nach oben

Prevention Science

Erschienen in:

30.07.2016

Transfer Entails Communication: The Public Understanding of (Social) Science as a Stage and a Play for Implementing Evidence-Based Prevention Knowledge and Programs

verfasst von: Rainer Bromme, Andreas Beelmann

Erschienen in: Prevention Science | Ausgabe 3/2018

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Many social science-based interventions entail the transfer of evidence-based knowledge to the “target population,” because the acquisition and the acceptance of that knowledge are necessary for the intended improvement of behavior or development. Furthermore, the application of a certain prevention program is often legitimated by a reference to science-based reasons such as an evaluation according to scientific standards. Hence, any implementation of evidence-based knowledge and programs is embedded in the public understanding of (social) science. Based on recent research on such public understanding of science, we shall discuss transfer as a process of science communication.

Allum, N., Sturgis, P., Tabourazi, D., & Brunton-Smith, I. (2008). Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: A meta-analysis. Public Understanding of Science, 17, 35–54. doi:10.1177/0963662506070159.CrossRef

Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., Di Pietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How learning works: 7 research based principles for smart teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Barnett, J., Cooper, H., & Senior, V. (2007). Belief in public efficacy, trust, and attitudes toward modern genetic science. Risk Analysis, 27, 921–933. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00932.x.CrossRefPubMed

Beelmann, A. (2011). The scientific foundation of prevention. The status quo and future challenges of developmental crime prevention. In T. Bliesener, A. Beelmann, & M. Stemmler (Eds.), Antisocial behavior and crime. Contributions of developmental and evaluation research to prevention and intervention (pp. 137–164). Cambridge: Hogrefe Publishing.

Beelmann, A., & Heinemann, K. S. (2014). Preventing prejudice and improving intergroup attitudes: A meta-analysis of child and adolescent training programs. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 35, 10–24. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2013.11.002.CrossRef

Beelmann, A., & Raabe, T. (2009). The effects of preventing antisocial behavior and crime in childhood and adolescence: results and implications of research reviews and meta-analyses. European Journal of Developmental Science, 3, 260–281.

Benassi, V. A., Overson, C. E., & Hakala, C. M. (2014). Applying science of learning in education. Infusing psychological science into the curriculum. Washington: American Psychological Association.

Besley, J. (2014). Science and technology: Public attitudes and understanding. In National Science Board (Ed.), Science and engineering indicators (pp. 1–53). Arlington: National Science Foundation (NSB 14-01).

Bromme, R., & Goldman, S. R. (2014). The public’s bounded understanding of science. Educational Psychologist, 49, 59–69. doi:10.1080/00461520.2014.921572.CrossRef

Bromme, R., & Prenzel, M. (2014). Von der Forschung zur evidenzbasierten Entscheidung: Die Darstellung und das öffentliche Verständnis der empirischen Bildungsforschung. [From research to evidence based decisions: The reporting and the public understanding of educational research] (Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, Sonderheft, Vol. 27). Wiesbaden: VS Springer. doi:10.1007/s11618-014-0514-5.

Burkhardt, J. T., Schröter, D. C., Magura, S., Means, S. N., & Coryn, C. L. S. (2015). An overview of evidence-based program registers (EBPRs) for behavioral health. Evaluation and Program Planning, 48, 92–99. doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2014.09.006.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Castell, S., Charlton, A., Clemence, M., Pettigrew, N., Pope, S., Quigley, A., & Silman, T. (2014). Public attitudes to science 2014. London: Ipos MORI Social Research Institute.

Collins, H., & Evans, R. (2007). Re-thinking expertise. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Durlak, J. A., & DuPre, E. P. (2008). Implementation matters: A review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 327–350. doi:10.1007/s10464-008-9165-0.CrossRefPubMed

Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82, 405–432. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x.CrossRefPubMed

Eurobarometer. (2010). Special Eurobarometer 340. Science and technology. Wave 73.1. Brussels: European Commission.

