Trust in Science and Scientists
•Télécharger en tant que PPTX, PDF•
1 j'aime•217 vues
Presentation shared with National Press Foundation fellows in Paris, France, on November 21, 2019. Key arguments were that overall views about scientists are quite positive both in an absolute sense as well as compared to other groups. However, we get a lot more information if we look at sub-dimensions of trustworthiness, and think about trust-related beliefs in the context of specific issues. Video and audio available at: https://nationalpress.org/topic/confidence-in-scientists
Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Similaire à Trust in Science and Scientists
Similaire à Trust in Science and Scientists (20)
Plus de John C. Besley
Plus de John C. Besley (20)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
Trust in Science and Scientists
- 1. Bad/good character Does not have/has integrity Does not/Does let others have a say Insincere/Sincere Biased/Unbiased Inattentive/Attentive to others Does not/Does keep promises Irresponsible/Responsible Does not think/ Thinks others' needs are important Cannot/Can be counted on to do what's right Does not/Does keep my/others' interests in mind Does not treat/Treats others with dignity Does not/Does explain decisions thoroughly Not committed/ committed to others Inexperienced/Experienced Weak/Strong sense of justice Does not/Does solve problems Cold/Warm Not conscious/ Conscious of responsibility Not influenced/ Influence by discussion or feedback Does not stick/sticks to word Not knowledgeable/Knowledgeable Dishonest/Honest Not thorough/Thorough Dishonorable/Honorable Poorly/Well Educated Disreputable/Reputable Unaccomplished/Accomplished Disrespectful/Respectful Does not/Does throw weight around Does/Does not withhold information Unclear/Clear Do/Do not need to keep an eye on Incapable/Capable Hurts/Does not hurt others Unethical/Ethical Does not/Does tailor communication to specific audiences Does not/Does welcome open discussion or feedback Does not/Does work for the good of humanity Does not/Does take others' opinions into account Disloyal/Loyal Does not/Does mislead Impolite/Polite Unintelligent/Intelligent Does not/Does tell whole story Listens poorly/well Unqualified/Qualified Unprofessional/Professional Does not/Does put others interests first Not concerned/Concerned about others' interests or well/being Does not let/ Lets others have influence Does not/Does believe are others' views legitimate Does not care/Cares about others Unreliable/Reliable Immoral/Moral Uninformed/Informed Inexpert/Expert Does not/Does bend facts Incompetent/Competent Unskilled/Skilled Does not share/Shares values Does not/Does exaggerate Inconsiderate/Considerate Useless/Useful Does not/Does improve others' lives Inaccurate/Accurate Inconsistent/Consistent Weak/strong principles What do we really know about trust in science and scientists? John C. Besley, Ellis N. Brandt Professor Michigan State University
- 2. Background • Research on public’s views about science and scientists • Research to help science community communicate more effectively • Interviews with key actors • Surveys of scientists
- 3. Argument 1 People have relatively positive views about scientists and have for a long time
- 4. The benchmark … 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1980 1982 1983 1984 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1993 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 Percent Military Scientific community Medicine Education Major companies Press Executive branch of the federal government Congress Education Scientific community % Saying “A great deal of confidence” In the US, the face-to-face “General Social Survey” (GSS) has been collecting data about “confidence” in the “scientific community” and other groups since 1973. I am going to name some institutions in this country. As far as the people running these institutions are concerned, would you say you have a great deal of confidence, only some confidence, or hardly any confidence at all in them?
- 5. The benchmark … 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1980 1982 1983 1984 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1993 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 Percent Military Scientific community Medicine Education Major companies Press Executive branch of the federal government Congress Education Military Medicine Congress Press Education Major companies % Saying “A great deal of confidence” I am going to name some institutions in this country. As far as the people running these institutions are concerned, would you say you have a great deal of confidence, only some confidence, or hardly any confidence at all in them? Scientific community
- 6. The benchmark … by all categories 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1980 1982 1983 1984 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1993 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 A great deal of confidence Only some confidence Only some confidence I am going to name some institutions in this country. As far as the people running these institutions are concerned, would you say you have a great deal of confidence, only some confidence, or hardly any confidence at all in them?
- 7. The benchmark … by education 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1980 1982 1983 1984 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1993 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 % Saying “A great deal of confidence” Graduate degree High school/some college Bachelors degree Less than high school I am going to name some institutions in this country. As far as the people running these institutions are concerned, would you say you have a great deal of confidence, only some confidence, or hardly any confidence at all in them?
- 8. The benchmark … by political views (3 categories) % Saying “A great deal of confidence” n = 39,098 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1980 1982 1983 1984 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1993 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 Liberal Moderate Conservative I am going to name some institutions in this country. As far as the people running these institutions are concerned, would you say you have a great deal of confidence, only some confidence, or hardly any confidence at all in them?
- 9. N = ~4.4K
- 11. https://www.wissenschaft-im-dialog.de/en/our-projects/science-barometer/science-barometer-2018/ Other countries: Germany Nearly identical results in 2017 N = ~1K
- 14. Other countries: China Respondents could select up to two occupations that they saw as the most prestigious and that they would prefer their children to become … http://www.crsp.org.cn/pdf/csi_2018.pdf
- 15. Other Countries: 3M State of Science Index Survey 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 I trust scientists. I trust science. I believe in scientific claims. I am skeptical of science. % Who Agree or Strongly Agree (n = 1K/country but survey used quota based sampling)
- 19. A problem What do we people really mean when they say they have “confidence” or “trust?
- 20. Argument 2 It’s not enough just to look at overall trust (… or confidence, credibility, etc.)
