................................................................................................2355 Viktor Yakimtsov Modelling the socioecologynomic systems by methodological apparatus of synergetics.................2368

2106


Desire J.M. Anastasia and Stuart Henry, San Diego State University, School of Public Affairs, USA

A Sociologically Informed Ethics of American Science Literacy: Toward a Transdisciplinary Understanding Abstract This paper reexamines the ethics of improving public knowledge about science and technology, or science literacy. Rather than reproduce the core themes of the large body of literature on this topic over a number of decades, this paper uses National Science Foundation’s Science and Engineering Indicators for the 10-year period 2002-2012 to inform a transdisciplinary analysis of knowledge production, and kinds of science knowledge produced. In particular, the paper highlights the need to identify different sub-publics, understand their value systems and the sociocultural contexts in which they operate, and how these publics are not simply passive consumers of knowledge, but are themselves co-producers and appliers of science related knowledge. The paper thus argues for an ethics of scientific literacy that takes account of knowledge production beyond disciplinary and interdisciplinary frameworks, and uses this understanding to foster an authentic deliberative partnership of engagement. Keywords: Science literacy; Science ethics; Trans disciplinarily; Deliberative engagement. Introduction Brey has argued that complex social problems require an interdisciplinary philosophy and an ethics of science, not least because these problems “do not obey disciplinary borders and by nature require interdisciplinary collaboration” [1]. However, disciplinary myopia does not necessarily lead to interdisciplinary integration. Alternatives approaches are: (1) Multi-disciplinarity, which retains the depth of disciplinary integrity without compromising its range and breadth, but neither integrates knowledge not includes knowledge outside of disciplines; and


2107

(2) Trans disciplinarity, which challenges the assumption that organized disciplinary knowledge is sufficient for a comprehensive understanding of complex phenomena, and points to the limits of multi-disciplinarity and inter disciplinarity because they remain in the domain of organized academia. Indeed, inter disciplinarity excludes informal and spontaneous knowledge production, local knowledge, folk wisdom, indigenous knowledge, and experiential knowledge that Carp calls multiple “knowledge formations”, which “are both bodies of knowledge and processes of coming to know that contain within themselves dynamic patterns from which they have been generated and by which they will be transformed” [2]. Others have referred to such knowledge formations and their embodied praxis, as transdisciplinarity. Tran’s disciplinarity goes beyond the boundaries of existing disciplines and “concerns that which is at once between the disciplines, across the different disciplines, and beyond all discipline. Its goal is the understanding of the present world, of which one of the imperatives is the unity of knowledge [3-4]. It thus concerns knowing who the knowledge creators are and who are the partners in different kinds and levels of knowledge production. This necessarily involves knowing their identities in socially constructed networks; in short, what it is to become trans disciplinary [5]. In this paper we apply one version of trans disciplinarity to the ethics of scientific literacy, innovations in science and technology pose ethical issues for society as students and scholars of the public understanding of science and technology have long been aware. Opinion polls in the United States have consistently found that the vast majority (84-90%) of the American public likes science, trusts and values scientists and believes science has a positive effect on society [6-9]. Indeed, “Surveys since at least 1979 show that roughly 7 in 10 Americans see the effects of scientific research as more positive than negative for society”. In 2012 this included “50% who said they believed the benefits “strongly” outweigh the negatives, and 22% who said the benefits slightly outweigh the potential harms [10]. Perhaps not surprisingly, this finding is correlated with level of education, such that 55% of those completing only high school education believe science does more good than harm, compared with “89% of those with bachelor’s degrees and 92% of those with graduate degrees. However, it is important to note that for science in Western cultures and, in the US in particular, “a sizeable fraction of the public is willing to believe that the scientific community is engaged in a nefarious plot to deceive them” [11]. Although

2108


the 2012 NSF survey found that only “about 7% said science creates more arms than benefits”, a 2010 survey by the International Social Survey Program found that 14% of Americans said that “modern science does more harm than good” [12]. Indeed, “a zeable segment of the U.S. population” holds some reservations about the relative importance of science and technology and whether it is sufficiently ethically grounded. In a 2004 study, “more than half of the respondents agreed that ‘we depend too much on science and not enough on faith’, that ‘scientific research these days doesn’t pay enough attention to the moral values of society’, and that ‘scientific research has created as many problems for society as it has solutions’ [7,8]. Indeed, one survey of the American public found that “a majority (56%) agrees that scientific research doesn’t pay enough attention to the moral values of society” [9]. In 2010, “41% of U.S. residents” stated that “we believe too often in science and not enough in feelings and faith. A Pew study also found a degree of mutual suspicion, with scientists giving an unfavorable assessment of the public’s knowledge of science, 85% of whom “see the public’s lack of scientific knowledge as a major problem for science” [6]. Moreover, scientists blame the media for failing to adequately educate the public, with 76% saying that news reports fail to distinguish between good and bad science, and that many reports oversimplify scientific results; indeed, 83% of scientists rate TV news coverage of science as poor [6]. However, this may change as the American public expands the sources it relies on for science information. In 2008 surveys revealed that television was the major source of news about science at 41% (down from 44% in 2001) citing this as their primary source. But by 2012, the Internet had overtaken television as the primary source: “42% of Americans cited the Internet as their primary source” of science and technology knowledge information, “up from 35% in 2010”, with primary reliance on television dropping to 32% over the years there have been various calls for improvements in the relationship between science and the public through a “stepping-up” of what is variously described as “approval, appreciation or understanding of science by the public [13]”. In order to improve public understanding of science, it has been recommended that scientists should better communicate with the public. The idea of improving public knowledge through communication about science and technology, or improved “scientific literacy”, is not new and has produced a large body of literature over several decades. But first it is important to know what we mean by scientific literacy. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development defines


2109

scientific literacy as “the capacity to use scientific knowledge, to identify questions and to draw evidence-based conclusions in order to understand and help make decisions about the natural world and the changes made to it through human activity [14]”. We prefer the National Science Foundation’s definition of science literacy: “knowing basic facts and concepts about science and having an understanding of how science works [7]”. But, what are the ethics of science communication and what are the ethics of science literacy? If, as has been argued, the work of ethics is integral to the daily work of science [15], what are the ethical dimensions involved in the process of improving the public’s knowledge and understanding of science? Clearly this depends, in part, on: (1) the goals and objectives of such communication, (2) the kinds of knowledge drawn on, and (3) the ways that knowledge is used to meet these goals. As public sociologists we believe that it is important to ground the concepts we advocate in the activities that we practice. In this article, then, we are interested in the kinds of knowledge that are necessary in order to ensure that science communication is ethically grounded. We argue that an awareness of the ethical issues of effective public engagement with science is important to policymakers, public advocates, and academics, but that such grounding depends upon the incorporation of a variety of understandings that derive from different disciplinary and nondisciplinary knowledge sources and sites. In this paper, then, we summarize some of the key issues relating to the ethics of science literacy including: (1) scientists’ political reasons for educating the public, (2) the social stratification of knowledge about science, (3) the differentiation of kinds of knowledge about science, (4) the appreciation of multiple social audiences that make up “The Public”, (5) effective strategies that must take account of these socio-political dimensions in order to ensure an ethical basis for the “public” understanding and civic partnership with science, and, (6) knowledge of the political and policy-making process that is necessary in order to understand how improved scientific literacy grounded in trans disciplinary knowledge about the sociological, political and ethical implications of science, can translate into public policy. Thus, we argue that in order to maintain an ethical basis for science communication aimed at improving public science and health policy, it is necessary to adopt a trans disciplinary approach to science literacy that takes account of the social-political organization of society, marginal knowledge production from outside formal disciplines, and varieties of scientific literacy, that relates to the public’s effective participation in public policy. We need to

