The cultural authority of science: Public trust and acceptance of organized science

Abstract

Using the National Science Foundation's 2006 Science Indicators Survey, this study explores three distinct explanations of public attitudes. First, the knowledge-attitudes model refers to a well tested relationship between public knowledge of science and more favorable attitudes toward science. Second, the alienation model hypothesizes that public disassociation with science is a symptom of a general disenchantment with late modernity, mainly, the limitations associated with codified expertise, rational bureaucracy, and institutional authority. A third approach emphasizes the cultural meaning of science: how various public beliefs about "what science is" relate to acceptance or reservations about science. The Science Indicators Survey shows that US adults view science (what it is or should be) in three distinct ways: (1) in terms of having a systematic method, (2) in terms of social location (i.e., takes place in a university or a laboratory), and (3) in terms of knowledge that should accord with commonsense and tradition. The findings in this study indicate that the knowledge-attitudes, alienation, and cultural meanings models are all valuable for understanding the cultural authority of science. However, the strength of these explanations depends on the type of attitude analyzed.

The relative importance of religion and education on university students’ views of evolution in the Deep South and state science standards across the United States

“…In areas of the country where the vast majority of residents believe in God and the literal truth of the Bible, students may enter college less prepared and more skeptical of science because of disclaimers or poor science standards that limit the quality and quantity of science education in high school (Bak 2001;Gauchat 2008Gauchat , 2011Gauchat , 2012Sturgis and Allum 2004). In fact Southerners have lower levels of trust in science compared to other Americans (Gauchat 2012), and those who attend church frequently and are of a conservative political ideology are becoming even more distrustful of science through time (Gauchat 2012).…”

Science learning via participation in online citizen science

“…The control variables we use here are selected from the VOLCROWE survey in accordance with numerous empirical studies across a range of, mostly, but not exclusively Anglo-American populations, which have revealed factors which correlate with science knowledge [Day and Devlin, 1998;Hayes and Tariq, 2000;Bak, 2001;Sherkat, 2011;Hayes, 2001;von Roten, 2004;Sturgis and Allum, 2004;Gauchat, 2011]. These control variables are gender, age, ethnicity, community type (specifically rural or urban), educational level (as measured by ISCED categories) and if the highest qualification is in science and extent to which respondent agrees that religion is important in their life (on a Likert scale).…”

Building the economic-public relationship: learning from science communication and science studies.

“…One particular line of inquiry these latter disciplines have focused on is public acceptance of and trust in science, at least initially with the explicit goal of increasing public trust [Bauer, Allum and Miller, 2007;Royal Society, 1985;Thomas and Durant, 1987]. It is this work (though not necessarily with same the implicit goal) we want to draw the attention of economists to: work that shows a sophisticated understanding of the complex relationships between knowledge, trust, and expertise, and that has important insights into ways to engage multiple publics in debates around ethics, values and futures [Gauchat, 2011;Sturgis and Allum, 2004;O'Brien, 2013;Barben, 2010]. While in the case of science engagement efforts there was a (now widely regarded as fallacious) assumption that knowledge leads to affection, we don't assume that an increase in economic understanding will lead to agreement with economist's conclusions.…”

“…The people who choose to become involved are generally educated, middle-class and white [Edwards, 2014]. Gauchat [2011] points out that there are social, economic and cultural rewards that make it desirable for some people to know about and to engage in science, and others not to. The trouble for democracy is that if knowing about and engaging with science maps onto already existing patterns of privilege, then the ability to contribute to discussions and decision making around science falls unevenly.…”