Two sides of the same coin: Public trust in science and scientists‘ trust in the public
Final Report Abstract
The project was conceived in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic. It consisted of two complementary project parts, which were carried out at the universities of Mannheim and Düsseldorf. The aim was to conduct an in-depth analysis of the emergence and structure of trust in science under crisis conditions (Mannheim), while simultaneously examining its implications for scientists’ trust in journalism and media audiences (Düsseldorf). Both components of the project were grounded in a shared theoretical model of trust. The Mannheim sub-project was particularly interested in risk perceptions towards science and the associated trust expectations towards science. We were also interested in how people deal with these risk perceptions, i.e. whether they choose to trust or to distrust, and what the reasons for this are. We conducted around 35 qualitative interviews with people who expressed both positive support for and critical rejection of (certain parts of) science. To summarize, four key findings should be highlighted: • People who distrust science share the same normative expectations as trusting people (e.g. “science should provide proven knowledge” or “science should develop solutions to problems”). The difference between mistrust and trust lies in the individual's conviction as to whether these expectations are (not) fulfilled. • In addition to the already known “epistemic expectation” (generation of true knowledge) and the “expectation of technical solutions”, which is also sometimes mentioned in the literature, the “guidance expectation” was newly identified as a functional expectation of science. It remained unclear whether the “communication expectation”, which is also sometimes mentioned by the interviewees, also represents a functional expectation or is “only” an argument to justify different levels of trust in scientists. • For many interviewees, the pandemic changed their relationship with science: the direct relevance of scientific findings, the visibility of scientists and the observability of scientific discourse led to strong attitudes of trust or mistrust in some people. Trust in science should therefore be viewed in context: Interviewees who expressed clear mistrust of virology, the RKI or Christian Drosten in the context of the pandemic were able to trust scientific actors on other topics and issues. • Trust-relevant characteristics of individual scientists were mentioned in relation to the pandemic, but systemic factors such as funding, working conditions, control mechanisms and openness towards society seemed to be more decisive overall. We then translated these findings into the development of a questionnaire to measure trust in science. We conducted several survey studies for this purpose. The results show that trust in science can best be measured if it is divided into four dimensions, all of which are important at the same time: Trust in the production of true knowledge, trust in the guidance function of science, trust in the technical solution of problems and trust in the comprehensible communication of scientific findings. The questionnaire developed is the first validated survey instrument for measuring trust in science. In the Düsseldorf sub-project, a multidimensional theoretical model of trust in scientific sources in journalism was developed. It considers five normative expectations of journalism and its production as the core of the trust construct: the choice of an adequate topic, the right selection of facts, appropriate journalistic evaluation, the correctness of the presentation and an educational effect on the audience. With the latter dimension, trust in the public (understood as the media audience) becomes an integral part of the model. This was then translated into a measurement model and refined and evaluated in a pretest with a good 400 respondents. The final survey of scientists was based on a sample of more than 4,000 ‘Web of Science’ authors from all disciplines and career levels who published at least one research paper with quality assurance procedures between 2019 and 2022 and were members of a German university or research institution at the time of publication. The survey data show that scientists‘ trust in the news media is strongly shaped by their perceived performance during the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, significant portions of the variance in scientists’ individual willingness to communicate can be explained by their trust in journalism and the media audience. In this respect, the survey confirms a central assumption of the project. The Düsseldorf project team generated a second data set of the same quality to test alternative theoretical explanations for a COVID-19 effect on scientists' willingness to communicate (rational choice theory, theory of reasoned action, protection motivation theory). So far, data analysis shows that all of the above theories can be expected to make an adequate contribution to explaining the variance in the target variable.
Link to the final report
https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-106142-3
Publications
-
Do you dare? What female scientists expect when communicating. In: Elephant in the Lab
De Haas, H., Kohler, S. & Marcinkowski, F.
-
Ein beschädigtes Verhältnis? Der Einfluss der Covid-19-Pandemie auf die Vertrauensbeziehung von Wissenschaft zu Journalismus. Vortrag auf der Jahrestagung der Fachgruppen Journalistik und Wissenschaftskommunikation in Passau (20.–22.09.2023)
Kohler, S., de Haas, H. & Marcinkowski, F.
-
Public expectations towards science – scientist’s expectations towards the public. Expert Workshop on Trust in Science, Project POIESIS, 19.–20.06.2023, Berlin
Kohring M. & Marcinkowski, F.
-
Scientists during the COVID-19 pandemic. From running towards to running away from the public. Vortrag auf der PCST (Public Communication of Science and Technology) in Rotterdam, Niederlande (12.– 14.04.2023)
de Haas, H., Kohler, S. & Marcinkowski, F.
-
Scientists under attack: A setback for public engagement with science and technology? Vortrag auf der IAMCR (International Association of Communication Research) in Lyon, Frankreich (09.–13.07.2023)
Kohler, S., Marcinkowski, F. & de Haas, H.
-
Booster or Backlash? How the Corona pandemic has affected scientist’s willingness to engage with the public. Presentation for panel P119 at conference EASST-4S 2024, Making and Doing Transformations, from 16 to 19 July 2024, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Marcinkowski, F.
-
Who, if not science, can you trust to guide you through a crisis? The relationship between public trust in science and exposure to established and alternative online sources in times of crisis. Journal of Science Communication, 23(09).
Zimmermann, Fabian; Petersen, Christine & Kohring, Matthias
-
Flight or fight? - How the coronavirus pandemic has affected scientists’ willingness to engage with the public. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12(1).
Marcinkowski, Frank; de Haas, Hella & Kohler, Sarah
-
Scientists’ public engagement after the pandemic: Still rational action? Vortrag auf der ICA (International Communication Association) in Denver, Colorado, USA (12.–16. Juni 2025)
de Haas, H. & Marcinkowski, F.
