What follows is an analysis based on the meeting of the ideas of the literature review, expert interviews and public questionnaires. It tries to filter out those relationships which appear in the data but are being produced by the interaction of other factors (e.g. the concentration of science fiction fans at the higher end of the level of interest in science and technology may produce a bias towards their views).
There was by far more 18 to 30 year olds stopping to fill in the questionnaire. It appears that this age group was more receptive to stopping, this may be because it is the age group of the researcher.
The experts’ expectation that the public had a high level of interest in science and technology was found to be true, with science fiction fans tending to be very interested in science and technology, bearing out the assertion that science and technology are closely linked to science fiction.
It was also noted that the people who believed science fiction to affect their understanding tended to have a high level of interest in science and technology.
An increasing level of interest in science and technology also appears to produce an increase in the degree to which science fiction represents real science. This trend seems completely unrelated to the higher concentration of science fiction fans found at the higher interest levels. But this concentration may account for the other associations (relating to predicting the future, the positive/negative image of science, time spent on science fiction and science the science fiction/pseudo-science divide) appearing in the results relating to levels of interest. The level of interest also shows a positive link to the belief in science fiction inspiring an interest in science and technology.
Whereas the experts talked of science, technology and humanity when talking about science fiction the publics top three themes were science, space and future. Connect to this the popularity of using Star Trek or Star Wars to describe science fiction and we find we come back to the power of the ‘space opera’ and science producing space travel in the future. This description may go a long way to explaining why astronomy and cosmology appear so popular as areas of public interest. Out of the 10 main themes used by the public to describe what science fiction was technology was 5th and humanity only ranking 9th, with just 3 mentions out of 80. The effectiveness of the forum for debating wider scientific issues with the public suddenly seems called into question.
How much time is spent on science fiction is strongly linked to whether the public considered themselves to be a fan or not. Although science fiction is often seen as being very popular the public as a whole tended to spend little time watching or reading it, even though 43% of them considered themselves to be fans. But as the exposure to science fiction increased so did the belief in the amount of real science present, with it being those who had very little contact with science fiction found to be the ones who believed it to not affect their understanding. The growth seen in the belief that it predicts the future and shows science in a positive light appears to be due to the interaction of science fiction fans spending more time on science fiction. So as the time spent on science fiction increases it does appear to have the effect of changing views about science in the mind of the public.
The majority of the experts expected science fiction to featuring heavily in the public’s exposure to science, but only 15% of the public saw science fiction as their main exposure to science and technology. If it was the main exposure then their level of interest in science tended to be low. 24% of science fiction fans and just 9% of non fans claimed it to be their main exposure to science. So this means that 27% of the people for whom science fiction is their main exposure to science and technology are not even science fiction fans, that’s about 4.5% of the total population. Even the majority of people for whom it was the main exposure realised that it did not contain much real science. Of those for whom it was their main exposure only 58% of them thought that it had an effect on their understanding.
It is then likely that science fiction is just one of a whole mixture of mediums which influence the publics understanding.
Although science fiction is said to be sometimes based on relatively plausible extrapolations from current science the public tended to believe that it does not represent much real science, both fans and non fans taking this same view. But as the amount of real science in science fiction is thought to increase so do the beliefs that it predicts the future, inspires an interest in science, affects understanding and shows science in a positive light. Backing up the opinion that science fiction may be at its best when it does represent real science. Including more real science in science fiction would then not increase the publics understanding without it being made clear that what they are seeing is ‘real’ science.
The experts expected the public to see science fiction as a predictor of future science and technology, even though they themselves are sure that it does not.
But when questioned the public appeared unsure. The science fiction fans tended towards agreeing that it does and the non fans tended towards disagreeing. But as this belief in science fiction’s predictive nature grew so did the belief that it can inspire an interest in science and technology. It tended to be the people who said that their understanding was effected by science fiction who believed it to predict the future. So though not attempting to predict the future, science fiction can be inspirational for the public, just as it is thought that it can be for scientists.
The stereotyped negative image of the scientist within science fiction was expected to have negative effects on the publics’ visions. Although the public did describe the stereotypical scientist in 65% of the cases, they then went on to show that this image had very little effect on them. They get their information about real scientists from other sources, sources which are powerful enough to override the images of science fiction.
Although science fiction has been stated to be often suspicious of science and technology, preferring the darker visions, the majority of the experts hoped that the net effect of science fiction on the public would be a positive one. When questioned on the subject the positive and negative representations of science and technology were seen to cancel each other out in the eyes of the public. This result hides that fact that the non science fiction fans firmly see a negative representation, whilst the fans (like the experts) are more hopeful.
It was clearly thought by the public (both fans and non fans) and the experts that science fiction did inspire an interest in science and technology. This belief also increased with the amount of science fiction seen.
