Science Barometer 2018

Since 2014, Wissenschaft im Dialog has been using the science barometer to collect population-representative data on the attitudes of German citizens towards science and research on an annual basis. The aim is to contribute to a fact-based discourse on the relationship between science and the public and targeted science communication by collecting, processing and communicating the results. The questionnaire of the science barometer contains corresponding questions on cognitive attitudes such as interest and information and the respondents´ information behaviour on topics from science and research. In addition, evaluative attitudes will be collected on issues such as trust, the assessment of the benefits and risks of science and the social role of research. The questions are aimed at general attitudes towards science and research. In individual cases, questions are also devoted to specific research areas or technologies or, alternately, to current developments in science and the public. The science barometers 2014 to 2016 were sponsored by the Philip Morris Foundation, the science barometers 2017 to 2019 by the Robert Bosch Foundation.

Topics: 1. Interest, information behaviour and being informed about science and research: interest in politics, sport, economics and finance as well as miscellaneous topics such as celebrities or human fates; frequency of dealing with science in selected contexts (conversations with friends and family, attending events, reading articles on scientific topics in print media, television programmes, radio programmes and on the Internet); sources of information on the Internet about science and research (e.g. social networks, blogs or online forums, Wikipedia, etc.); frequency of selected activities in social networks; visits to institutions or events related to science in the last twelve months (e.g. science museum, zoo or aquarium): personal reasons for engaging in science and research; agreement with statements on science and research (too complicated and therefore incomprehensible, no personal relevance due to lack of relevance to everyday life, knowledge transfer in school, difficult assessment of contradictory information, controversies between scientists as a helpful contribution to correct research results);

2. Trust in science and research: general trust in science and research; reasons for trust in scientists (expertise, working according to rules and standards, research in the public interest); reasons for distrust of scientists (frequent mistakes, adapting results to one´s own expectations, dependence on donors); donors for science and research (open).

3. Evaluation of the benefits and risks of science for society: attitude to science and research (lead to a better life in the future, to rapid changes in living conditions through science and research, should be allowed to explore everything without restriction, scientists work for the benefit of society, personally important to know about science and research, influencing one´s own life through new developments whether intentional or not, personal decision about use or non-use of new developments); Opinion on unscientific statements (climate change is mainly caused by humans and their actions, vaccinating children harms more than it benefits, humans and animals have common ancestors from which they evolved in the course of evolution).

4. Relationship between science and politics: extent to which business influences science.

5. Concrete concepts of science and research: skills or characteristics of a good scientist; perception of the replication crisis in the media; assessment of the replication crisis.

6. Personal relation to science and research: job in science and research; personal acquaintance with a scientist.

Demography: sex; age; education; occupation; household size; net household income; party preference; religiosity; migration background.

Additionally coded was: interview ID; interview duration (in seconds); Sample (mobile, landline); weight; city size (BIK); federal state; region.

自2014年起，德国科学对话（Wissenschaft im Dialog）每年都会依托科学晴雨表（science barometer）采集具有人口代表性的德国民众对科学与科研的态度调研数据。该项目旨在通过收集、整理并传播调研结果，为科学与公众之间的对话搭建事实基础，同时助力精准化科学传播实践。

科学晴雨表的问卷包含两类对应问题：其一为认知态度类问题，涵盖兴趣、信息获取情况以及受访者在科学与科研主题上的信息行为；其二为评价态度类问题，涉及信任度、对科学收益与风险的评估，以及科研的社会角色等议题。上述问题旨在调研民众对科学与科研的整体态度。在个别调研中，问卷也会聚焦特定科研领域或技术，或是轮换探讨科学与公众领域的最新动态。

2014至2016年的科学晴雨表调研由菲利普·莫里斯基金会（Philip Morris Foundation）资助，2017至2019年的调研则由罗伯特·博世基金会（Robert Bosch Foundation）资助。

### 调研主题如下：
1. 对科学与科研的兴趣、信息行为与信息知晓情况：包括对政治、体育、经济金融领域，以及名人轶事、人类命运等杂项话题的兴趣；在特定场景下接触科学内容的频率（如与亲友交谈、参与相关活动、阅读印刷媒体、电视节目、广播节目及互联网上的科学主题文章）；互联网上科学与科研信息的获取渠道（如社交网络、博客或在线论坛、维基百科等）；参与特定社交网络活动的频率；过去12个月内参观科学相关机构或活动的经历（如科学博物馆、动物园或水族馆）；参与科学与科研活动的个人动因；对科学与科研相关表述的认同度（如“过于复杂因而难以理解”“因与日常生活缺乏关联而无个人意义”“学校中的知识传递环节”“难以评估矛盾信息”“科学家间的争议是修正科研成果的有益助力”等）。
2. 对科学与科研的信任：对科学与科研的整体信任度；信任科学家的动因（专业素养、遵循规则与标准、出于公共利益开展研究）；不信任科学家的动因（频繁出现失误、为契合自身预期调整研究结果、依赖资助方）；科学与科研的资助方（公开透明类）。
3. 科学对社会的收益与风险评估：对科学与科研的态度（如“能为未来带来更优质的生活”“科学与科研会快速改变生活环境”“应不受限制地探索一切事物”“科学家为社会福祉而工作”“了解科学与科研对个人而言很重要”“新科技发展无论是否有意，都会影响个人生活”“可自主决定是否使用新科技成果”）；对非科学表述的看法（如“气候变化主要由人类及其活动造成”“给儿童接种疫苗弊大于利”“人类与动物拥有共同祖先，并在进化过程中由此演化而来”）。
4. 科学与政治的关系：商业因素对科学的影响程度。
5. 科学与科研的具体认知：优秀科学家应具备的技能或特质；媒体对可重复性危机（replication crisis）的报道情况；对可重复性危机的评估。
6. 个人与科学和科研的关系：是否从事科学与科研相关工作；是否认识科学家。

### 人口统计学变量：
性别、年龄、受教育程度、职业、家庭规模、家庭净收入、政党偏好、宗教虔诚度、移民背景。

### 额外编码字段：
访谈ID、访谈时长（单位：秒）、样本类型（移动终端、固定电话）、权重、城市规模（BIK）、联邦州、所属区域。