한국과학교육학회지 (Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education)

  • 제38권5호
  • /
  • Pages.635-647
  • /
  • 2018
  • /
  • 1226-5187(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-8489(eISSN)
한국과학교육학회 (The Korean Association for Science Education)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

과학적 사고의 걸림돌 동기기반추론 -과학기술 분야 학문후속세대들의 사례를 중심으로-

Motivated Reasoning as Obstacle of Scientific Thinking: Focus on the Cases of Next-Generation Researchers in the Field of Science and Technology

  • 투고 : 2018.07.19
  • 심사 : 2018.08.22
  • 발행 : 2018.10.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

동기기반추론은 원하는 특정한 결과나 목표를 성취하고자 하는 동기에 영향을 받아 이루어지는 편향된 추론을 의미한다. 이 연구에서는 과학적 사고 발달을 저해하는 동기기반추론 대한 이론적 연구를 시도하고, 실제 국내 과학기술 분야의 학문후속세대들이 경험한 동기 기반추론의 실제적 맥락에 대하여 탐색하였다. 구체적으로 이를 위해 문헌연구에서는 동기기반추론의 심리학적 특성과 과학적 사고에 미치는 부정적 영향에 대해 살펴보았다. 또한 국내 과학기술 분야 대학원생 8인과 신진 연구원 1인과의 심층 면담을 토대로 실제 과학기술 분야에서 나타나는 동기기반추론의 의미와 맥락을 파악하고자 했다. 문헌 분석 결과 동기기반추론은 개인적 수준에서 과학적 사고의 핵심인 이론과 자료의 적절한 조정 과정을 방해하며 과학적 지식 구성의 고착을 가져올 수 있으며, 사회문화적 수준에서 특정 사회문화적 신념이나 목적에 의해 과학이 이용되는 기작으로서 작용할 수 있다는 점에서 합리적이고 객관적인 과학적 사고를 기반으로 한 과학기술의 발전을 저해할 수 있음을 살펴보았다. 또한 실제 국내의 과학기술 분야의 학문후속세대들이 경험했던 동기기반추론 사례를 살펴본 결과, 기존의 신념 보호, 성급한 결론 추구, 사회문화적 신념 보호, 집단의 의사결정을 합리화를 통해 동기기반추론이 나타나고 있음을 확인할 수 있었다. 이러한 과학기술 학문후속세대들의 동기기반추론은 이들이 보다 이론과 증거의 적절한 조정을 통해 타당한 과학기술 지식을 구성하는데 있어 걸림돌이 될 수 있음을 살펴보았다. 이러한 결과를 바탕으로 이 연구에서는 과학적 사고 교육에 대해 논의하였다.

