IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/bdj/smioir/2024-04.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Are Scientists Perceived as Credible Experts?

Author

Listed:
  • Anders Brostrom

    (School of Industrial Engineering and Management, KTH Royal Institute of Technology)

  • Cornelia Lawson

    (Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, The University of Manchester)

  • Mabel Sanchez Barrioluengo

    (Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, The University of Manchester)

Abstract

Science is widely embraced as an important prerequisite for innovation, and there is widespread support for public investment in science on that basis. It remains less clear to what extent the general public also perceives science as a relevant source of expertise on technological development and innovation. Drawing on representative panels from two European countries (the United Kingdom and Sweden), we investigate whether scientists are perceived as credible senders of messages regarding future technological development and its consequences. We apply a conjoint analysis methodology. Specifically, we estimate the credibility of scientists by comparing how respondents’ assessments of societal challenges statements change with the attribution of that statement to scientists, compared with attribution to other type of expert groups (government, businesspersons, and issue advocates). While our study identifies positively framed predictions about new technology and innovation as a domain where scientific expertise is perceived as enjoying relatively high credibility, actors representing business and special interest groups are overall perceived as more credible conveyors of ‘bad news’, of negatively framed messages about the future. Implications for our understanding of the social contract of science are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Anders Brostrom & Cornelia Lawson & Mabel Sanchez Barrioluengo, 2024. "Are Scientists Perceived as Credible Experts?," MIOIR Working Paper Series 2024-06, The Manchester Institute of Innovation Research (MIoIR), The University of Manchester.
    • Handle: RePEc:bdj:smioir:2024-04
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://pure.manchester.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/346293483/mioir.wp.2024-04.pdf
    File Function: Submitted version (MIOIR WP Series), 2024
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Eric Allen Jensen & Eric B. Kennedy & Ethan Greenwood, 2021. "Pandemic: public feeling more positive about science," Nature, Nature, vol. 591(7848), pages 34-34, March.
    2. Justin Sulik & Ophelia Deroy & Guillaume Dezecache & Martha Newson & Yi Zhao & Marwa El Zein & Bahar Tunçgenç, 2021. "Facing the pandemic with trust in science," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-10, December.
    3. Michael Gibbons, 1999. "Science's new social contract with society," Nature, Nature, vol. 402(6761), pages 81-84, December.
    4. Flink, Tim & Kaldewey, David, 2018. "The new production of legitimacy: STI policy discourses beyond the contract metaphor," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 14-22.
    5. Schot, Johan & Steinmueller, W. Edward, 2018. "Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(9), pages 1554-1567.
    6. Pavitt, Keith, 1984. "Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(6), pages 343-373, December.
    7. Hoenig, Daniel & Henkel, Joachim, 2015. "Quality signals? The role of patents, alliances, and team experience in venture capital financing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 1049-1064.
    8. Adrian Rauchfleisch & Mike S Schäfer & Dario Siegen, 2021. "Beyond the ivory tower: Measuring and explaining academic engagement with journalists, politicians and industry representatives among Swiss professorss," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(5), pages 1-20, May.
    9. Ben R. Martin, 2003. "The Changing Social Contract for Science and the Evolution of the University," Chapters, in: Aldo Geuna & Ammon J. Salter & W. Edward Steinmueller (ed.), Science and Innovation, chapter 1, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Hee‐Je Bak, 2001. "Education and Public Attitudes toward Science: Implications for the “Deficit Model” of Education and Support for Science and Technology," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 82(4), pages 779-795, December.
    11. Salter, Ammon & Salandra, Rossella & Walker, James, 2017. "Exploring preferences for impact versus publications among UK business and management academics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(10), pages 1769-1782.
    12. Kayser, Victoria, 2017. "Comparing public and scientific discourse in the context of innovation systems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 348-357.
    13. Sauermann, Henry & Vohland, Katrin & Antoniou, Vyron & Balázs, Bálint & Göbel, Claudia & Karatzas, Kostas & Mooney, Peter & Perelló, Josep & Ponti, Marisa & Samson, Roeland & Winter, Silvia, 2020. "Citizen science and sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(5).
    14. Gissur Ó. Erlingsson, 2021. "A stranger thing? Sweden as the upside down of multilevel trust," Journal of Trust Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(1), pages 22-41, January.
    15. Arnott, James C., 2021. "Pens and purse strings: Exploring the opportunities and limits to funding actionable sustainability science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(10).