2110


know: (1) what kinds of science literacy are important for people who are members of differentiated publics, and (2) how to make meaningful decisions about new developments in science and technology? It is important for the public to understand the scientific process, and it may be that they need an ability to remember factual information about new technologies. However, as Wynne has argued in examining the local filtering of scientific knowledge in the case of Chernobyl, “the social relationships and identities which people feel to be affected by scientific knowledge” makes a difference to its understanding [16]. As we argue below, rather than having improved knowledge about science, it may be more important for a public to have: (1) a contextualized and localized knowledge, (2) non-disciplinary knowledge that takes account of the socio-political context and socially constructed identities, and (3) an articulation of perceived relationships with experts involved in science policymaking. Indeed, perhaps even more important than scientific knowledge, or “issue specific political knowledge” may be: (1) the influence of religious and ideological values, particularly those advocating against science (e.g. Boko Haram), and (2) mass media framing of science literacy and its manipulation, which as Nisbet and Goidel [17], demonstrated was critical in the case of embryonic stem cell research, and Oreskes and Conway [18], showed was also operative through the “merchants of doubt” in denying the existence of global warming. Why is it important for the public to understand science and technology? Scientists have assumed that increased public knowledge of science is good for humanity and that scientists communicate because of their exuberant enthusiasm to share their excitement about their field. However, Miller and Gregory [13,19] have pointed out, there are multiple and often political motives for scientific communication including: “to empower its recipients, to enhance existing democratic processes or help develop new ones where they do not exist, or to prevent the alienation of sections of society; but it may also be to serve the interests of the scientific community and their paymasters”. Government institutions and agencies are seen as the most important funding source for science, according to 84% of scientists [6]. As a result, increased public knowledge about science is seen as important for legitimating the continuing funding of science by policymakers. From this perspective Nisbet [20], has argued that a commonly held assumption is that “civic science literacy boosts the cultural authority of science”. Thus, “if the public knew more about science, then scientists would have greater influence over important policy deci-


2111

sions”. As a result, “most public understanding of science activities are aimed at improving civic science literacy [20]”. Indeed, Nisbet cites a British government report stating that there is a “false assumption that any difficulties in the relationship between science and society are due entirely to ignorance and misunderstanding on the part of the public; and that, with enough public-understanding . . . the public can be brought to greater knowledge, whereupon all will be well [20]”. Sociological insights Importantly, these political motives are based on a variety of sociological assumptions about: (1) producers and receivers of knowledge, (2) the value of certain kinds of knowledge to society, (3) the ways scientific knowledge will be used in the social order, (4) about who benefits, and how, from its use. For example, reliance on scientific knowledge to guide improving public health can lead to an emphasis on lifestyle at the expense of considering political and socioeconomic factors such as poverty, the environment and the societal systems that produce them [21]. In order to avoid scientific knowledge replicating the harm currently produced by existing social structural arrangements, a sociological knowledge of the role of the powerknowledge nexus is necessary. The point here is that improving public scientific knowledge does not have a universally positive effect, but impacts some sections of society more than others. Moreover, improving scientific literacy, by virtue of the uncritical way it is perceived, is not the same as an enlightened public empowered to make ethical and substantial decisions about the value of scientific research, the importance of scientific and technical innovations, or the need to implement health practices and policy. Understanding how empowerment of the public can mediate the production and dispersal of knowledge in ways that benefit society requires a sociological knowledge of the process of science as a resource. It also requires that we recognize and value the experiential and subject position knowledge of nonscientists in this process as co-producing partners rather than passive recipients of some greater good. This trans disciplinary contribution is crucial to a more comprehensive understanding of science. A trans disciplinary theoretical framework We ground our analysis of the ethics of science literacy in the expansive approach to knowledge production, formation, and praxis referred to as “transdisciplinarity”. This approach incorporates both disciplinary knowledge and non-disciplinary knowledge, i.e. knowledge production by sources that lie outside of disciplinary

2112


knowledge sites [2-4]. This includes public knowledge, and knowledge generated by non-professional partners, collaborators, takeholders, and others such as community groups and those impacted by the applications of science. However, transdisciplinarity has several definitions. For some it means “the application of theories, concepts, or methods across disciplines with the intent of developing an overarching synthesis [22]”, aimed at “answering a complex question, solving a complex problem or producing new knowledge or a product [23]”. Repko elaborates, citing sociobiology’s evolutionary theory as an example of trans disciplinarity: “Trans disciplinarity differs from inter disciplinarity in that the theories, concepts, or methods are not borrowed from one discipline and applied to other disciplines interested in the same problem, but rather transcend disciplines and are therefore applicable to many fields [24]”. McGregor defines trans disciplinarity as “crossing back and forth and moving along and beyond sectoral boundaries” which includes trans disciplinarity as a methodology for knowledge creation [25] and, indeed, for Nicolescu it involves reconceiving of knowledge and realty such that reality is plastic and knowledge is alive and emergent [4]. Indeed, for some such “living knowledge” is also transformational of the producers and those who engage it [26]. This glimpses a second meaning of trans disciplinarity which moves beyond the disciplines to other forms of knowledge production and explores how to begin to integrate these into the totality of explanation for social action. Since mega and complex problems, such as health and wellness require comprehensive policy and practice involving collaboration among a hybrid mix of actors from different disciplines, professions, and sectors of society this version of transdisciplinarity necessarily involves multiple knowledge producers and a “unity” of knowledge [23,27]. For example, while universities generate disciplinary based knowledge, and to some extent interdisciplinary knowledge, the professions develop a practice-based knowledge and inter professional knowledge [28]. If we then add lay knowledge, folk wisdom, experiential knowledge, spontaneous unorganized knowledge or what Carp summarizes as: “the varieties of local, vernacular, or cross-cultural knowledge”. This interpretation of trans disciplinarity includes knowledge production across all sectors and the knowledge formations that result. Thus Trans disciplinarily, “unlike inter disciplinarity, crosses both disciplinary boundaries and sectors of society by including stakeholders in the public and private domains [24]”.