The view of the experts that the public would have difficulty in drawing a distinction between science fiction and pseudo-science appears to be well founded. Overall the public were very split but with the small majority claiming that Buffy the Vampire slayer and The X-Files were science fiction. It was the science fiction fans who saw the clearest distinction.
20% of the people questioned saw these programs as being science fiction and as also effecting their understanding of science and technology. With a further 8% just seeing The X-Files as science fiction and it still effecting their understanding.
The strong belief that science fiction affects the public’s understanding of science and technology to some degree was left open to debate with 41% of the public acknowledging that to some degree science fiction was having an affect on their understanding of science and technology. Even if that affect is through simply stimulating an interest to learn more. 64% of those believing that it does affect understanding being science fiction fans. 41% does appear low but the public were expected to not realise the effect or deny it.
The aim of the study was to evaluate what effect the general public considered popular science fiction had had on their understanding of science and technology.
It was found that the way in which science fiction could affect the publics understanding was through the representations it showcased of science (both current and in the future) and scientists.
The main areas of interest were in
- If science fiction was the publics main exposure to science and technology?
- If the public believed science fiction represented real science and technology?
- If the public believed that the science and technology shown in science fiction was predicting the future of where they are going?
- The image of the scientist in science fiction as seen by the public and its effect on their views of real scientists.
- How the public sees science as being represented (positive or threatening)?
- Do the public see science fiction as inspiring an interest in science and technology?
- The science fiction/Pseudo-science divide.
- If they believe science fiction to have an effect on their understanding.
- Do practitioners see science fiction as an educational tool?
Science fiction and its interactions with the watching public are complex.
Science fiction appeared to have strong influences on the publics understanding of science and technology, but many of the public did not realise or admit it. Many people did not see science fiction as effecting their understanding simply because they do not watch or read much of it. But the public clearly saw it as inspiring an interest in science and technology. Therefore the public appear to not relate the producing of an interest in something as leading to understanding, or they may simply not be thinking that far in advance.
Science fiction was linked to a high level of interest in science and technology.
But for those who do not consider themselves to have a high level of interest in science and technology but do have an interest in science fiction, the science fiction can be used to get them motivated to learn real science through using science fiction as the hook.
Science fiction was the main exposure to only science and technology for 15% of the public. So it is far more likely to be just one of many exposures but not the dominate one.
The representations it presents are seen by science fiction fans as predictions of the future. Link this with the view amongst the science fiction fan group, that science in science fiction is often shown in a positive light and we find that it may be currently dissipating the publics crisis in trust. But taking the public as a whole, science fiction has no net effect on the good or bad of science and technology. The two projected extremes cancelling each other out.
Science fiction has little negative effect on the views of what real scientists are like. The classic negative stereotypes now being seen as just an illusion within the genre. If anything many practitioners hope that the recent trend may be turning to more positive, realistic role models, which the public may take more note of.
The public did not see science fiction as representing real science, so attempts to including more real science in science fiction would then not increase the publics understanding without it being made clear that what they are seeing is ‘real’ science.
The public did not list human interact as an important issue in what they see as science fiction, tending to concentrate more on the ‘space opera’ variety. This perhaps lessens the impact of debate about issues of society within science fiction, often these may go unnoticed.
The divide between science fiction and pseudo-science is not at all clear, with the majority of the public seeing pseudo-science programs as being included in science fiction. So science fiction will not easily be used to tackle the growth of pseudo-science.
Within the study all the experts who agreed to be questioned were all science fiction fans or enjoy science fiction. If the work were to be continued the views of no fan experts would be very interesting.
As the study continued into the analysis phase it began to become clear that the general public do not exist as one large mass. So the results looking at the public as a whole, hide the deeper real relationships. To study these, the sample of the public would need to be broken down into smaller categories, which are then each in turn analysed. The clearest example of this being the difference between the public as a whole and the science fiction fans. As the fans group had strong views which influenced the results of the whole, removing them and dealing with them separately allows deeper analysis of the interactions of the non fans. This was attempted within the study but due to the time constraints this could not be fully carried through.
To get any meaningful results out of such an extended study the questionnaire sample size would need to be increased from the original size of 80.
Important questions to be looked at include which came first the high level of interest in science and technology or the interest in science fiction of the science fiction fans?
It may also be useful to introduce a scale of level of interest in science fiction, instead to the fan/non fan divide.
Armitage, R. (1998) How the press influences the publics understanding of forensic science, MSc Dissertation, Communicating Science, University of Glamorgan.
ASTC (2001) http://www.astc.org
Batchelor, D A. The Science of Star Trek, (6/01)http://ssdoo.gsfc.nasa.gov/education/just_for_fun/startrek.shtml
BBC Online. (2001) Star Trek: Federation Science - Exhibition Preview. At www.bbc.co.uk/cult/startrek/databank/fedscience.shtml (6/01)
Bell J.(1995) Doing your research project, 2nd edn. Open University press, Buckingham.
