Young Italians’ Relationship with Science and Technology. Data analysis from the Science, Technology, and Society Observatory 2007-2023

Journal title WELFARE E ERGONOMIA
Author/s Andrea Rubin, Barbara Saracino
Publishing Year 2024 Issue 2023/2
Language Italian Pages 20 P. 153-172 File size 416 KB
DOI 10.3280/WE2023-002011
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

The relationship between the younger generations, science and technology has been the subject of growing interest in recent decades and has seen the emergence of numerous initiatives aimed at investigating the educational attainment, motivation and, more generally, the orientation towards research activities and scientific organizations on the part of young people. Understanding the younger generation’s views on science and technology remains a matter of strategic importance. The contribution presents the results of an annual monitoring conducted by Observa Science in Society from 2007 to 2023 on representative samples of the Italian population. The surveys return relevant results on six domains: scientific and technological knowledge, exposure to science through the media, participation in scientific events and shows, credibility of information sources, opinions towards science and technology, trust in science and scientists. The data highlight high levels of scientific literacy and interest in science and technology among young people, but also articulate and ambivalent views on the role of technoscience in society, the risks associated with scientific research and its implications.

Keywords: youth; science and technology; public opinion; public understand-ing of science.

  1. Bucchi M. (1997). I giovani e la scienza. In: Cavalli A., De Lillo A. e Buzzi C., a cura di, Giovani verso il Duemila. Quarto Rapporto IARD sulla condizione giovanile in Italia. Bologna: il Mulino.
  2. Bucchi M. and Trench B. (2014). Science communication research: themes and challenges. In: Bucchi M. and Trench B., editors, Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology, third edition. London-New York: Routledge.
  3. Castells M. (2002). Galassia Internet. Milano: Feltrinelli.
  4. Castells M. (1996). The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford: Blackwell.
  5. Cavalli A. e De Lillo A., a cura di (1993). Giovani anni 90. Terzo rapporto IARD sulla condizione giovanile in Italia. Bologna: il Mulino.
  6. Cavalli A. e De Lillo A. (1988). Giovani anni 80. Secondo rapporto Iard sulla condizione giovanile in Italia. Bologna: il Mulino.
  7. Corbetta P. (2003). La ricerca sociale: metodologia e tecniche. IV. L’analisi dei dati. Bologna: il Mulino.
  8. Del Vicario M., Bessi A., Zollo F., Petroni F., Scala A., Caldarelli G. and Quattrociocchi W. (2016). The spreading of misinformation online. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(3): 554-559.
  9. DeWitt J. and Archer L. (2015). Who Aspires to a Science Career? A comparison of survey response from primary and secondary school students. International Journal of Science Education, 37(13): 2170-2192. DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2015.1071899
  10. Einsiedel E.F. (1994). Mental maps of science: knowledge and attitudes among Canadian adults. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 6(1): 35-44.
  11. Eurobarometro (2021). Special Eurobarometer 516, European citizens’ knowledge and attitudes towards science and technology. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Commission, Settembre 2021.
  12. Falk J.H., Storksdieck M. and Dierking L.D. (2007). Investigating public science interest and understanding: Evidence for the importance of free-choice learning. Public Understanding of Science, 16(4): 455-469. DOI: 10.1177/0963662506064240.
  13. Giddens A. (1990). The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  14. Henriksen E.K., Dillon J. and Ryder, J., editors, (2014). Understanding Student Participation and Choice in Science and Technology Education. London: Routledge.
  15. Istituto Giuseppe Toniolo, a cura di (2013-2023). La condizione giovanile in Italia. Rapporto giovani. Bologna: il Mulino.
  16. Kahan D.M. (2017). Misconceptions, Misinformation, and the Logic of Identity-Protective. Cognition. SSRN Electronic Journal, -- Testo disponibile al sito: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2973067.
  17. Kim B., Xiong A., Lee D. and Han K. (2021). A systematic review on fake news research through the lens of news creation and consumption: Research efforts, challenges, and future directions. PLoS ONE, 16(12), e0260080.
  18. Klopfenstein Frei N., Wyss V., Gnach A., and Weber W. (2022). “It’s a matter of age”: Four dimensions of youths’ news consumption. Journalism, 0(0). DOI: 10.1177/14648849221123385
  19. Luhmann N. (1989). Familiarità, confidare e fiducia. In: Gambetta D., a cura di, Le strategie della fiducia. Torino: Einaudi.
  20. Melchior C. and Oliveira M. (2023). A systematic literature review of the motivations to share fake news on social media platforms and how to fight them. New Media & Society, 0(0). DOI: 10.1177/14614448231174224.
  21. Merton R.K. (2000). Teoria e struttura sociale, vol. 3, Sociologia della conoscenza e sociologia della scienza. Bologna: il Mulino.
  22. Miller J.D. (1992). Toward a scientific understanding of the public understanding of science and technology. Public Understanding of Science, 1: 23-30. DOI: 10.1088/09636625/1/1/005
  23. Miller J.D. (1983). Scientific literacy: a conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus, 112(2): 29-48.
  24. Neresini F., Corvato S. e Saracino B. (2010). Scienza e nuove generazioni. Vicenza: Observa.
  25. Nerlich B. (2015). Imaging Imaginaries. University of Nottingham. -- Testo disponibile al sito: https://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepublic/2015/04/23/imagining-imaginaries/, ultima consultazione il 25 settembre 2023.