2113

The reasons why scientists are interested in increasing public literacy about science become even more complex when the scientific topic is politically or religiously controversial as in, for example, genetically modified foods, stem-cell research, global climate change, or the borderless claims of fundamentalist Islamic ideology. For example, a Pew survey found that while 84% of scientists believe that global warming is the result of human activity, such as burning fossil fuels, just 49% of the public agrees. Even more divided are views over evolution in which 87% of scientists accept evolution as a result of natural selection, compared with 32% of the public [6]. Dacey points out that, “as science-related controversies emerge as sources of political contention, the public understanding of science becomes an increasingly important indicator of the public’s competence to participate in policy decisions, and the health of civic culture [29]”. However, in order to effectively participate in policy decisions involving science, the public needs to be competent in understanding not only the science, but also the politics involved in the public policy process; at very minimum they need to have knowledge of political science, sociology of organizations, and organizational psychology. In short, scientific literacy must include understanding sociopolitical literacy or else it is not literacy but knowledge in a vacuum. Understanding the role of mass media in framing and engaging the public in science ethics is also important. Schäfer has argued that issues in science and technology from different epistemic cultures can be expected to be analyzed and debated in the mass media to different extents and that knowledge of media studies is critical to understanding the politics of science literacy [30]. This is particularly important in the context of the findings by Nisbet and Goedel that “religious and ideological values appear to filter the influence of information disseminated by scientific institutions”. and that “attention to newspaper coverage, along with various forms of genrespecific entertainment television use, have unique influences on citizen evaluations, suggesting that the mass media provide an important part of the social context by which citizens judge controversial science”. So, if the public’s scientific literacy is a measure of our cultural health and public competence to participate in a democracy, then the level of interest, extent of knowledge, and depth of understanding, are critical themes of this assessment, as is the extent to which scientists are committed to the expansion of this literacy. Indeed, from this perspective an investment in civic scientific literacy is the moral responsibility of the scientific com-

2114


munity, and one, which they have largely embraced, albeit for the variety of political reasons identified above. But does the public want to be educated about science and, if not, is science education ethical? Moreover is the public’s scientific literacy combined with an absence of sociopolitical awareness a case of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing? How interested are the public in science and technology? Surveys conducted by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and other organizations (e.g. Pew), repeatedly show that Americans are interested in issues regarding science and technology. The public’s interest is particularly enhanced when the topic is new developments or discoveries. In NSF surveys conducted since 1979, “four out of five Americans say they are interested in new scientific discoveries”. As well as being interested in science, it is important to know how the public values science, particularly in light of the more controversial areas of scientific research since, if they do not value science, they are unlikely to agree that it should receive public funds. Further, if they do not value science, is it ethical to attempt to persuade them to do so? Does the public see scientific research as valuable? Given the preponderance of public support for science’s value, it is not surprising that the American public supports the funding of science. In fact, “All indicators point to widespread support for government funding of basic research” and about 4 in 10 Americans said the government was spending “too little on research [31]”. In 2012, about half of respondents said government spending on scientific research was “about right”, and about 1 in 10 said there was too much research spending. In 2001, 81% of the NSF survey respondents agreed with the following statement: “Even if it brings no immediate benefits, scientific research that advances the frontiers of knowledge is necessary and should be supported by the Federal Government”. By 2012, these patterns remained the same: 83% of Americans “agreed” or “strongly agreed” with the same statement. However, as the authors of the NSF study state: “a consistently small percentage of respondents have held the opposite view. In 2004, 17% disagreed with the statement; only 2% strongly disagreed with it”. Other surveys reveal similar results with VCU’s Science and Public Policy survey reporting that 82% of the public feel government support for science research is important compared with only 15% saying that it was not important [9]. How the public makes this assessment depends either on how much they know


2115

about science and/or how convincing are scientific communicators in convincing them of this value. How knowledgeable are the public about science and technology? While the general public’s interest in science and technology is high, the number of people who feel either well-informed or moderately well-informed is reasonably low. In 2001 and 2004, less than 15% of NSF survey respondents described themselves as well-informed about new scientific discoveries and the use of new inventions and technologies; a sizeable minority, approximately 30% to 35%, thought that they were poorly informed. One direct measure of the accuracy of scientific literacy is to measure what the public knows about science and whether they understand the scientific process. According to one science journalist: “Without a grasp of scientific ways of thinking, the average person cannot tell the difference between science based on real data and something that resembles science at least in their eyes — but is based on uncontrolled experiments, anecdotal evidence, and passionate assertions, What makes science special is that evidence has to meet certain standards [32]”. According to surveys by NSF and Pew “The public’s level of factual knowledge about science has not changed much over the past two decades”. Surveys reveal the public achieves between 63% and 65% correct answers on a 9-question science knowledge exam. In particular, surveys have found that the majority of Americans (approximately 70%) lack a clear understanding of the scientific process. Although in 2001 more than 50% of the survey respondents had some understanding of probability, and more than 40% were familiar with how an experiment is conducted, only onethird could sufficiently explain what it means to study something scientifically and this pattern is consistent over time. In 2012, a minority (34%) answered the experiment questions correctly, including the questions that focused on the use of control groups. In 2001 a majority (67%) answered the four probability questions correctly By, while the American public’s general understanding of science had improved, with 64% of Americans understanding probability, 46% demonstrating familiarity with how an experiment was conducted; the proportion who could explain what it means to study something scientifically had dropped to 23% [7]. By 2012 there was little change in the understanding of probability by Americans which 65% correctly understood; although still only 34% understood an experiment and 20% understood what it meant to study something scientifically. Thus overall the public’s understanding of science process was, and remains, rela-

2116


tively low. Indeed, “Overall, when these questions are combined into ‘an overall measure of understanding of scientific inquiry’, the 2012 results are relatively low compared with those from other years”. Even more significant for the purpose of this paper is the finding that the public understanding of science varies by gender, age, income and education: “With few exceptions, the NSF survey data show a strong, positive relationship between education (both level of formal education and number of math and science courses completed) and feeling well-informed about public policy issues. This is particularly true for four of the five science-related issues in the survey [7]”. This problem intensifies when we consider level of understanding. Only 3% of those with a high-school education could explain a scientific study, whereas 51% of those with a graduate or professional education could explain it. Similarly whereas 39% of those in the top quartile for family income could explain an experiment, only 11% of those in the bottom quartile for family income could explain an experiment. There are also different kinds of scientific knowledge that are related to how these subsections of the American public relates to others in society. Kinds of public knowledge about science It is important not only to know the general public’s interest and depth of knowledge of science but also the kind of knowledge or what Nisbet calls kinds of scientific literacy [20]. Nisbet identifies five kinds of “scientific literacy” relating to the public knowledge / understanding about science: “Practical scientific literacy” refers to knowledge that can be applied to solving common everyday personal problems. “Civic science literacy” means a level of understanding of scientific terms and constructs sufficient to make sense of a news report, and/or to interpret competing arguments on a complex policy matter and understanding how scientific investigation works, recognizing science as theory building, and science as a systematic testing of propositions. “Institutional science literacy” focuses on the politics of science citizens should also understand that scientists are party to many social influences, including competition, biases, errors, and career advancement. “Low information rationality” questions both the ability and the motivation of the public to be knowledgeable about science. Instead, the public makes up for a lack of information by relying heavily on relevant value predispositions such as religion and ideology. “A social context emphasis” highlights the contingent influence of social identity and trust on how information about science is used by the public the way a particular


