578025

research-article2015
PUS0010.1177/0963662515578025Public Understanding of ScienceEditorial

P  U  S
Editorial

Public Understanding of Science

2015, Vol. 24(3) 258­–259
Science literacy and beyond © The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0963662515578025
pus.sagepub.com

Scientific or science literacy is no doubt a foundation concept of the research field of public under-
standing of science (see Miller, 1983). In the United States, the National Science Foundation (NSF)
attempted to measure science literacy with regular surveys since the later 1980s, which also served
to compare the Nation’s progress with others. In China, a 5% scientific literacy target has been
written into planning for 2020 creating doubts over the measurement model because the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) reported tertiary educated
Chinese (30 million) outnumber the reportedly ‘scientifically literate’ population of 2.25% in 2007
(29.5 million), when one can expect the scientifically literate to extend beyond university educa-
tion (Wang et al., 2012; Ren and Zhai, 2014).1 Most countries have broadened their concerns
beyond literacy, to include attitudes to and public engagement with science and the mobilisation of
scientists as the purpose of science communication. However, the literacy concept seems to have
enjoyed a recent revival: it is easy to find references to medical, computer, Internet, nuclear, eco-
logical, psychological, genetic, religious, media, historical and, most recent also, financial literacy;
this list is not complete.
To add an attribute x-literacy and to thus multiply the literacy concepts extend a long historical
battle (see Stone, 1969). Stone showed that literacy rates of Britain (and France) have expanded
and stagnated since the early sixteenth century. Between 1500 and 1680, there was a massive
expansion in the ability to read and write from around 20% to 65% of the population, between 1680
and 1780, the effort stagnated, and from 1780 to 1900, it rose to near 100% on the basis of univer-
sal state education. The twentieth century extended this quest globally, but also stagnated in the
West until 1960s, when many countries started to expand higher education to further develop their
human resources. Once a 100% basic literacy rate is within reach, the focus shifts to specific
x-literacies, but where to start and where to stop? What about historical literacy? National histories
will produce historically ‘illiterate’ people on a global scale as people will know only their local
histories. But if improving x-literacy is the answer, what is the question? Stone (1969: 87ff) sum-
marised eight arguments for universal literacy: it is a prerequisite of civilisation and makes the
difference to barbarism, restores and maintains military capability, is a part of Nation building and
will improve morals (… you build either education or prisons …), reduces fertility and population
growth and it will enhance social control, deference and obedience to authority. Ruling elites often
were ambivalent about universal literacy, preferring to rule over illiterate ignorance, fearing public
unrest, rebellion and the decline of traditional authority arising from widespread literacy. Religious
sectarian competition for the minds of the poor (High and Low Church, Non-Conformism and
Catholic), and later between State and religions, was one of the major historical drivers towards
universal reading and writing.
The new quest for literacies inherits the idea that if everybody would be x-literate, the world
would be a better place; the common good will be served. However, the propagation of x-literacy
might well be the expression of particular aspirations to knowledge hegemony: a sector of society
Editorial 259

sets its stakes on an x-literacy programme beyond basic reading, writing and numeracy. It is said
that a language is a dialect commanding an army. Similarly, claims to x-literacy might reflect key
interests in society: powerful and aspiring actors might claim the need for x-literacy with clout and
resources to do so. And why not business corporations: soon we might find claims for Google and
for Facebook literacy.
In this edition, Public Understanding of Science (PUS) would like to rehearse past and present
science literacy debates, and for this purpose brings forward a review essay on financial literacy by
one of its academic proponents. Financial literacy has affinity to scientific literacy as it measures
understanding of mathematical concepts and probability reasoning, something science literacy has
considered in the past under ‘knowledge of scientific methods’. Annamaria Lusardi (2015) (George
Washington University (GWU), Washington) puts forward the case for financial literacy, for which
she got the attention of the OECD, and Martha Poon (City University of New York (CUNY)) and
Helaine Olen (New York based journalist) (2015) make the counter-point. We are convinced that
this debate should be within the pages of PUS, and we therefore invite papers and comments on
these matters.

Note
1. This sensitive problem is not directly addressed in writing; one has to carefully listen to debates at the
China Research Institute for Science Popularisation (CRISP) in Beijing to hear the concerns voiced, as
at the 50-years CRISP celebrations in September 2011.

References
Lusardi A (2015) Financial literacy: Do people know the ABCs of finance? Public Understanding of Science
24(3): 260–271.
Miller JD (1983) Scientific literacy: A conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus 112(2): 29–48.
Poon M and Olen H (2015) Does literacy improve finance? Public Understanding of Science 24(3): 272–284.
Ren F and Zhai J (2014) Communication and Popularisation of Science and Technology in China. Berlin,
Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; Beijing, China: China Science and Technology Press.
Stone L (1969) Literacy and education in England, 1640–1900. Past & Present 42: 69–139.
Wang K, Ren F, He W and Zhang C (2012) Adult scientific literacy and its surveys in Chins since 1992. In:
Bauer MW, Shukla R and Allum N (eds) The Culture of Science – How the Public Relates to Science
across the Globe. New York: Routledge, pp. 126–135.

Martin W. Bauer
(Editor-in-Chief)