Motivated reasoning refers to biased reasoning that is affected by motivation to achieve a particular result or goal. In this study, we attempted a theoretical study on motivated reasoning that hinders the development of scientific thinking and empirical study on actual context of motivated reasoning in the research experiences of next-generation Korean researchers in the field of science and technology. To be specific, literature reviews were conducted to explore the psychological meaning of motivated reasoning and its negative impact on scientific thinking and science research. To understand the substantial meaning and context of motivated reasoning in the field of real science and technology research, we conducted in-depth interviews with eight graduate students and one young science and technology researcher. As a result of the literature reviews, we found out that motivated reasoning can interfere with the proper theory and data coordination, which is the core process of scientific thinking at the individual level. At the socio-cultural level, it can lead to cessation of constructing scientific knowledge and it can act as a mechanism in the process of using science for specific socio-cultural beliefs or purposes, thereby hindering the development of science and technology based on rationale and objective scientific thinking. Quantitative analysis with in-depth interview data showed that graduate students and the young researcher's experienced motivated reasoning results in trying to protect prior beliefs, make hasty conclusions, protecting socio-cultural belief or rationalizing decisions made by their community. Their motivated reasoning could become an obstacle in constructing valid science and technology knowledge through appropriate theory and evidence coordination. Based on these findings we discussed science education for improving scientific thinking.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Agrawal, N., & Maheswaran, D. (2005). Motivated reasoning in outcome-bias effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(4), 798-805. https://doi.org/10.1086/426614
  2. Arendt, H. (1963). Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, The Viking Press
  3. Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 50, 248-287. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90022-L
  4. Baumeister, R. F., & Newman, L. S. (1994). Self-regulation of cognitive inference and decision-processes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(1), 3-19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167294201001
  5. Boudry, M. (2011). Here be dragons: exploring the hinterland of science. Ghent University. Faculty of Arts and Philosophy, Ghent, Belgium.
  6. Braman, E. & Nelson, T. E. (2007). Mechanism of motivated reasoning? Analogical perception in discrimination disputes. American Journal of Political Science, 51(4), 940-956. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00290.x
  7. Braman, E. (2009). Law, politics, and perception: how policy preferences influence legal reasoning. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
  8. Bray, D., & von Storch, H. (2017). The normative orientations of climate scientists. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23(5), 1351-1367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9605-1
  9. Cho, H. S. (2006). Food and nationalism: Kimchi and Korean national identity. The Korean Journal of International Relations, 46(5), 207-229.
  10. Coleman, 1970). Bateson and chromosomes: Conservative thought in science. Centaurus, 15(3), 228-314.
  11. Danielson, R. W. & Lombardi, D. (2015). More money less acceptance: The relationship between GDP, science literacy, and acceptance of human-induced climate change. The International Journal of Climate Change: Impact and Responses, 7(4), 13-23.
  12. Ditto, P. H., Pizarro, D. A., & Tannenbaum, D. (2009). Motivated moral reasoning. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 50, 307-338.
  13. Ditto, P. H., & Lopez, F. (1992). Motivated skepticism: Use of differential decision criteria for preferred and nonpreferred conclusions. Jouranl of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 568-584. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.568
  14. Dole, J. A., & Sintara, G. M. (1998). Reconceptualizing change in the cognitive construction of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 33,109-128. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1998.9653294
  15. Dunbar K. (1999). How scientists build models in vivo science as a window on the scientific mind. In: Magnani L., Nersessian N.J., Thagard P. (eds) Model-Based Reasoning in Scientific Discovery. Springer, Boston, MA
  16. Dunbar, K., & Fugelsang, J. (2005). Scientific thinking and reasoning. In Holyoak, K. J., & Morrison, R. G. (eds) The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning. Cambridge Universtiy Press, NY
  17. Dunning, D. (2007). Self-image motives and consumer behavior: How sacrosanct self-beliefs sway preferences in the marketplace. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17, 237-249. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1057-7408(07)70033-5
  18. Ezzy, D. (2002). Qualitative analysis: Practice and innovation. London: Routledge.
  19. Falk, R. (2003). Linkage: From particulate to interactive genetics. Journal of the History of Biology, 36, 87-117 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022548108762
  20. Gasparatou, R. (2017). Scientism and scientific thinking. Science & Education, 26(7-9), 799-812. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-017-9931-1
  21. Glaser, B.G. & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies fro qualitative research. New York: Aldine DeGruyter.
  22. Gould, S. J. (1998). An evolutionary perspective on strengths, fallacies, and confusions in the concept of native plants. Arnoldia, 58(1), 2-10.
  23. Graham, L. (1993). Stalinist ideology and the Lysenko affair. In Graham, Loren, science in Russia and the Soviet Union (pp. 121e134). New York: Cambridge University Press. Chap. 6.
  24. Groning, G., & Wolschke-Bulmahn, J. (2003). The native plant enthusiasm: Ecological panacea or xenophobia? Landscape Research, 28(1), 20-28.
  25. Ha, M. & Lee, J. K. (2014). Over-efficacy in problem solving and overconfidence of knowledge on photosynthesis: A study of comparison between multiple-choice and supply-type test formats. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 34(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2014.34.1.1.0001
  26. Ha, M. (2016). Exploring cognitive biases limiting rational problem solving and debiasing methods using science education. Journal of Korean Association for Science Education, 36(6), 935-946. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2016.36.6.0935
  27. Hart, P. S., & Nisbet, E. C. (2011). Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Communication Research, 39(6), 701-723. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211416646
  28. Helmreich, S. (2005). How scientists think; about 'natives', for example. a problem of taxonomy among biologists of alien species in Hawaii. Journal of Royal Anthropological Institute, 11, 107-128. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9655.2005.00228.x
  29. Herrmann, R. K. (2017). How attachments to the nation shape beliefs about the world: A theory of motivated reasoning. International Organization, 71(S1), S61-S84. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818316000382
  30. Kahan, D. M. (2015). Climate-science communication and the measurement problem. Advances in Political Psychology, 36(1), 1-43.
  31. Kahan, D. M., Jenkins-Smith, H., & Braman, D. (2011). Cultural cognition of scientific consensus, Journal of Risk Research, 14(2), 147-174. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2010.511246