2117

social group is likely to use scientific knowledge varies by how that group interprets the motivations of scientists and their institutions [20]. Scientific communication, therefore, needs to take account, not only of the level of civic science literacy, but also the interrelations of politics, religion, ideology, social organization and social identity and the ways these affect the process of understanding science [33]. If all the focus of improved understanding of science remains on civic science literacy to the exclusion of the other dimensions, it seems that the ethical basis, and even the objectives of scientific communication, may not be met, or at least be undermined by the other social and political processes at play. Important among this cluster of processes is the public image/social identity of scientists. The public image(s) and social identity of scientists According to the 2001 NSF survey, the majority of Americans believe that scientists “lead rewarding professional and personal lives, although a stereotypical image of these professions, deeply rooted in popular culture, exists and has been difficult to dislodge [31]”. For example, 25% of those surveyed thought that scientists were “apt to be odd and peculiar people”, and 29% thought that scientists have few other interests but their work [31]. It is also generally accepted that scientists have an image problem (Congressional Commission on the Advancement of Women and Minorities in Science, Engineering and Technology Development). Although both their intelligence and work are highly valued, “The charming and charismatic scientist is not an image that populates popular culture [34]. The public image and social identity of scientists is important for at least two reasons: “Scientists represent the first line of communication about science to the general public. That is, they are responsible for conveying information, often through the news media, about scientific issues. They can also help the public understand the importance of science and appreciate its benefits. Image has a lot to do with how effective that communication is in capturing the attention of the public. The more appealing the image, the more likely that people will listen to what is being said. “Children are strongly influenced by the images they see around them at home, at school, and in popular culture. Researchers in this field point out that television has a tremendous influence on children’s attitudes and behaviors, and what they see on television can affect the choices they make in life, including the careers they choose. If they harbor negative stereotypes of scientists and engineers as

2118


nerdy and weird-looking, then they could reject science and engineering as potential careers. So, public interest in science, levels and types of scientific literacy, and who is communicating science for whatever motives, are important considerations in assessing the ethical basis for the process of enhancing scientific literacy. Also important are the public who are subject to scientific knowledge and its consequences. We’ve seen that there are differing levels of knowledge and ability and that these are subject to the distribution of class, race and gender, among other major segments of society. However, other factors also shape subsets and even subcultures of populations framing the reality of scientific literacy. Who are “the public” audience for science and technology issues? So far we have been referring to “the public”, meaning all nonscientific members of society. Just as there are different kinds of scientific knowledge so too are there different kinds of public who have different levels of interest in, and different involvement with and/or use for scientific knowledge. The public is far from monolithic in how it is likely to acquire and apply knowledge about science. It is important to segment the “general public” by relevant social identities and values such as religion, partisanship, education, identity, ethnicity, occupation, region, locality, and prior knowledge. This is where dialogue and interaction with the public plays a key role, as scientists and their institutions learn about the perspectives and concerns of these particular social groups, and then tailor their public understanding of science activities accordingly [20]. It is clearly imperative to identify the audience for issues regarding science and technology so that the attitudes of these various groups can be compared and placed in the context of society as a whole. Therefore, it might be useful to classify the public into three groups, as suggested by the NSF study: • The attentive public consists of those who (1) express a high level of interest in a particular issue; (2) feel very well informed about the issue; and (3) read a newspaper on a daily basis, read a weekly or monthly news magazine, or read a magazine relevant to the issue. • The interested public consists of those who claim to have a high level of interest in a particular issue but do not feel very well informed about it. • The residual public consists of those who are neither interested in nor feel very well informed about a particular issue.


2119

People likely to be attentive to scientific and technological issues were identified by the National Science Foundation as those combining the attentive public for new scientific discoveries with the attentive public for new inventions and technologies. In 2001, 10% of the population met the criteria, down from 14% in 1997. In 2001, 48% of the population could be classified as the interested public for issues regarding science and technology; the residual public constituted 42% of the total. It is also important to recognize that membership in any of these categories is dynamic, sociologically shaped and may depend on the topic. While some people are interested in all aspects of science and technology, many are only interested in particular areas of knowledge such as health knowledge, or subsets of health knowledge related to particular problems they have, environmental knowledge, or issues related to their local communities. It seems then that scientific communications need to be tailored for the particular population targeted, which in turn requires knowledge of that population’s subcultural characteristics, social class position in a stratified society and access to scientific knowledge. How does the public obtain/knowledge and understanding and engage with science? What are the best ways to improve civic scientific literacy that are both attentive to ethical considerations and are not undermined by concurrent social processes? Moreover, what are the ethical grounds justifying investment in scientific literacy? It is clear that there are a variety of forums for scientific communication around this issue, some of which stem from comments by its critics: Alongside the longstanding public and amateur activity in science there are now events, from festivals to consensus conferences, set up with the explicit aim of furthering the public understanding of science. While much of this originates with the scientific community, and is not coy about aiming for the public appreciation of science, some activity arises from public groups or individuals who are dissatisfied with science. The historically dominant view from the science community is that it is “possible to achieve a society-wide level of science literacy that would ensure public competence. In this matter, elites need only focus programmatically, on public communication efforts to increase public knowledge and appreciation”. The popular science movement that flourished in the years after World War II was primarily directed at “subtle persuasion through the dissemination of uncritical information about the technical discoveries and wonders of science”. These efforts were “carefully engineered to improve

2120


the public’s appreciation of science as a body of knowledge and as an institution, ignoring information that might enhance the public’s understanding of science in social and political context [35]”. This top-down social engineering model for creating assent for science and technology has, In recent years, been replaced by one that emphasizes public participation, and assent. As opposed to the public being a passive recipient of scientific knowledge, the more progressive view is “public engagement with science and technology. implies instead a conversation about science between scientists and the public, where both sides learn about the other’s perspective [20]”. Thus, knowing about science becomes part of the socio-political process of citizenship and involves the process known as “deliberative democracy [36]”. Indeed, a large and growing group of scholars, foundations, and public intellectuals agree with Page that “Public deliberation is essential to democracy”. Public deliberation is the “process through which deliberative democracy occurs”. Lindeman defines deliberation as “a cognitive process in which individuals form, alter, or reinforce their opinions as they weigh evidence and arguments from various points of view”, whereas for Gunderson “Democratic deliberation occurs anytime a citizen either actively justifies her views (even to herself) or defends them against a challenge (even from herself). “Deliberation is expected to lead to empathy with the other and a broadened sense of people’s own interests through an egalitarian, openminded and reciprocal process of reasoned argumentation. Following from this result are other benefits: citizens are more enlightened about their own and others’ needs and experiences, can better resolve deep conflict, are more engaged in politics, place their faith in the basic tenets of democracy, perceive their political system as legitimate, and lead a healthier civic life The transformative effects of authentic deliberative engagement about knowledge transmission are significant. Indeed, Chambers notes that a central tenet of all deliberative theory is that deliberation can change minds and transform opinions…. Although few adhere to the view that deliberation inevitably leads to consensus, many believe that deliberation under the right conditions will have a tendency to broaden perspectives, promote toleration and understanding between groups, and generally encourage a publicspirited attitude. There is a widespread belief that deliberation and publicity associated with deliberation will have a salutary effect on people’s opinions. A recognized benefit of deliberation is that collective decisions can be “superior to individual ones because more information can be


