{"title":"Reconceptualizing Epistemic Dependence for Future Scientific Literacy: A Lesson from the LK-99 Case","authors":"Gyeonggeon Lee, Xiaoming Zhai","doi":"10.1007/s11165-025-10247-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Today's science education faces the imperative task of developing students’ competency to navigate misinformation while broadening the scope of scientific literacy. Traditionally, the concept of epistemic dependence, which encourages public trust in professional scientists, has supported this goal. However, the current landscape of science challenges the notions of experts with unanimous opinions and ‘the public’ as passive recipients of scientific information. In response, this case study examines the LK-99 incident, which involved a claimed discovery in the historic room-temperature and ambient-pressure superconductor, employing the Hype Cycle as the analytical framework. Data were collected on internet search traffic, discourse within the scientific community, mass media articles, and social media posts from July to December 2023, utilizing various online data analytics platforms. The researchers (1) quantitatively identified patterns in search trends, document sentiments, and associated word tokens related to LK-99, (2) qualitatively analyzed the shifting standpoints of stakeholders, the scientific community, mass media, and social media, and (3) synthesized these findings within the Hype Cycle framework. The results illustrate how the misinformation about LK-99 rapidly spread online (phase 1), leading to disagreements among scientists and confusion among the public, alongside erratic behavior in the stock market (phase 2). Ironically, the stakeholders' positioning themselves as scientists facilitated the scientific community's falsification of the claim (phase 3). We discuss the methodological and theoretical implications of this case and propose a reconceptualization of epistemic dependence centered on <i>the scientific community as a whole and its collectively committed process of resolving uncertainty and verifying knowledge claims</i>.</p>","PeriodicalId":47988,"journal":{"name":"Research in Science Education","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research in Science Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-025-10247-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Today's science education faces the imperative task of developing students’ competency to navigate misinformation while broadening the scope of scientific literacy. Traditionally, the concept of epistemic dependence, which encourages public trust in professional scientists, has supported this goal. However, the current landscape of science challenges the notions of experts with unanimous opinions and ‘the public’ as passive recipients of scientific information. In response, this case study examines the LK-99 incident, which involved a claimed discovery in the historic room-temperature and ambient-pressure superconductor, employing the Hype Cycle as the analytical framework. Data were collected on internet search traffic, discourse within the scientific community, mass media articles, and social media posts from July to December 2023, utilizing various online data analytics platforms. The researchers (1) quantitatively identified patterns in search trends, document sentiments, and associated word tokens related to LK-99, (2) qualitatively analyzed the shifting standpoints of stakeholders, the scientific community, mass media, and social media, and (3) synthesized these findings within the Hype Cycle framework. The results illustrate how the misinformation about LK-99 rapidly spread online (phase 1), leading to disagreements among scientists and confusion among the public, alongside erratic behavior in the stock market (phase 2). Ironically, the stakeholders' positioning themselves as scientists facilitated the scientific community's falsification of the claim (phase 3). We discuss the methodological and theoretical implications of this case and propose a reconceptualization of epistemic dependence centered on the scientific community as a whole and its collectively committed process of resolving uncertainty and verifying knowledge claims.
期刊介绍:
2020 Five-Year Impact Factor: 4.021
2020 Impact Factor: 5.439
Ranking: 107/1319 (Education) – Scopus
2020 CiteScore 34.7 – Scopus
Research in Science Education (RISE ) is highly regarded and widely recognised as a leading international journal for the promotion of scholarly science education research that is of interest to a wide readership.
RISE publishes scholarly work that promotes science education research in all contexts and at all levels of education. This intention is aligned with the goals of Australasian Science Education Research Association (ASERA), the association connected with the journal.
You should consider submitting your manscript to RISE if your research:
Examines contexts such as early childhood, primary, secondary, tertiary, workplace, and informal learning as they relate to science education; and
Advances our knowledge in science education research rather than reproducing what we already know.
RISE will consider scholarly works that explore areas such as STEM, health, environment, cognitive science, neuroscience, psychology and higher education where science education is forefronted.
The scholarly works of interest published within RISE reflect and speak to a diversity of opinions, approaches and contexts. Additionally, the journal’s editorial team welcomes a diversity of form in relation to science education-focused submissions. With this in mind, RISE seeks to publish empirical research papers.
Empircal contributions are:
Theoretically or conceptually grounded;
Relevant to science education theory and practice;
Highlight limitations of the study; and
Identify possible future research opportunities.
From time to time, we commission independent reviewers to undertake book reviews of recent monographs, edited collections and/or textbooks.
Before you submit your manuscript to RISE, please consider the following checklist. Your paper is:
No longer than 6000 words, including references.
Sufficiently proof read to ensure strong grammar, syntax, coherence and good readability;
Explicitly stating the significant and/or innovative contribution to the body of knowledge in your field in science education;
Internationalised in the sense that your work has relevance beyond your context to a broader audience; and
Making a contribution to the ongoing conversation by engaging substantively with prior research published in RISE.
While we encourage authors to submit papers to a maximum length of 6000 words, in rare cases where the authors make a persuasive case that a work makes a highly significant original contribution to knowledge in science education, the editors may choose to publish longer works.