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.

Keywords

attitudes toward science cultural authority of science cultural meaning of science legitimacy problem public understanding of science

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allum

Sturgis

Tabourazi

Brunton-Smith

(2008) “Science Knowledge and Attitudes across Cultures: A Meta-analysis,” Public Understanding of Science 17: 35–54.

Bak

(2001) “Education and Public Attitudes toward Science: Implications for the ‘Deficit Model’ of Education and Support for Science and Technology,” Social Science Quarterly 82: 779–95.

Bauer

Petkova

Boyadjieva

(2000) “Public Knowledge of and Attitudes to Science: Alternative Measures that May End the ‘Science War,’” Science, Technology, & Human Values 25: 30–51.

Bauer

Allum

Miller

(2007) “What Can We Learn from 25 Years of PUS Survey Research? Liberating and Expanding the Agenda,” Public Understanding of Science 16: 79–95.

Beck

(1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: SAGE.

Berger

Luckmann

(1967) The Social Construction of Reality. New York: Doubleday.

Bourdieu

(1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Collins

H. M.

Evans

(2007) Rethinking Expertise. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

De Santos

(2009) “Fact-Totems and the Statistical Imagination: The Public Life of a Statistic in Argentina 2001,” Sociological Theory 27: 466–89.

10.

Durant

Evans

Thomas

(1989) “The Public Understanding of Science,” Nature 340: 11–14.

11.

Evans

Durant

(1995) “The Relationship between Knowledge and Attitudes in the Public Understanding of Science in Britain,” Public Understanding of Science 3: 57–74.

12.

Gauchat

(2010) “Science Habitus and Science Capital: The Cultural Authority of Science in Everyday Life,” Unpublished manuscript.

13.

Giddens

(1991) Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

14.

Gieryn

(1999) Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

15.

Grove-White

Macnaghten

Wynne

(2000) “Wising Up: The Public and New Technologies.” Lancaster: Lancaster University, Centre for the Study of Environmental Change (CSEC).

16.

Habermas

(1989) On Society and Politics: A Reader, ed. Seidman

Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

17.

Hayes

Tariq

(2000) “Gender Differences in Scientific Knowledge and Attitudes toward Science: A Comparative Study of Four Anglo-American Nations,” Public Understanding of Science 9: 433–47.

18.

Hofstadter

(1970) Anti-Intellectualism in American Life. New York: Random House.

19.

Holton

(1993) Science and Anti-Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

20.

Inglehart

(1990) Cultural Shift in Advanced Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

21.

Long

J. S.

(1997) Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables. London: SAGE.

22.

Merton

R. K.

(1973a) “Science and the Social Order,” in Storer

N. W.

(ed.) The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, pp. 254–66. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

23.

Merton

R. K.

(1973b) “Social and Cultural Contexts of Science,” in Storer

N. W.

(ed.) The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, pp. 173–90. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

24.

Michael

(2009) “Publics Performing Publics: Of PiGs, PiPs and Politics,” Public Understanding of Science 18(5): 617–31.

25.

Miller

J. D.

(1983) “Scientific Literacy: A Conceptual and Empirical Review,” Daedalus 112: 29–48.

26.

Miller

J. D.

(1987) “Scientific Literacy in the United States,” in Communicating Science to the Public, pp. 19–40. Chichester: Wiley.

27.

Miller

J. D.

(1991) “The Public Understanding of Science and Technology in the U.S.: Report to the U.S. National Science Foundation.” DeKalb, IL: University of Chicago, National Opinion Research Center.

28.

Miller

J. D.

(1992) “Towards a Scientific Understanding of the Public Understanding of Science and Technology,” Public Understanding of Science 1: 23–30.

29.

Miller

J. D.

(1998) “The Measurement of Civic Scientific Literacy,” Public Understanding of Science 7: 203–24.

30.

Miller

J. D.

(2004) “Public Understanding of, and Attitudes toward, Scientific Research: What We Know and What We Need to Know,” Public Understanding of Science 13: 273–94.

31.

Mooney

(2009) The Republican War on Science. New York: Basic Books.

32.

Moore

(2008) Disrupting Science: Social Movements, American Scientists, and the Politics of the Military, 1945–1975. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

33.

National Science Board (2008) Science and Engineering Indicators. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

34.

Pardo

Calvo

(2002) “Attitudes toward Science among the European Public: A Methodological Analysis,” Public Understanding of Science 11(2): 155–95.

35.

Pew Research Center (2009) “Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Scientific Achievements Less Prominent than a Decade Ago,” Pew Research Center. URL (consulted 2 May 2009): http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/528.pdf

36.

Priest

S. H.

(2001) “Misplaced Faith: Communication Variables as Predictors of Encouragement for Biotechnology Development,” Science Communication 23(2): 97–110.

37.

Saad

(2009) “Increased Number Think Global Warming is Exaggerated,” Gallup 11 March. URL (consulted 1 April 2009): http://www.gallup.com/poll/116590/Increased-Number-Think-Global-Warming-Exaggerated.aspx#1

38.

Saris

W. E.

(2004) “Different Judgment Models for Policy Questions: Competing or Complementary?,” in Saris

W. E.

Sniderman

P. M.

(eds) Studies in Public Opinion: Attitudes, Nonattitudes, Measurement Error, and Change, pp. 17–36. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

39.

Shapin

(2008) “Science and the Modern World,” in Hackett

E. J.

Amsterdamska

Lynch

Wajcman

(eds) The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, pp. 433–48. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

40.

Sturgis

Allum

(2004) “Science in Society: Re-Evaluating the Deficit Model of Public Attitudes,” Public Understanding of Science 13: 55–74.

41.

Weakliem

Borch

(2006) “Alienation in the United States: Uniform or Group-Specific Change?,” Sociological Forum 21: 415–38.

42.

Wynne

(1991) “Knowledges in Context,” Science, Technology, & Human Values 16: 111–21.

43.

Wynne

(1995) “Public Understanding of Science,” in Jasanoff

Markle

G. E.

Petersen

J. C.

Pinch

(eds) The Handbook of Science and Technology, pp. 361–89. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

44.

Wynne

(2001) “Expert Discourses of Risk and Ethics on Genetically Manipulated Organisms: The Weaving of Public Alienation,” Politeia 17(62): 51–76.

45.

Yearley

(2000) “Making Systematic Sense of Public Discontents with Expert Knowledge: Two Analytical Approaches and a Case Study,” Public Understanding of Science 9: 105–22.