Fanelli, D. (2013). Redefine misconduct as distorted reporting. Nature, 494, 149.CrossRefPubMed

Farrington, D. P., & Ttofi, M. M. (2009). School-based programs to reduce bullying and victimization. Campbell Systematic Review, 2009, 6. doi:10.4073/csr.2009.6.

Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: a synthesis of the literature. Tempa: University of South Florida.

Gorman, D. M. (2016). Can we trust positive results of intervention research? The role of conflict of interest. Prevention Science. doi:10.1007/s11121-016-0648-1.

Hendriks, F., Kienhues, D., & Bromme, R. (2016). Trust in science and the science of trust. In B. Blöbaum (Ed.), Trust and communication in a digitized world: Models and concepts of trust research (pp. 143–159). Cham: Springer International Publishing.CrossRef

Ho, S., Brossard, D., & Scheufele, D. A. (2008). Effects of value predispositions, mass media and knowledge on public attitudes toward embryonic stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 20, 171–192. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edn017.CrossRef

Kahan, D. M., Jenkins-Smith, H., & Braman, D. (2011). Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of Risk Research, 14, 147–174. doi:10.1080/13669877.2010.511246.CrossRef

Kazdin, A. E. (2005). Parent management training. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Keil, F. C. (2010). The feasibility of folk science. Cognitive Science, 34, 826–862. doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01108.x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Keil, F. C., Lockhart, K. L., & Schlegel, E. (2010). A bump on a bump? Emerging intuitions concerning the relative difficulty of the sciences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139, 1–15. doi:10.1037/a0018319.CrossRef

Lakatos, I., & Musgrave, A. (Eds.). (1970). Criticism and the growth of knowledge. London: Cambridge University Press.

Layton, D., Jenkins, E., Macgill, S., & Davey, A. (1993). Inarticulate science? Driffield: Studies in Education.

Leviton, L. C., & Hughes, E. F. X. (1981). Reseach on the utilization of evaluations. A review and synthesis. Evaluation Review, 5, 525–548.CrossRef

Lewandowski, S., Ecker, U. K., Seifert, C., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012). Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13, 106–131. doi:10.1177/1529100612451018.CrossRef

Lilienfeld, S. O. (2012). Public skepticism of Psychology: Why many people perceive the study of human behavior as unscientific. American Psychologist, 67, 111–129. doi:10.1037/a0023963.CrossRefPubMed

Lipsey, M. (2009). The primary factors that characterize effective interventions with juvenile offenders: A meta-analytic overview. Victims and Offenders, 4, 124–147.CrossRef

Longino, H. E. (2002). The fate of knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Maier, M., Rothmund, T., Retzbach, A., Otto, L., & Besley, J. C. (2014). Informal learning through science media usage. Educational Psychologist, 49, 86–103. doi:10.1080/00461520.2014.916215.CrossRef

Meyers, D. C., Durlak, J. A., & Wandersman, A. (2012). The quality implementation framework: a synthesis of critical steps in the implementation process. American Journal of Community Psychology, 50, 462–480. doi:10.1007/s10464-012-9522-x.CrossRefPubMed

Molloy, L. E., Moore, J. E., Trail, J., van Epps, J. J., & Hopfer, S. (2013). Understanding real-world implementation quality and “active ingredients” of PBIS. Prevention Science, 14, 593–605. doi:10.1007/s11121-012-0343-9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Moore, J. E., Bumbarger, B. K., & Cooper, B. R. (2013). Examining adaptations of evidence-based programs in natural contexts. Journal of Primary Prevention, 34, 147–161. doi:10.1007/s10935-013-0303-6.CrossRefPubMed

Munro, G. D. (2010). The scientific impotence excuse: Discounting belief-threatening scientific abstracts. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 579–600. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00588.x.CrossRef

O’Connell, M. E., Boat, T., & Warner, K. E. (Eds.). (2009). Preventing mental, emotional, and behavioral disorders among young people. Progress and possibilities. Washington: The National Academies Press.