2121

brought to bear [37-39]”. Greater discussion can also increase the use of new, less commonly shared, information [40-43], and in the process can improve the quality of the decisions reached by the group [44]. Science communication in the deliberative engaged model involves a process of generating new, mutually acceptable knowledge, attitudes and practices. It is a dynamic exchange, as disparate groups find a way of sharing a single message. Given that a deliberative model of communication incorporates an awareness of knowledge transformation, how does this translate into scientific policy making? Scientific literacy and public policy As stated above, whether improved scientific literacy makes a difference to science policy depends on how different forms of knowledge are incorporated into the policy making process. In her work on the ways public health policy is changed Bryant argues that there has been a neglect of the political process that affects how different forms of knowledge are accepted or rejected in the health policy formation process [21]. She argues that the kind of policy a government makes is affected by its own ideological influences, but is also affected by the identity of its policy advocates. While political science contains a range of models for policy change, Bryant says that most valuable are those such as Sabatier [45,46] that consider the knowledge activities of competing coalitions of private and public elite groups and organizations who lobby for change. Bryant identifies health knowledge developed by experts, community members and politically engaged groups. She also identifies two main groups. Professional policy analysts who are those, typically with graduate education, who work toward health policy changes, including university professors, government epidemiologists and experts from government and nonprofit health policy agencies. A second group of citizen activists comprises of all those outside of the expert health policy community who are advocating for policy change. Drawing on Habermas’s [47] theory of knowledge, Bryant argues that groups produce different kinds of knowledge about science and health issues, do it in different ways and are received differently by policy makers. Professional policy analysts are seen producing objective instrumental knowledge developed through the application of the scientific process, regardless of whether that is a partial picture of what they do. In contrast, citizen activists develop interactive or lay knowledge about science and health, which is shared among communities related to things that affect them personally, based on lived experience. Bryant also identifies a third kind knowledge of

2122


scientific or health issues referred to as “critical knowledge” that can come from either of these groups but may also involve independent observers of science and health issues. Critical knowledge considers the ethics of powerful socioeconomic forces that affect society, how they reinforce inequalities in health and illness: “Critical knowledge considers questions of right and wrong, analyses existing social conditions, and outlines what can be done to alter social conditions to improve quality of life”. Critical knowledge can be produced by forums and meetings devoted to considering the ethics of science and may draw from members of both the expert and the citizen community bringing them together in a collaborative discussion of the issues that not only increases the scientific literacy of the citizens but also educate professional policy experts about the social and political contexts of their knowledge: “Collaboration occurs when professional policy analysts and citizens carry out cooperative analyses on community-identified issues”. In the process of science and health policy making Bryant identifies four ways these different kinds of knowledge can be presented to policy makers, and also shows how different forms of knowledge are filtered by governments. These include (1) legal presentation, (2) public relations presentations that target specific audiences about how the policy will affect their members which may involve extensive use of the media, (3) personal anecdotal stories from individuals about science and health issues affecting them and their families, and (4) political strategic presentations that target members of key committees via the use of lobbyists or others with influence. Bryant says depending upon the ideological identity of a government these various presentations will be filtered to select from some groups rather than others. Perhaps surprisingly, Bryant’s research found that anecdotal and “qualitative studies were more persuasive in influencing policy makers than instrumental knowledge”, and that both professional policy analysts and citizens groups used anecdotal evidence. However the socio-political identity of the actors who lobby policy makers was also important in determining who got access to policy makers and what kinds of knowledge was acceptable. “Identity determined what constituted valid knowledge and evidence for government in its policy process”. She further argues that while “different types of knowledge are essential to building a case to achieve particular policy change outcomes”, and that “the political ideology of the government of the day and the political identity of the constituency influence the receptivity of government toward civil society actors and the ability of the actors to influence the policy change process. . .


2123

in the end, the government was willing only to heed knowledge and evidence that supported its ideological perspective”. Summary and Conclusion The forgoing review of topics related to the ethics of civic scientific literacy calls for a particular approach to scientific communication that emphasizes certain core features: 1. Identification of sub-populations of interested and aware publics; in some sense this is a marketing strategy for bringing scientific literacy to its consumers. 2. Knowledge of the issues that those public’s value and are concerned about. 3. An explicit statement of the full panoply of reasons why the scientists are making the scientific communication. 4. An awareness and discussion of the political, social, ideological and moral/religious context in which the science/technology is being framed, with an open and realistic assessment of potential harms and realistic benefits. 5. An authentic participative/deliberative participatory discussion format that encourages a partnership of engagement between each of the constituent public groups and the scientific community. In order to achieve the transparency necessary for a sociologically informed ethics of science communications it is necessary to understand the social and political contexts of knowledge production and communication, the ways these shape the different public’s awareness, the way to maximize empowerment through scientific literacy and the ways this socio-politically produced scientific knowledge is differentially engaged in the science and technology policy making process. In order to ethically ground the totality of the production, communication and application of scientific knowledge we need transdisciplinary, rather than merely scientifically literate publics. This calls for the inclusion of all levels of knowledge and all practices of knowledge production as part of the deliberative dialog, such that science literacy is not simply a means to legitimate scientific research and application, but is constitutive of a more complete understanding of science in society.`

2124


References: 1. Brey PAE (2009) Developing an interdisciplinary philosophy and ethics of science and engineering for international collaboration on complex social problems. 2. Carp RM (2001) Integrative praxes: Learning from multiple knowledge formations. Issues in Integrative Studies, 19:71-121. 3. Nicolescu B (2006) Transdisciplinarily - past, present and future. In Haverford B & Reijntjes C (eds.). Moving worldviews - Reshaping sciences, policies and practices for endogenous sustainable development, (142-166). COMPAS Editions, Holland. 4. Nicolescu B (2014) Methodology of transdisciplinarity. World Futures: The Journal of New Paradigm Research, Special Issue: Transdisciplinarity, 70, (3-4): 186-199. 5. Augsburg T (2014) Becoming transdisciplinary: The emergence of the transdisciplinary individual. World Futures: The Journal of New Paradigm Research 70: 233-247. 6. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press (2009) Public praises science; scientists fault public, media. 7. National Science Foundation (NSF) (2006) National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators. (NSB-06-01), Arlington, Virginia. 8. Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) (2004) Increasing opposition to cloning, but greater support for embryonic stem cell research. Life Center for Public Policy Sciences Survey. Accessed. 9. Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) (2008) Life science survey. Center for Public Policy. 10. National Science Foundation (2014) National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators. (NSB 14-01), Arlington, Virginia. 11. Timmer J (2009) Ding of science. 12. OEC (2003) The PISA assessment framework mathem) The public trusts scientists but not their conclusions, asTechnical Accessed at International Social Survey Program (ISSP) Environment module. 13. Miller S, Gregory J (2000) A protocol for science communication for the public understanding of science.


2125

14. OEC (2003) The PISA assessment framework — mathematics, reading, science and problem solving knowledge and skills. OECD, Paris. 15. Kalichman M (2007) Interview with Paul K. Mueller “With ethics hot news, three San Diego universities tackle rights and wrongs in science”. 16. Wynne B (1992) Misunderstood misunderstanding: Social identities and public uptake of science. Public Understanding of Science, 1(3), 281-304. 17. Nisbet MC & Goidel R (2007) Understanding citizen perceptions of science controversy: bridging the ethnographic survey research divide. Public Understanding of Science 16: 421-440. 18. Oreskes N and Conway EM (2010) Merchants of doubt. Bloomsbury Press, London. 19. Miller J and Gregory S (2000) Science in public: Communication, culture and credibility. Basic Books, New York. 20. Nisbet M (2005) The multiple meanings of public understanding: Why definitions matter to the communication of science. Center for inquiry: Science and the media Accessed. 21. Bryant T (2002) Role of knowledge in public health and health promotion policy change. Health Promotion International 17(1): 89-98. 22. Latuca LR (2001) Creating interdisciplinarity. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press. 23. Klein JT (2012) Research integration: A comparative knowledge base. In Repko AF, Newell WH and Szostak R. Case studies in interdisciplinary research: 283-298. 24. Repko AF (2008) Interdisciplinary research: Process and theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage. 25. McGregor, SLT (2014) “Introduction to special issue on transdisciplinarity”. World Futures: The Journal of New Paradigm Research, Special Issue: Transdisciplinarity, 70(3-4):161-163. 26. Briton D (2011) From integrated to interstitial studies. In Foshat, R (ed.) Valencies of interdisciplinarity: theory, practice, pedagogy. Athabasca University Press, Edmonton. 27. Klein JT (2003) Unity of knowledge and transdisciplinarity: Contexts and definition, theory and the new discourse of problem solving. In Hirsch Hadorn, G (edi-