    16. Daniel Zizzo, 2010. "Experimenter demand effects in economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 13(1), pages 75-98, March.
    17. Irwin, Alan & Vedel, Jane Bjørn & Vikkelsø, Signe, 2021. "Isomorphic difference: Familiarity and distinctiveness in national research and innovation policies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(4).
    18. Hoisl, Karin & Stelzer, Tobias & Biala, Stefanie, 2015. "Forecasting technological discontinuities in the ICT industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 522-532.
    19. John V. Kane & Jason Barabas, 2019. "No Harm in Checking: Using Factual Manipulation Checks to Assess Attentiveness in Experiments," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 63(1), pages 234-249, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth & Johannes Wohlfart, 2023. "Designing Information Provision Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 61(1), pages 3-40, March.
    2. Upadhayay, Neha B. & Rocchetta, Silvia & Gupta, Shivam & Kamble, Sachin & Stekelorum, Rebecca, 2024. "Blazing the trail: The role of digital and green servitization on technological innovation," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    3. Pfotenhauer, Sebastian M. & Wentland, Alexander & Ruge, Luise, 2023. "Understanding regional innovation cultures: Narratives, directionality, and conservative innovation in Bavaria," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(3).
    4. Nicola Moczek & Silke L. Voigt-Heucke & Kim G. Mortega & Claudia Fabó Cartas & Jörn Knobloch, 2021. "A Self-Assessment of European Citizen Science Projects on Their Contribution to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-18, February.
    5. Soete, Luc, 2019. "Science, technology and innovation studies at a crossroad: SPRU as case study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 849-857.
    6. Ávila-Robinson, Alfonso & Islam, Nazrul & Sengoku, Shintaro, 2022. "Exploring the knowledge base of innovation research: Towards an emerging innovation model," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    7. Huynh Evertsen, Phuc & Rasmussen, Einar & Nenadic, Oleg, 2022. "Commercializing circular economy innovations: A taxonomy of academic spin-offs," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    8. Dumont, Michel, 2022. "Public support to business research and development in Belgium: fourth evaluation," MPRA Paper 115418, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Tim Flink, 2022. "Taking the pulse of science diplomacy and developing practices of valuation [The Perverse Effects of Competition on Scientists’ Work and Relationships]," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(2), pages 191-200.
    10. Haddad, Christian & Benner, Maximilian, 2021. "Situating innovation policy in Mediterranean Arab countries: A research agenda for context sensitivity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(7).
    11. Cirillo, Valeria & Martinelli, Arianna & Nuvolari, Alessandro & Tranchero, Matteo, 2019. "Only one way to skin a cat? Heterogeneity and equifinality in European national innovation systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 905-922.
    12. Irwin, Alan & Vedel, Jane Bjørn & Vikkelsø, Signe, 2021. "Isomorphic difference: Familiarity and distinctiveness in national research and innovation policies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(4).
    13. Liana Marina Ranga & Koenraad Debackere & Nick von Tunzelmann, 2003. "Entrepreneurial universities and the dynamics of academic knowledge production: A case study of basic vs. applied research in Belgium," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 58(2), pages 301-320, October.
    14. Dhar, Suparna & Tarafdar, Pratik & Bose, Indranil, 2022. "Understanding the evolution of an emerging technological paradigm and its impact: The case of Digital Twin," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    15. Shaw, Jamie, 2022. "There and back again: Revisiting Vannevar Bush, the linear model, and the freedom of science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    16. Harrington, Elise, 2024. "Filling gaps in local knowledge and technology assurance: Informal intermediation in the diffusion of off-grid solar technologies in rural Kenya," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(8).
    17. Klerkx, Laurens & Begemann, Stephanie, 2020. "Supporting food systems transformation: The what, why, who, where and how of mission-oriented agricultural innovation systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    18. Bogner, Kristina & Dahlke, Johannes, 2022. "Born to transform? German bioeconomy policy and research projects for transformations towards sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    19. Francesco Bogliacino & Mario Pianta, 2016. "The Pavitt Taxonomy, revisited: patterns of innovation in manufacturing and services," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 33(2), pages 153-180, August.
    20. Bhumika Gupta & Salil K. Sen, 2019. "Carbon Capture Usage and Storage with Scale-up: Energy Finance through Bricolage Deploying the Co-integration Methodology," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 9(6), pages 146-153.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Scientific Experts; Expertise; Trust in Science; SDGs; Emerging Technologies;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bdj:smioir:2024-04. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Holly Crossley (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/prmanuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.