  32. Kahan, D., Peters, E. Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L, L. Braman, D., & Mandel, G. (2012). The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks, Nature Climate Change, 2, 732-735. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1547
  33. Kahneman, D. (2013). Thinking, fast and slow. NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
  34. Kang, E. S. (2018). Problems and improvements of nuclear energy policy in Korea: Behavioral economics approach to discursive democracy surrounding Shin-Kori 5.6 nuclear power plant. Cultural Interaction Studies of Sea Port Cities, 18, 409-446. https://doi.org/10.35158/cisspc.2018.04.18.409
  35. Kang, S., Shin, S., & Noh, T. (2002). A study on elementary school students' responses to anomalous data, 22(2), 252-260. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 22(2), 252-260.
  36. Kang, Y. J. (2007). Hwang Woo-Suk, Pasteur and ANT. Journal of Science & Technology Studies, 7(1), 67-90.
  37. Keynes, M., & Cox, TM. (2008). William Bateson, the rediscoverer of Mendel. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 101, 104.
  38. Kim, H. J., Ju, S. Y., & Park, Y. K. (2017). Kimchi intake and atopic dermatitis in Korean aged 19-49 years: The Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2010-2012. Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 26(5), 914-922.
  39. Kraft, P. W., Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2015). Why people "Don't trust the evidence": Motivated reasoning and scientific beliefs. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 658(1), 121-133. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716214554758
  40. Kruglanski, A. W. (1990). Lay epistemic theory in social-cognitive psychology. Psychological Inquiry, 1, 181-197. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0103_1
  41. Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. M. (1996). Motivated closing of the mind: "Seizing" and "freezing." Psychological Review, 103, 263-283. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.103.2.263
  42. Kuhn, D. (2002). What is scientific thinking, and how does it develop?. In Goswami, U. (Ed.). (2008). Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Cognitive Development. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
  43. Kunda, Z. (1987). Motivated inference: Self-serving generation and evaluation of causal theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(4), 636-647. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.4.636
  44. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480
  45. Kwon, Y. J. (2010). Problems related to the banality of evil and communication. Journal of Ethics and Philosophy Education, 14, 145-164.
  46. Latour, B. & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: the construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills, LA: Sage Publications.
  47. Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  48. Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Translated by Catherine Porter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  49. Lederman, N. G. (2006). Syntax of nature of science within inquiry and science instruction. In L. B., Flick & N. G. Lederman, (eds) Scientific Inquiry and Nature of Science (pp. 301-317). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands
  50. Lee, H. J., & Song, B. K. (2015). A Study on essence of school bullying based on Hannah Arendt's concept of "The banality of evil". Philosophy of Education, 55, 99-125.
  51. Lee, H., Kim, D. Y., Lee, M. A., Jang, J. Y., & Choue, R. (2014). Immunomodulatory effects of Kimchi in Chinese healthy college students: A randomized controlled trial. Clinical Nutrition Research, 3, 98-105. https://doi.org/10.7762/cnr.2014.3.2.98
  52. Lee, S., & Lee, H. (2014). Pattern of college students' informal reasoning and reactions to anomalous evidence on the controversial nuclear power generation issue. Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 14(6), 147-1683.
  53. Lewontin, R. & Levins, R. (1976) The Problem of Lysenkoism. In The Radicalization of Science: Ideology of/in the Natural Sciences (Rose, H. and Rose, S., eds), pp. 32-64, Macmillan (London, UK)
  54. Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11), 2098-2109. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098
  55. Macfarlane, B., & Cheng, M. (2008). Communism, universalism and disinterestedness: Re-examining contemporary support among academics for Merton's scientific norms. Journal of Academic Ethics, 6(1), 67-78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-008-9055-y
  56. Markus, H. R. (1977). Self-schemata and processing information about the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 63-78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.35.2.63
  57. Mele, A. R. (1997). Real self-deception. Behavioral and Brain Science, 20, 91-136.
  58. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass Publishers.
  59. Merton, R. K. (1942). The normative structure of science. In Merton, R. K., The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  60. Miller, C. H., Adame, B. J., & Moore, S. D. (2013). Vested interest theory and disaster preparedness. Disasters, 37(1), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7717.2012.01290.x
  61. Ministry of Education (2015). General introduction of elementary and secondary curriculum. Seoul, Ministry of Education.
  62. Molden, D. C., & Higgins, E. T. (2005). Motivated thinking. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning (pp. 295-320). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  63. Moon, M. Y. (1999). Butterfly - taxonomy of "the Korean Biologist", Seok Joo myung. The Korean Journal for the History of Science, 21(2), 157-193.
  64. Pasek, J. (2017). It's not my consensus: Motivated reasoning and the sources of scientific illiteracy. Public Understanding of Science, doi: 10.1177/0963662517733681, Article first published online: September 23, 2017.
  65. Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667-686. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667
  66. Redlawsk, D. P. (2002). Hot cognition or cool consideration? Testing the ffects of motivated reasoning on political decision making. Journal of Politics, 64(4), 1021-1044. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2508.00161
  67. Simberloff, D. (2003). Confronting introduced species: a form of xenophobia? Biological Invasions,5, 179-192. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026164419010
  68. Sinatra, G. M., Kienhues, D., & Hofer, B. K. (2014). Addressing challenges to public understanding of science: Epistemic cognition, motivated reasoning, and conceptual change. Educational Psychologist, 49(2), 123-138. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.916216
  69. Strickland, A. A., Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2011). Motivated reasoning and public opinion. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 36(6), 935-944. https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-1460524
  70. Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755-769. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x
  71. Thagard, P. (2004). Rationality and Science. In Mele, A. R., & Rawling, P. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Rationality. Newyork, NY: Oxford University Press
  72. Westen, D., Blagov, P. S., Harenski, K., Kilts, C., & Hamann, S. (2006). Neural bases of motivated reasoning: An fMRI study of emotional constraints on partisan political judgment in the 2004 US presidential election. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(11), 1947-1958. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2006.18.11.1947
  73. Yoon, Y. T. (2017). A Study on the academic ideology of Seok Joo-Myung - Focusing on the aspect of versatility and reconciliation -. Philosophy.Thought.Culture, 25, 121-149.

피인용 문헌

  1. 행성 궤도의 모양에 관한 중학교 영재 학생들의 증거 기반 추론 vol.42, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.5467/jkess.2021.42.1.118