2126


tor) Unity of knowledge (in transdisciplinary research for sustainability) Encyclopedia of life support systems 1:35-69. 28. McMurtry A (2009) Knowers and phenomena: Two different approaches to interdisciplinarity and interprofessionalism, Issues in Integrative Studies, 27: 1-16. 29. Dacey A (2007) what is science? The Center for Inquiry Transnational, Buffalo, New York. Retrieved. 30. Schäfer MS (2009) From public understanding to public engagement: An empirical assessment of changes in science coverage. Science Communication, 30(4): 475-505. 31. National Science Foundation. (2002) National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators – Arlington, Virginia. 32. Rensberger B (2000) The nature of evidence. Science, 289: 61. 33. Scheufele, DA (2006) Messages and heuristics: How audiences form attitudes about emerging technologies. In Turney J (Ed.), Engaging science: Thoughts, deeds, analysis and action (pp. 20-25). The Wellcome Trust, London. 34. Congressional Commission on the Advancement of Women and Minorities in Science, Engineering and Technology Development (2000) Land of plenty: Diversity as America’s competitive edge in science, engineering and technology. National Science Foundation, Arlington, Virginia. 35. Lewenstein, B. (1992) The meaning of ‘public understanding of science’ in the United States after World War II. Public understanding of science, 1: 45–68. 36. Elster J (1998) Deliberative democracy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 37. Page B (1996) Who deliberates? University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 38. Delli Carpini MX, Cook FL, & Jacobs LR (2004) Public deliberations, discursive participation and citizen engagement: a review of the empirical literature. Annual Review of Political Science, 7 (1): 315-344. 39. Lindeman M (2002) Opinion quality and policy preferences in deliberative research. In Delli Carpini MX, Huddy L, Shapiro R. (eds.). Research in micropolitics: Political decision-making, deliberation and participation, 6: 195–221. JAI Press, Greenwich, Connecticut. 40. Gunderson A (1995) The Environmental Promise of Democratic Deliberation, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin.


2127

41. Mendelberg T (2002) The deliberative citizen: theory and evidence. In Research in Micropolitics: Political Decisionmaking, Deliberation and participation, ed. Delli Carpini MX, Huddy L, & Shapiro R. 6: 151-193. JAI Press, Greenwich, Connecticut. 42. Chambers, S. (2003) Deliberative democratic theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 6: 307-326. 43. Kelly JR, Karau SJ (1999) Group decision making: the effects of initial preferences and time pressure. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 25: 1342-1354. 44. Winquist JR, Larson JR Jr (1998) Information pooling: when it impacts group decision making. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 74: 371-377. 45. Bryant, T (2002) Role of knowledge in public health and health promotion policy change. Health Promote 17 (1): 89-98. 46. Sabatier PA (1993) Policy change over a decade or more. In Sabatier PA and Jenkins-Smith HC (eds) Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. 47. Habermas J (1968) Knowledge and human interests. Beacon Press, Boston.

2128


Alison Marganski, Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice, Virginia Wesleyan College, USA, Kelly Fauth, Virginia Wesleyan College, USA

Hooking up in the Twenty-First Century Abstract This study presents an exploratory analysis of the meaning of “hooking up” based on 1) academic literature, and 2) the perspective of college students from differing backgrounds. The authors investigated definitions of hooking up based on scholarly articles derived from search engine results and then from college students’ responses to an open-ended question on an online survey (N=358). Coding was used to identify themes that emerged from the data with the goal of understanding what the phrase means and whether the research is in line with students’ perspectives. Additionally, the authors sought to examine whether differences exist based on demographic variables. The findings revealed that the phrase “hooking up” predominantly represents sexual behavior ranging from kissing to sexual intercourse in the research base, but has been more narrowly constructed among college students. Gender differences also emerged, with males being more likely than females to view hooking up as involving sex rather than a broader range of sexual behaviors. A discussion follows and highlights directions for future research. Keywords: Definitions; Hooking up; Intimate relationships; Sex. Introduction What is “hooking up”? Does it pertain to sexual intercourse alone or can it involve oral sex, fondling, and/or any acts of affection like kissing? Does it involve any emotional connections? Can it be completely innocent, non-sexual gatherings? Is this phrase universal among young adults or do differences exist based on background variables? Many questions exist on this under-researched topic. We often hear about people hooking up, yet we may not be on the same page when it comes to understanding what it means. While the phrase has been incorporated into research


2129

(Table 1) and other writings including family textbooks [1], definitional issues have surfaced given the variations in what constitutes “sexual encounters”. This paper will investigate the meaning of “hooking up” from the academic research base and also from responses provided by college students to determine whether mutual agreement exists on its meaning and whether research corresponds to real life. It will also examine whether views are consistent across various groups. Background Studying intimate relationships has proven to be complex. Historically, the concept of intimacy has evolved from first time. Shifting from courtship and committed dating relationships resulting in marriage to an array of relations such as open partnerships and those that lack commitment, there has been an undeniable transformation in modern day relationships behaviors. While contemporary cases of romance still exist, there has been an indisputable expansion in the composition of intimacy. In modern society, we are increasingly hearing about “hooking up” as a staple of American culture. Among young adults, such encounters have been thought to arise from the mixing of young men and women in a culture where individuals marry at a later age, in part due to the expectation of attending college (which comes with the subsequent burden of paying off loans), and possibly due to sexual revolution that comes with independence and even technological advancements. Relationships are more egalitarian today than in the past and sexual scripts have changed. Although double standards of sexuality still exist here in the states, males and females have been participating in what has become known as the “hook up” culture at similar rates [2]. Hook ups are thought to be becoming more prevalent than ever before in American society, but this may be a social artifact due to either increased definitional awareness or increased reporting due to fewer stigmas associated with the behavior in sexually liberated societies. Nevertheless, a review of the literature suggests that these encounters are becoming increasingly normative among adolescents and young adults in North America, representing a marked shift in openness and acceptance of uncommitted sex. Estimates on the percentage of those who have engaged in hooking up have ranged from as low as 40% [3] to 75% [4] to as high as 81% [5]. According to Garcia et al. [6], “Hookups, or uncommitted sexual encounters, are becoming progressively more engrained in popular culture, reflecting both evolved

