比较视角下与科学相关的民粹主义的变化:民粹主义科学诉求支持者与反对者的多层次分割分析

IF 2 2区 社会学 Q2 SOCIOLOGY International Journal of Comparative Sociology Pub Date : 2023-10-25 DOI:10.1177/00207152231200188
Niels G Mede
{"title":"比较视角下与科学相关的民粹主义的变化:民粹主义科学诉求支持者与反对者的多层次分割分析","authors":"Niels G Mede","doi":"10.1177/00207152231200188","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Many countries worldwide have seen populist resentment against scientists, which can manifest as “science-related populist attitudes” among the population. These attitudes can be assumed to divide populations into multiple segments—each endorsing or rejecting different facets of science-related populism, with segment sizes and characteristics varying between countries and cultural contexts. This study tests this with a secondary analysis of four public opinion surveys from Austria, Germany, Switzerland, and Taiwan (total N = 4598), combining a Most Similar Systems Design (MSSD) and a Most Different Systems Design (MDSD). It uses fixed-effects latent class analysis to demonstrate that Austrian, German, Swiss, and Taiwanese publics can be grouped into three segments: Full-Fledged Populists, People-Centric Non-Populists, and Deferent Anti-Populists. A large majority in all countries can be classified as Non-Populist or Anti-Populists, whereas Populists, who support the entire spectrum of science-related populism, make up the smallest segment. Bayesian regression shows that Populists are older and more likely to support right-leaning political views. Cross-country and cross-cultural comparisons reveal differences in segment sizes and characteristics: For example, Populists are more prevalent in Austria, while Germany has a large proportion of Anti-Populists. These are less widespread in Taiwan, where Non-Populists form a particularly big segment. The findings can be explained with national political, cultural, and historical contexts to some degree. Eventually, they are discussed against the backdrop implications for science communication and future scholarship on public science skepticism.","PeriodicalId":51601,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Comparative Sociology","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Variations of science-related populism in comparative perspective: A multilevel segmentation analysis of supporters and opponents of populist demands toward science\",\"authors\":\"Niels G Mede\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00207152231200188\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Many countries worldwide have seen populist resentment against scientists, which can manifest as “science-related populist attitudes” among the population. These attitudes can be assumed to divide populations into multiple segments—each endorsing or rejecting different facets of science-related populism, with segment sizes and characteristics varying between countries and cultural contexts. This study tests this with a secondary analysis of four public opinion surveys from Austria, Germany, Switzerland, and Taiwan (total N = 4598), combining a Most Similar Systems Design (MSSD) and a Most Different Systems Design (MDSD). It uses fixed-effects latent class analysis to demonstrate that Austrian, German, Swiss, and Taiwanese publics can be grouped into three segments: Full-Fledged Populists, People-Centric Non-Populists, and Deferent Anti-Populists. A large majority in all countries can be classified as Non-Populist or Anti-Populists, whereas Populists, who support the entire spectrum of science-related populism, make up the smallest segment. Bayesian regression shows that Populists are older and more likely to support right-leaning political views. Cross-country and cross-cultural comparisons reveal differences in segment sizes and characteristics: For example, Populists are more prevalent in Austria, while Germany has a large proportion of Anti-Populists. These are less widespread in Taiwan, where Non-Populists form a particularly big segment. The findings can be explained with national political, cultural, and historical contexts to some degree. Eventually, they are discussed against the backdrop implications for science communication and future scholarship on public science skepticism.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51601,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Comparative Sociology\",\"volume\":\"43 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Comparative Sociology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00207152231200188\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Comparative Sociology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00207152231200188","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

世界上许多国家都出现了民粹主义对科学家的怨恨,这种怨恨可以在人口中表现为“与科学有关的民粹主义态度”。这些态度可以假定将人口分成多个部分,每个部分支持或拒绝与科学相关的民粹主义的不同方面,部分的规模和特征因国家和文化背景而异。本研究结合最相似系统设计(MSSD)和最不同系统设计(MDSD),对奥地利、德国、瑞士和台湾的四项民意调查(总N = 4598)进行二次分析,验证了这一点。本研究运用固定效应潜在阶层分析,证明奥地利、德国、瑞士与台湾民众可分为三类:成熟的民粹主义者、以人为本的非民粹主义者与不同的反民粹主义者。所有国家的绝大多数人都可以被归类为非民粹主义者或反民粹主义者,而支持所有与科学相关的民粹主义的民粹主义者则是最小的一部分。贝叶斯回归显示,民粹主义者年龄更大,更有可能支持右倾的政治观点。跨国和跨文化的比较揭示了群体规模和特征的差异:例如,民粹主义者在奥地利更为普遍,而德国的反民粹主义者占很大比例。在台湾,非民粹主义者的比例特别大,因此这种情况就不那么普遍了。这些发现在一定程度上可以用国家政治、文化和历史背景来解释。最后,本文讨论了公众科学怀疑主义对科学传播和未来学术研究的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Variations of science-related populism in comparative perspective: A multilevel segmentation analysis of supporters and opponents of populist demands toward science
Many countries worldwide have seen populist resentment against scientists, which can manifest as “science-related populist attitudes” among the population. These attitudes can be assumed to divide populations into multiple segments—each endorsing or rejecting different facets of science-related populism, with segment sizes and characteristics varying between countries and cultural contexts. This study tests this with a secondary analysis of four public opinion surveys from Austria, Germany, Switzerland, and Taiwan (total N = 4598), combining a Most Similar Systems Design (MSSD) and a Most Different Systems Design (MDSD). It uses fixed-effects latent class analysis to demonstrate that Austrian, German, Swiss, and Taiwanese publics can be grouped into three segments: Full-Fledged Populists, People-Centric Non-Populists, and Deferent Anti-Populists. A large majority in all countries can be classified as Non-Populist or Anti-Populists, whereas Populists, who support the entire spectrum of science-related populism, make up the smallest segment. Bayesian regression shows that Populists are older and more likely to support right-leaning political views. Cross-country and cross-cultural comparisons reveal differences in segment sizes and characteristics: For example, Populists are more prevalent in Austria, while Germany has a large proportion of Anti-Populists. These are less widespread in Taiwan, where Non-Populists form a particularly big segment. The findings can be explained with national political, cultural, and historical contexts to some degree. Eventually, they are discussed against the backdrop implications for science communication and future scholarship on public science skepticism.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
10.00%
发文量
49
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Comparative Sociology was established in 1960 to publish the highest quality peer reviewed research that is both international in scope and comparative in method. The journal draws articles from sociologists worldwide and encourages competing perspectives. IJCS recognizes that many significant research questions are inherently interdisciplinary, and therefore welcomes work from scholars in related disciplines, including political science, geography, economics, anthropology, and business sciences. The journal is published six times a year, including special issues on topics of special interest to the international social science community.
期刊最新文献
Book review: Women in Yoruba Religions How anti-corruption actions win hearts: The evaluation of anti-corruption performance, social inequality and political trust—Evidence from the Asian Barometer Survey and the Latino Barometer Survey Trust is personal and professional: The role of trust in the rise and fall of a South African civil society coalition Book review: Migration and Mortality: Social Death, Dispossession, and Survival in the Americas Book review: The World Cup as World History
×
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