How representative surveys measure public (dis)trust in science: A systematisation and analysis of survey items and open-ended questions

IF 1.9 Q3 MANAGEMENT Journal of Trust Research Pub Date : 2021-07-03 DOI:10.1080/21515581.2022.2075373
Anne Reif, Lars Guenther
{"title":"How representative surveys measure public (dis)trust in science: A systematisation and analysis of survey items and open-ended questions","authors":"Anne Reif, Lars Guenther","doi":"10.1080/21515581.2022.2075373","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Over the past several years, scholars have debated the public’s (dis)trust in science. Since the ‘science and society’ paradigm of science communication has defined the crisis of trust between science and the public as a major concern, this article is interested in how public (dis)trust in science is measured in representative surveys of public perceptions of science and technology. The goal is to systematise survey measures using a theoretical model of (dis)trust in science as a multidimensional variable that is relevant to the relationship between the public, (intermediaries) and science. A systematic review of items and open-ended questions (n = 736) used in 20 representative surveys from various countries was conducted. The results show that surveys rarely measure distrust in science, and instead focus on trust in science – mainly at the macro-level – rather than trust in scientists (micro-level) or scientific organisations (meso-level). Benevolence is the dimension of trust considered most frequently; the media is predominantly included as a general type of contact with science without a direct link to (dis)trust. Hence, representative surveys cover a number of different aspects of public (dis)trust in science. However, there is room for improvement. Thus, this paper concludes with recommendations for future measures.","PeriodicalId":44602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trust Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Trust Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2022.2075373","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

ABSTRACT Over the past several years, scholars have debated the public’s (dis)trust in science. Since the ‘science and society’ paradigm of science communication has defined the crisis of trust between science and the public as a major concern, this article is interested in how public (dis)trust in science is measured in representative surveys of public perceptions of science and technology. The goal is to systematise survey measures using a theoretical model of (dis)trust in science as a multidimensional variable that is relevant to the relationship between the public, (intermediaries) and science. A systematic review of items and open-ended questions (n = 736) used in 20 representative surveys from various countries was conducted. The results show that surveys rarely measure distrust in science, and instead focus on trust in science – mainly at the macro-level – rather than trust in scientists (micro-level) or scientific organisations (meso-level). Benevolence is the dimension of trust considered most frequently; the media is predominantly included as a general type of contact with science without a direct link to (dis)trust. Hence, representative surveys cover a number of different aspects of public (dis)trust in science. However, there is room for improvement. Thus, this paper concludes with recommendations for future measures.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
代表性调查如何衡量公众对科学的信任:调查项目和开放式问题的系统化和分析
摘要在过去的几年里,学者们一直在争论公众对科学的不信任。由于科学传播的“科学与社会”范式将科学与公众之间的信任危机定义为一个主要问题,本文感兴趣的是如何在公众对科学和技术认知的代表性调查中衡量公众对科学的信任。目标是使用对科学的(不)信任理论模型,将调查措施系统化,将其作为与公众、(中介机构)和科学之间关系相关的多维变量。项目和开放式问题的系统回顾(n = 736)在来自不同国家的20个代表性调查中使用。研究结果表明,调查很少衡量对科学的不信任,而是关注对科学的信任——主要是宏观层面的信任——而不是对科学家(微观层面)或科学组织(中观层面)的信任。善意是人们最常考虑的信任维度;媒体主要是作为一种与科学接触的普通类型,与信任没有直接联系。因此,有代表性的调查涵盖了公众对科学信任的许多不同方面。然而,还有改进的余地。因此,本文最后对今后的措施提出了建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
42.90%
发文量
9
期刊介绍: As an inter-disciplinary and cross-cultural journal dedicated to advancing a cross-level, context-rich, process-oriented, and practice-relevant journal, JTR provides a focal point for an open dialogue and debate between diverse researchers, thus enhancing the understanding of trust in general and trust-related management in particular, especially in its organizational and social context in the broadest sense. Through both theoretical development and empirical investigation, JTR seeks to open the "black-box" of trust in various contexts.
期刊最新文献
Trust and distrust in public governance settings: Conceptualising and testing the link in regulatory relations. Social trust during the pandemic: Longitudinal evidence from three waves of the Swiss household panel study Integrating focal vulnerability into trust research Capturing the conversation of trust research On the intricate relationship between data and theory, and the potential gain afforded by capturing very low levels of media trust: Commentary on Mangold (2024)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1