Okamoto, S. K., Kulis, S., Marsiglia, F. F., Steiker, L. K. H., & Dustman, P. (2014). A continuum of approaches toward developing culturally focused prevention interventions: From adaption to grounding. Journal of Primary Prevention, 35, 103–112. doi:10.1007/s10935-013-0333-z.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Paluck, E. L., & Green, D. P. (2009). Prejudice reduction: What works? A review and assessment of research and practice. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 339–367. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163607.CrossRefPubMed

Rohrbach, L. A., Grana, R., Sussman, S., & Valente, T. W. (2006). Type II translation: Transporting prevention interventions from research to real-world settings. Evaluation & the Health Profession, 29, 302–333. doi:10.1177/0163278706290408.CrossRef

Rothstein, H. R., Sutton, A. J., & Borenstein, M. (Eds.). (2005). Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment, and adjustment. Chichester: Wiley.

Saguy, A. C., & Almeling, R. (2008). Fat in the fire. Science, the news media, and the ‘obesity epidemic’. Sociological Forum, 23, 53–83. doi:10.1111/j.1573-7861.2007.00046x.CrossRef

Scharrer, L., Bromme, R., Britt, M. A., & Stadtler, M. (2012). The seduction of easiness: How science depictions influence laypeople’s reliance on their own evaluation of scientific information. Learning and Instruction, 22, 231–243. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.11.004.CrossRef

Sinatra, G. M., & Chinn, C. A. (2012). Thinking and reasoning in science: Promoting epistemic conceptual change. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, A. Bus, S. Major, & H. L. Swanson (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook (Vol. 3, pp. 257–282). Washington: American Psychological Association.

Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G., & Wilson, D. (2010). Epistemic vigilance. Mind and Language, 25, 359–393. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0017.2010.01394.x.CrossRef

Sundell, K., Beelmann, A., Hasson, H., & von Thiele Schwarz, U. (2015). Novel programs, international adoptions, or contextual adaptations? Meta-analytical results from German and Swedish intervention research. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology. doi:10.1080/15374416.2015.1020540. Published online: 11 April 2015.

Taylor, A. K., & Kowalsi, P. (2014). Student misconceptions: Where do they come from and what can we do? In V. A. Benassi, C. E. Overson, & C. M. Hakala (Eds.), Applying science of learning in education. Infusing psychological science into the curriculum (pp. 259–273). Washington: American Psychological Association.

Thomm, E., & Bromme, R. (2012). “It should at least seem scientific!” Textual features of “scientificness” and their impact on lay assessments of online information. Science Education, 96, 197–211. doi:10.1002/sce.20480.CrossRef

Tseng, V. (2012). Social policy report: The uses of research in policy and practice. Society for Research in Child Development, 26, 1–24.CrossRef

Webster-Stratton, C., & Herbert, M. (1994). Troubled families—problem children. Working with parents: a collaborative process. Chichester: Wiley.

Titel: Transfer Entails Communication: The Public Understanding of (Social) Science as a Stage and a Play for Implementing Evidence-Based Prevention Knowledge and Programs
verfasst von: Rainer Bromme
Andreas Beelmann
Publikationsdatum: 30.07.2016
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Prevention Science / Ausgabe 3/2018
Print ISSN: 1389-4986
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-6695
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-016-0686-8

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2018

Enhancing Capacity for Evidence-Based Policymaking: the Role of Economic Evaluation Standards

Pretest Measures of the Study Outcome and the Elimination of Selection Bias: Evidence from Three Within Study Comparisons

Principled Missing Data Treatments

Commentary on “Standards of Evidence for Conducting and Reporting Economic Evaluations in Prevention Science”

The Role of Integrated Knowledge Translation in Intervention Research

Can We Trust Positive Findings of Intervention Research? The Role of Conflict of Interest