2130


sexual predilections and changing social and sexual scripts”. A study by Fielder and Carey [7] revealed that over half of the sample reported hooking up (i.e., oral, vaginal, or anal sex) before college, and nearly two-thirds had done so by the end of their first semester. Other research supports the notion that over half of those who are sexually active have had partners they were not dating [8]. As evidenced in the earlier statistics on range, some research suggests that a smaller portion of young adults have hooked up while some research suggests that the numbers are higher. Other discrepancies have also been found in definitions. While some research notes that hookups are onetime events involving strangers or brief acquaintances [4,9,10] other research suggests it may be ongoing and largely includes friends [7,11]. With the increasing use of socially interactive technology, it is also possible that some of these encounters are being facilitated through text messaging and/or social networking. Yet little is known about whether technology has been used for such purposes; if so, it may imply that friends and acquaintances are not off limits when it comes to hooking up. The increasing documentation of such behavior among college students in the United States enforces the need to study the definition to see if it holds a common meaning. There is ambiguity in the phrase “hooking up” and what it may imply, and we know little about whether young adults’ perspectives actually align with the rather limited research base or whether they vary across gender, race, and other demographic groups. The research that has been conducted on this topic has only surfaced over the latter part of the past decade. Definitions Research has called attention to the popularity of the phrase “hooking up”, which has been thought to be intentionally vague so as to leave room for one’s own interpretation. Glenn and Marquardt [3] suggest that it is defined as a “distinctive sexwithout-commitment interaction between college women and men” but it can also mean “a couple kissed, or had sex, or had oral sex, but no one will know for sure”. Similarly, Kalish and Kimmel [12] note that, “As a verb, ‘to hook up’ means to engage in any type of sexual activity with someone without a relationship. Hooking up is used to describe casual sexual encounters on a continuum from ‘one-and-done’ (a hook up that takes place only once with someone who may or may not be a stranger) to ‘sex buddies’ (acquaintances who meet regularly for sex but rarely if ever associate otherwise), to ‘friends with benefits’ (friends who do not care to become romantic partners, but may include sex among the activities they enjoy together) (Paul 2006;


2131

Paik 2010)”. In Western research, “hooking up” often builds on notions of nonrelationship intimate behavior. For instance, Lambert et al. [5] conceptualize hooking up as “when two people agree to engage in sexual behavior for which there is no future commitment...” Likewise, Owen et al. [2] suggest that hooking up involves “physically intimate behavior (e.g., passionate kissing, oral sex, and intercourse) that occurs outside of a committed relationship” Garcia et al. [6] impart a similar definition, describing the phenomenon as an “uncommitted sexual encounter” with activities that “may include a wide range of sexual behaviors, such as kissing, oral sex, and penetrative intercourse. However, these encounters often transpire without any promise or desire for more traditional romantic relationship”. Paul et al. [4] offer yet another definition: “Hookups are defined as a sexual encounter which may or may not include sexual intercourse, usually occurring on only one occasion between two people who are strangers or brief acquaintances”. While these definitions appear similar on their face in the sense they all imply sexual behavior with a lack of commitment, they may actually differ in several ways. For instance, what constitutes sexual activity is subjective and can be seen as varying from one person’s perspective to the next. In some research, sexual activity points to vaginal intercourse but leaves out mutual masturbation, oral sex, and even anal intercourse [13]. In other research, it includes all of these behaviors [2,6]. The definition offered by Lambert et al. [5] simply states “sexual behavior,” which can be interpreted differently by many. The second and third definitions by Owen et al. [2] and Garcia et al. [6] offer more specifics parameters and even include kissing. It is understood that non-coital and coital sexual activities are incorporated into their meaning, but whether locking lips signals “sexual behavior” may be debated (for instance, in one study on adolescent relationships [14], classified holding hands and kissing as romantic events, but did not include them in their sexual grouping; sexual events included more physical behaviors involving more private areas such as touching under clothes or without clothes on, touching other’s genitals, and having sexual intercourse,” among other behaviors). Therefore, there is a continuum of intimate behaviors that can be labeled as sexual. Additionally, another arguably more important difference that arises in the definitions can be seen with the last definition offered by Paul et al. [4], which place restrictions on the number of encounters and the relationship status. They suggest that “hooking up” is often a nonrepetitive event and not among long-term friends or

2132


former intimates. Therefore, the previous classifications of “sex buddies” or “friends with benefits” would be seen as rather distinct categories from “hooking up”. However, research has noted that hookups were most common among friends, followed by acquaintances, then strangers [7]. Other research has also supported this, stating that only about 15% of hookups involve strangers [11]. Part of this may be due to the increasing use of socially interactive media (e.g. text messaging and social networking), but this yet to develop in the research base. Nevertheless, it can be inferred upon that the vast majority of researchers have found relative uniformity in describing “hooking up” as a sexual encounter between consenting parties for which there is no promise of future commitment. Yet we still see some variation in other definitional aspects. Interestingly, hook ups may not be completely free from emotions. One study on hooking up found that one-quarter (27%) of women said they were interested in a romantic relationship after the event occurred compared to one-fifth (20%) of men [6]. Therefore, it is possible that hookups have become a norm and, while no promise of commitment is made, they still may involve feelings and potentially to lead to committed relationships, contrary to the notion that there are “no strings attached”. This may be a part of negotiating sexual expression, but definitions should consider this. Further, while similar benefits and risks have been perceived by college students, women have also expressed more interest in dating while men have preferred hooking up [15], and they participate in such behavior at slightly lower (albeit similar) rates than men [5]. Other research has suggested that females viewed hooking up less positively [4] and were less comfortable with the experiences then men [5]. They were also more likely than males to express discontent with their hook up experience [16], albeit this was attributed to the role of alcohol in the decision making process. This may be indicative of gender differences in hooking up. Part of the reason women may have ambivalence about hooking up due to institutional contradictions. “As women, they feel pressure to participate in traditional, committed romantic relationships. Yet the shrinking double standard and the socialclass expectations of uppermiddle- class women combine to encourage them to enjoy sex by way of hook ups that don’t threaten to entangle them in romantic relationships (which require a great deal of time and emotion and might pose a threat to their anticipated career paths)” [6]. According to this presumption, it would be logical to study college students or those wishing to advance in their professional development


2133

since hooking up would be expected in these populations. Accordingly, this study will use college students, which is in line with much of the existing research. Methodology As a first part of this study, we sought to delve into a typical search that might be undertaken by someone interested in learning about “hooking up” from an academic standpoint. We conducted a search with one of the most popular academic search engines in the social sciences. The terms entered included (a) hooking up, or (b) hook up, and (c) definition, or (d) defined. The search engine was asked to search for scholarly journal articles only. All terms were entered into the search engine and we examined the hits retrieved. In total, there were 306 articles retrieved from 1975 to 2013. We decided to sample the first 20 articles from the results that involved research conducted in the United States. Given that they are ranked in order of relevance, this method was used instead of a random selection (a quick examination of the latter hits reveals articles outside of this area, predominantly focused on unrelated research in the natural sciences). Only research articles relevant to relationships and those that had clear conceptualizations of “hooking up”, whether the definitions were innovative or based on existing research, were included in the sample. If we landed on a hit that was not relevant to our focus or with multiple, mixed, or unclear definitions, we defaulted to the next result. Here is what we found. We nearly exhausted all the search engine hits relevant to our topic. Of course, this list may vary if “casual sex” was entered into the equation, but such terms were not used since the focus of this study was to understand what “hooking up” implies (i.e., whether or not it includes activities other than sex). Examining and using terminology that young adults can relate to is important because these young adults can hold their own, varying views on what behaviors constitutes particular terms/phrases [30]. Familiarity in language may make respondents comfortable participating in the study. Yet many studies have created and put forth their own conceptualizations and operationalizations of the phrase without asking what these young adults’ perceive or they do not examine whether differences exist across groups. In the next stage of this study, we performed a content analysis of what “hooking up” means from the perspective of college students. The sample used in this study was derived from a subset of existing data that was collected from college students attending two Southeastern colleges via an online questionnaire. IRB