- 21. Our problem What do people mean when they say they trust their plumber? 1. They can do the job (ability/competence) 2. They won’t cheat you (integrity) 3. They’re nice/polite (benevolence/warmth) 4. They listen to you (openness/willing to listen) Erol, Joe the Plumber’s Badass Step Van, via Flickr Creative Commons
- 22. “Being seen as competent but cold might not seem problematic until one recalls that communicator credibility requires not just status and expertise (competence) but also trustworthiness (warmth).”
- 25. #Scicomm vs. #StratSciComm Communicators face limits and therefore must make choices … Images via Flickr CCC: MIT OIET ‘Timer’; Lisa Cyr ‘Bored’ Time Space Attention
- 26. Imagine you’re scheduled for a 60 minute talk or a 600 word article … #Scicomm vs. #StratSciComm The science Risks/BenefitsEfficacy of Solutions Researchers' Motivation Researcher’s Integrity Researchers' Competence Discussion Also … • How much time and resources for preparation? • Should devote resources to showing up early/staying late? • Follow up and Evaluation?
- 27. There is a community of practitioners desperate for advice about those choices #Scicomm vs. #StratSciComm
- 28. The US National Science Foundation S&T Survey (Part of the General Social Survey since 2006) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Scientists help to solve problems Scientists work for the good of humanity Scientists want to make life better for the average person Scientists are odd and peculiar Public views about scientists: 1983, 1985, 2001, 2012, 2016, 2018 1985 (n = 1,986) 2001 (n = 1,574) 2012 (n = 1,152) 2016 (n = 1,390) 2018 (n = 1,175)
- 29. Other Countries: 3M State of Science Index Survey % Who Said ‘Yes’ To Specific Statements as a “main reason” for science skepticism 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Science is influenced by corporate agendas. Science is influenced by government agendas. Scientists are biased. Too many conflicting opinions by scientists. (n = 1K/country but survey used quota based sampling)
- 36. Argument 3 General views about scientists are different than views about scientists in specific areas
- 37. The US National Science Foundation S&T Survey (Part of the General Social Survey since 2006) Trust as willingness to be vulnerable?
- 38. The US National Science Foundation S&T Survey (Part of the General Social Survey since 2006) Trust as competence?
- 39. The US National Science Foundation S&T Survey (Part of the General Social Survey since 2006) Trust as integrity?
- 45. 1. People have relatively positive views about scientists and have for a long time 2. It’s not enough just to look at overall trust 3. General views about scientists are different than views about scientists in specific areas 4. AND … Trust in science/scientists is just one piece of why people accept or reject scientific arguments or new technologies This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF, Grant AISL 1421214-1421723. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF.
- 46. From work with Anthony Dudo, University of Texas, Austin; and colleagues
Notes de l'éditeur
- Introduce self Thank you for invitation Hope day has gone well Study both public opinion about science and scientists opinions about the public Today – focused on public opinion but informed by my work trying to help scientists communicate more effectively
- It’s late in the day so I’m going to focus on three arguments. This is the first one.
- Confidence is stable and relative high over time for the scientific community
- This is not true for other groups where there has generally been a decline over time.
- Looks similar across full range of response options; very few have ‘only some confidence’
- Note education-based divergence.
- Some difference by ideology – how big is it really? Still meaningful.
- Pew data looks similar, though they suggest a gradual increase in confidence since 2016. Not sure about how substantive these are …
- We can also see similar and common demographic divergences.
- Fairly positive general trust in Germany.
- Fairly positive general trust in Switzerland.
- Fairly positive general trust in Sweden.
- And China (though this measure is a bit different).
- Note that there’s not much difference between trust in science and scientists; some skepticism.
- Note wonderful new Wellcome/Gallup new project where they create a general trust index (from sub-scores that we’ll talk about in a bit). Highest trust in most developed countries seems clear.
- China is also quite positive.
- A map …
- What would a message that communicates trust (and trust alone) look like … how useful are general measures.
- The second argument
- The plumber metaphor …
- Literature on the of the sub-dimensions of trustworthiness (popular/common evidence that scientists may be seen as competent but cold)
- Organizational literature breaks down warmth into benevolence and integrity.
- Idea that trust-beliefs form over time but that people can use them as a tool to make decisions when they’re unsure on the correct outcome.
- Being clear about sub-dimensions of trust is important because science communicators face constraints of time, space, attention. They need to make choices.
- That means words or time devoted to different trust-related content (you can’t just communicate ‘trustworthiness’)
- There’s a big community of people who want evidence-based guidance.
- SEI/GSS has sometimes had benevolence/warmth related questions.
- The 3M survey has some bits that seem to be about integrity (and scientists don’t do that badly).
- Wellcome/Gallup data general index is actually a combination of sub-dimensions.
- Lots of similarities between countries in terms of the patterns. (Countries in next set of slide chosen because that’s where the journalists were from)
- Bulgaria is the one that’s not like the others.
- SEI/GSS has sometimes broken down trust measures further by focusing on specific topics, rather than trust in a general scientist.
- Note that scientists still do pretty well compared other groups.
- N = 1K Note that renewable energy is pretty close to the general number …
- Note that there’s also a difference in Pew data between science researchers vs. practitioners; practitioners as closer to the audience seem to do a little better.
- Again, we see the normal breakdown by knowledge.
- I worry a lot about this; don’t think people’s views magically changed between 2015 and 2017 but I think conservative media voices were probably successful in communicating ‘what conservatives’ are suppose to say/think ….
- The questions themselves seem like they’re meant to accentuate the conservative/liberal discrepancy.
- And let’s not forgot that trust is just one type of communication objectives/outcomes (and potential driver of behavior/support/acceptance) of science
- And let’s not forgot that trust is just one type of communication objectives/outcomes (and potential driver of behavior/support/acceptance) of science