  26. Newman N., Fletcher R., Kalogeropoulos A. and Nielsen R. (2019). Reuters institute digital news report. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.
  27. OCSE (2017). PISA 2015 Results (Volume III): Students’ Well-Being. Paris: OECD.
  28. Pace E. (1998). I giovani del Veneto: dalla religione di nascita alla ricerca di nuove spiritualità. In: Tomasi L., a cura di, La cultura dei giovani europei alle soglie del 2000. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  29. Pellegrini G. (2018). Narrazioni di mondi possibili. Giovani e immaginario scientifico. Bologna: il Mulino.
  30. Pizzorno A. (2006). Capitale sociale, reputazione, visibilità. Sociologia del Lavoro, 104(4): 236-259.
  31. Prensky M. (2004). The emerging online life of the digital native: What they do differently because of technology, and how they do it (a work in progress). -- Testo disponibile al sito: http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/default.asp, ultima consultazione il 25 settembre 2023.
  32. Rubin A. (2020). Fiducia, reputazione sociale e visibilità degli esperti. Il caso studio della Notte dei Ricercatori. Quaderni di sociologia, LXIV(82): 25-42.
  33. Bucchi M. (2001). Scienza e nuove tecnologie. In: Buzzi C., Cavalli A. e De Lillo A., a cura di, Giovani del nuovo secolo. Quinto rapporto IARD sulla condizione giovanile in Italia. Bologna: il Mulino.
  34. Bucchi M. (2007). Scienza e salute. In: Buzzi C., Cavalli A. e De Lillo A., a cura di, Rapporto giovani. Sesta indagine dell'Istituto IARD sulla condizione giovanile in Italia. Bologna: il Mulino.
  35. Brandi M.C., Cerbara L., Misiti M. and Valente A. (2005). Youth and science in Italy: between enthusiasm and indifference. JCOM, 4(2), A01. DOI: 10.22323/2.04020201.
  36. Boczkowski P., Mitchelstein E. and Matassi M. (2017). Incidental news: how young people consume news on social media. In: Bui T.X. and Sprague R., editors, Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. DOI: 10.24251/HICSS.2017.217
  37. Bengtsson S. and Johansson S. (2021). A phenomenology of news: understanding news in digital culture. Journalism, 22(11): 2873-2889. DOI: 10.1177/1464884919901194.
  38. Bauer M.W., Shukla R. and Allum N., editors (2012). The Culture of Science. How the Public Relates to Science Across the Globe. New York: Routledge.
  39. Bauer M. and Falade B.A. (2022). Public Understanding of Science. Survey research around the world. In: Bucchi M. and Trench B., editors, Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology, Third edition. London-New York: Routledge.
  40. Bauer M.W. (2009). The Evolution of Public Understanding of Science – Discourse and Comparative Evidence. Science, Technology and Society, 14(2): 221-240. DOI: 10.1177/097172180901400202.
  41. Andretta M. e Mosca L. (2003). Il movimento per una globalizzazione dal basso: forze e debolezze di un’identità negoziata. In: Della Porta D. e Mosca L., a cura di, Globalizzazione e movimenti sociali. Roma: Manifestolibri.
  42. Rubin A. e Leone S. (2019). I giovani e la scienza. In: Leone S., a cura di, I giovani delle differenze. Bologna: il Mulino.
  43. Rughiniș C. and Huma B. (2015). Who theorizes age? The “socio-demographic variables” device and age – period – cohort analysis in the rhetoric of survey research. Journal of Aging Studies, 35: 144-159.
  44. Schober M.F., Pasek J., Guggenheim L., Lampe C. and Conrad F.G. (2016). Social Media Analyses for Social Measurement. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(1): 180-211.
  45. Schuilenburg M. and Peeters R., editors, (2020). The Algorithmic Society. Technology, Power, and Knowledge. New York: Routledge.
  46. Shimizu K. (2009). An Empirical Cohort Analysis of the Relationship between National Science Curriculum and Public Understanding of Science and Technology: A Case Study of Japan. Science, Technology and Society, 14(2): 365-383. DOI: 10.1177/097172180901400208.
  47. Siarova H., Sternadel D. and Szőnyi E. (2019). Research for CULT Committee – Science and Scientific Literacy as an Educational Challenge. Brussels: European Parliament, Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies.
  48. Snow C.P. (1961). The two cultures and the scientific revolution. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  49. Sturgis P. e Allum N. (2004). Science in Society: Re-Evaluating the Deficit Model of Public Attitudes. Public Understanding of Science, 13(1): 55-74. DOI: 10.1177/0963662504042690
  50. Tai R.H., Qi Liu C., Maltese A.V. and Fan X. (2006). Planning Early for Careers in Science. Science, 312: 1143-1144.
  51. Tambuscio M., Ruffo G., Flammini A. and Menczer F. (2015). Fact-checking Effect on Viral Hoaxes: A Model of Misinformation Spread in Social Networks. ACM Press, 977-982. DOI: 10.1145/2740908.2742572.
  52. Thomas V.L., Fowler K. (2023). Examining the outcomes of influencer activism. Journal of Business Research, 154, 113336.
  53. Tipaldo G., Rocutto S., Merlo C. e Bruno F. (2022). Il dibattito degli esperti sul Covid-19: sintomi di decivilizzazione. Quaderni di Sociologia, LXVI(89): 47-81.
  54. Van Dijck J. (2013). The Culture of Connectivity: A Critical History of Social Media. New York: Oxford University Press.
  55. Van Dijck J. (1999). The Network Society: Social Aspects of New Media. London: Sage.
  56. Wahler P. and Tully C.J. (1991). Young People’s Attitudes to Technology. European Journal of Education, 26(3): 261-272. DOI: 10.2307/1503028.

Andrea Rubin, Barbara Saracino, I rapporti dei giovani italiani con la scienza e la tecnologia. Analisi sui dati dell’Osservatorio Scienza Tecnologia e Società 2007-2023 in "WELFARE E ERGONOMIA" 2/2023, pp 153-172, DOI: 10.3280/WE2023-002011