Blake, M. (2001) Science fiction in the classroom. P16-18, Physics World Vol 14 No.1
Bouma G D & Atkinson G B J. (1995). A handbook of social science research, 2nd edn. Oxford University press
British Association for the Advancement of Science evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology inquiry into society’s relationship with science. (8/12/00), WWW.britassoc.org.uk/pub/lords.html
Cavelos, J. (1999) The Science of Star Wars. Saint Martins’ Press Inc.
Frayling, C. (2000) The image of the scientist in the movies. A talk as part of the British Association Festival of Science.
Hannah (2001) The Political Economy of the New Hollywood and the Rise of the Science Fiction Film. www.susx.ac.uk/users/fap40/framesrc2f.html
Idier, D. (2000) Science Fiction and technology scenarios: comparing Asimov’3 robots and Gibson’s cyberspace. Technology in Society. At www.elsevier.com/locate/techsoc (5/7/01)
James, E. (1994) Science Fiction in the Twentieth Century. Oxford University Press.
James, E. (2000) Turning Science Fiction into fact. The Times Higher 8/9/00.
King, G and Krzywinska. (2000) Science Fiction Cinema From Outerspace to Cyberspace, Wallflower, London
Krauss, L. (1998) Selling physics to unwilling buyers: physics fact and fiction. Physics World, July 1998, vol11 issue 7. http://physicsweb.org/article/world/11/7/9
Leach, J. (1998) Here come the men in black. At www.elsevier.com
New Scientist, 20 April 1996, No.2026
OCDE, (1997), Promoting Public Understanding of Science and Technology, Paris, Http://www.oecd.org/dsti/sti/st/scs/prod/e97-95.htm
Oppenheim A N, (1992). Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement, Pinter, London.
Pollock, J and Steven, D. (1995) Now For the Science Bit - Concentrate www.riverpath.com
PhysicsWeb (1998) Science fiction to the rescue of teaching? http://physicsweb.org/article/news/2/2/1
PhysicsWeb (1999) UK university launches science fiction degree. July. http://physicsweb.org/article/news/3/7/10
Physics World. (1998) Learning physics from science fiction. http://physicsweb.org/article/reviews/11/1/2
Physics World. (1998) Welcome to 2001 http://physicsweb.org/article/world/14/1/1
Public attitudes to science, Post note 69, (1995)
Roberts, A. (2000) Science Fiction, Routledge, London
Rowe, R. (2001) Science Fiction - Fictional Science? DDT Vol.6 No.11 June At www.elsevier.com
Saunders M, Lewis P & Thornhill A. (2000) Research methods for business students, Harlow:FT Prentice Hall.
Science and Society, The House of Lords Select Committee on Science and technology third report, (2000), WWW.parliament.the-stationery-office
Science fiction studies #72 Vol 24, (July ’97) A Completist Manifesto and Exemplar, work quoting Gary Westfahl. www.uiowa.edu/~sfs/bir72.htm#d72 (5/7/01)
(Stork, D.) Truth is stranger than science fictionAt www.empc.com/intro_pc/reading15.htm (3/7/01)
Wagar, W W. (1997) Governing the Future. Science Fiction Studies #73 1997 www.uiowa.edu/~sfs/wagar73.htm
WWW.Startrek.com (10/8/01) Star Trek in Education & Warp Drive Officially on Drawing Board.
Bouma, G D & Atkinson, G B J. (1995) A Handbook of Social Science Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bradley, D. (2001) All Uncool Boffins, Children's preceptions of scientists Issue 102 HMS Beagle The BioMedNet Magazine
Catling, D. Planet Mars in Popular Culture. (14/05/01) http://humbabe.arc.nasa.gov/mgcm/fun/pop.html
Dick, S J. (14/05/01) Consequences of Success in SETI: Lessons from the History of Science. http://www.nidsci.org/articles/steve_dick.html
Featherstone, H. (2000) Developing a pilot tool for communicating science MSc Dissertation, Communicating Science, University of Glamorgan.
O'Brien, D. (2000) SF:UK, How British Science Fiction Changed the World. London: Reynolds & Hearn Ltd.
Krauss, L M. (1996) The Physics of Star Trek. London: HarperCollins.
Norton, C J. (1999) How can the @ Bristol science centre attract older visitors? MSc Dissertation, Communicating Science, University of Glamorgan.
Pilkington, M. (14/05/01) An Exploration of the Relationship Between Science Fiction Film and the UFO Mythology. http://www.hedweb.com/markp/ufofilm.htm
Sagan, C. (1997) The Demon – Haunted World. London: Headline.
Tanitch, R. (2000) Blockbusters! 70 Years of Best-Selling Movies. London: B T Batsford