異議，別急著爭吵：科學語句的多元詮釋與協商空間

No Need to Quarrel over Differing Views: Spaces for Negotiation and Multiple Interpretations of Scientific Statements

為了瞭解科技溝通時意見分歧的原因，本研究結合類民族誌與焦點團體討論的方法學，逐條檢視個人對於50則討論科學新發現提問句語意的判斷模式，並且進行非結構式的訪談與反身性解釋，勾勒出影響詮釋的主要因素包括專有名詞的理解程度、情境聯想力，以及知識背景所形成的認知習慣。此外，本研究反思科學專業知識與常識的判斷模式，指出促成有效溝通的三個結構性機制與四種個人的技能。三個需要建立的機制是開發科學社群中橋接轉譯知識的能力、團體賦能和證據的認證制度。個人的知能上需要培養的四種技能為1.使用切身譬喻的直白語言；2.將複雜的敘事寫成簡單語句作為語意分析的依據；3.辨識知識背景次群體共識觀點的敏感度，並且以它為討論基礎；4.以對方立場為核心的換位思考的能力來了解衝突的起源。我們認為這些機制與技能所支持的溝通模式有助於創造協商空間，促成公民參與科學對話。

This paper tries to identify the reasons behind divergent interpretations of science communication and to propose potential means of reaching consensus. We made transcripts from discussions that took place in university seminars on the frontiers of medical science and asked people working in different academic fields from different educational backgrounds to interpret 50 of the questions that were discussed by the seminars’ participants. Combining ethnographic methods, focus group discussions, deep interviews, and reflexive interpretation, we identified major factors influencing our respondents’ interpretive preferences, which included comprehension of scientific nouns, contextual associations, and evidence-centered thinking habits. Moreover, analyzing their interpretive reasoning during focus group discussion led us to conceive of three institutional measures and four types of personal skills by which science communication can be made more effective. The three measures are a training program for translating scientific knowledge into the vernacular, group empowerment, and an appraisal mechanism for evidence in debate. The four essential personal skills are: 1. Communicating in straightforward and legible language; 2. Converting complex narrative into simple sentences; 3. Having sensitivity to subgroup consensus; 4. Thinking from the perspective of others. We believe that these strategies and skills will help open up spaces for negotiation and promote public engagement with science.