2134


approval was received for the study. In order to reach subjects, an email was sent by way of a list serve, thereby representing a convenience sample. The email informed students that their participation was voluntary and that all responses would be anonymous. Participants included graduate and undergraduate college students from a range of disciplines. In total, 458 students participated, but due to mostly incomplete/missing data, 54 (11.8%) surveys were discarded, resulting in a sample size of 404 (88.2% of the original sample). For purposes of this study, age was also restricted to those 18-30 years of age, resulting in the final sample size of 358. The majority of student respondents in the study were undergraduates (80.0%, n=323) who were female (75.2%, n=304), predominantly White (61.6%, n=249) and non-Hispanic (90.8%, n=367). The age of the participants ranged from 18 to 30 years of age with a mean of 22.2 years (SD=3.0 years). These characteristics were reflective of the populations used. Participants were asked basic demographic information first and were asked about “hooking up” following this. In particular, the students were asked the following open-ended question: What is “hooking up?” Since the question was open-ended, respondents were asked to provide a definition for this measure. Then, the researchers sought to closely examine the textual matter and subsequently classify the material based in common themes. The authors looked through each of the written responses in their entirety to determine which classification best fit (1=Sex only, whether vaginal, oral, and/or anal; 2=any intimate behavior ranging from kissing to sex; 3=any intimate behavior excluding sex, or 4=other, such as meeting up, hanging out, dating, but no mention of intimate/sexual behavior). The researchers coded separately first, then resolved the few minor discrepancies together. Through this method, we were able to determine whether common views are held regarding the meaning of “hooking up”. Results An examination of the definitions found in the academic literature reveals commonalities previously noted. 1) some type of physically intimate behavior, and 2) a lack of serious commitment between the parties involved. There is also consent by all parties involved. Nevertheless, while a definition may be agreed upon in the United States, we do not know if it is universally acknowledged or accepted.


2135

Additionally, examining the definitions found among college students revealed that the vast majority of respondents (94.2%) considered “sexual behavior”, whether sex alone, any behavior ranging from kissing to sex, or any intimate behavior not including sex (Table 2). Results indicate that over two-thirds of the sample (68.7%) felt hooking up implies sex only, whether vaginal, oral, and/or anal. This was followed by respondents who felt it ranged in behavior from kissing to sex (23.5%). To a lesser extent, some respondents classified hooking up as non-sexual behavior (5.0%), then intimate behavior up to but not including sex (2.0%), followed by unsure (.8%). The data revealed that, in line with the literature, which has suggested that hooking up can refer to sex alone or any behaviors ranging from kissing to sexual intercourse, respondents predominantly viewed “hooking up” as some type of sexual behavior. Out of the 358 respondents, the majority (92.2%) described it as either involving sex, whether vaginal, anal, and/or oral, or behaviors ranging from kissing through sex. The most common answer was one where the respondents bluntly stated that hook ups were purely sexual. For example, respondents said: “Sex” “It means having sex”. “It means sexual intercourse”. “Just sex and nothing more” “To me, hooking up is having sex with someone you are not in a relationship with” “Hooking up is a simple sexual encounter with no implied or expected commitment”. “Having sex, whether intercourse or oral”. “Having sex with someone you are not dating”. “Having sex with someone without commitment”. “Having sex casually with a person with no strings, or really emotions attached. I look at hooking up just like a “booty call”. “For me, it’s mean sexual contacts with men, without any closer relationships. Only sex with no obligations, free love”. “To me “hooking up” means just having fun. Not having any real commitment involved. This could involve sex and nothing else. Onenight stands and ‘friends with benefits’ fall under this title.

2136


“F*cking”. Some respondents encompassed a broader meaning: “It ranges from kissing to sex”. “Anything physical: kissing, sex, oral sex”. “Having oral, vaginal or anal sex with someone I am not in a committed relationship with”. “Hooking up goes along the lines of making out, heaving touching and actually having sex”. “Any type of physical intimacy: kissing, groping, oral, vaginal intercourse, etc”. “Hooking up means that two people come together to either kiss/ make out/have sex without any emotional commitment. It is usually a onetime thing but may occur more than once. Hooking up implies that it is casual and it does not occur within a relationship”. “There are physical/sexual behaviors between couples, anything from “fooling Around” to having sex with the mutual understanding that there is not a commitment to one another and there may not be communication with each other after hooking up. It can be a single incident or happen on multiple occasions, but they are not committed to one another”. Differences in whether respondents thought it was a one-time event or something that happened on several occasions were evidenced. “It refers to a one night stand”. “Hooking up” means having sex with that other person it often refers to a one time occurrence. “A one-time or recurring sexual encounter, with the sole purpose of some type of sexual interaction, usually with no commitment to the person or emotional involvement”. “Casually having sex, in between being single and in a relationship could sometimes mean being in an open relationship”. “Hooking up is having casual sex with someone you may or may not know very well. It may be a long term or a short term fling”. “Having sex or someone that you are involved with beyond the platonic stage”. “Friends with benefits. Not in a committed relationship but having sex”. “Sexual Relationship within a friendship; not officially committed but practically together”.


2137

“Having friends that you can be “involved” with, without having deal with all of the stress of being in a relationship”. “Getting together, occasionally a precursor to dating. Its physical activities with someone who you aren’t with officially yet”. It appears that some respondents considered hooking up as a single, isolated event whereas others thought it may or can involve sex on multiple occasions within friendships and possible even lead to a committed dating relationship. One study has called attention to the possibility of hook ups leading to committed relationships. They reported that although it is rare, “A few males and females defined a good hookup as something that develops into a friendship or even just a social connection in which you can comfortably acknowledge each other when you see each other again” [31]. Another interesting aspect that emerged was that some respondents called attention to shift in the terminology. For instance, one respondent stated: “When I was in high school, “hooking up” usually mean making out, now it means sex”. Other respondents mimicked this thought: “When I was in high school, it meant making out, and now in college I take it as sex”. “I usually use it to mean things besides sex, like making out, although I know most people use it to mean sex. It’s usually something casual that won’t lead to anything serious”. Additionally, one respondent said it used to refer to meeting up with someone, but now it means something else. Still, there was a smaller percentage that viewed hooking up as innocent, non-sexual behavior: “talking to see where the relationship could go”. “Going on a date or just getting with friends to do something fun...” “2 people interested in having a relationship together start to talk, get to know each other, and may begin to date”. A smaller percentage of the sample was not sure how to define it. In order to determine whether the respondents’ characteristics influence their responses, we conducted bivariate analyses on basic demographics. Specifically, cross-tabulation analyses were conducted to determine whether perceptions of hooking up differed on the basis of several variables: age, gender, race, ethnicity, and student status. Results revealed that gender was the only statistically significant variable related to perceptions of hooking up (x2=9.71, df=4, p