How do different stakeholder groups define credible science? Using original qualitative focus group data, this exploratory study suggests that while nuclear energy stakeholder groups consider the same factors when assessing credibility (specifically, knowledge source, research funding, research methods, publication, and replication), groups differ in their assessments of what constitutes expertise, what demonstrates (or reduces) trustworthiness, and the relative prioritization of expertise versus trustworthiness. Overall, these results suggest it is important for science communication to consider audience-specific credibility, and raise questions about the potential impact of both funding sources and predatory journals on the perceived credibility of scientists.
BartholomewR. E. (2014). Science for sale: The rise of predatory journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 107, 384-385.
2.
BarzilaiS.ZoharA. (2012). Epistemic thinking in action: evaluating and integrating online sources. Cognition and Instruction, 30, 39-85.
3.
BauerM.AllumN.MillerS. (2007). What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 79-95.
4.
BenteleG.SeidenglanzR. (2008). Trust and credibility—prerequisites for communication management. In ZerfassA.AmsterdamskaO.SrirameshK. (Eds.), Public relations research: European and international perspectives and innovations (pp. 49-63). Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
5.
BickerstaffK.LorenzoniI.PidgeonN. F.PoortingaW.SimmonsP. (2008). Reframing nuclear power in the UK energy debate: Nuclear power, climate change mitigation, and radioactive waste. Public Understanding of Science, 17, 145-169.
6.
BråtenI.StrømsøH. I.SalmerónL. (2011). Trust and mistrust when students read multiple information sources about climate change. Learning and Instruction, 21, 180-192.
7.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101.
8.
BrewerP.LeyB. (2013). Whose science do you believe? Explaining trust in sources of scientific information about the environment. Science Communication, 35, 115-137.
9.
BrommeR.GoldmanS. R. (2014). The public’s bounded understanding of science. Educational Psychologist, 49(2), 59-69.
10.
BrommeR.ThommE. (2016). Knowing who knows: Laypersons’ capabilities to judge experts’ pertinence for science topics. Cognitive Science, 40, 241-252.
11.
CallaghanK.SchnellF. (2009). Who says what to whom: Why messengers and citizen beliefs matter in social policy framing. Social Science Journal, 46, 12-28.
12.
CareyM.AsburyJ. (2012). Focus group research. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
13.
ChaikenS.MaheswaranD. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 460-473.
14.
CollinsH.EvansR. (2007). Rethinking expertise. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
15.
CorleyE. A.ScheufeleD. A.HuQ. (2009). Of risks and regulations: How leading U.S. nanoscientists form policy stances about nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 11, 1573-1585.
16.
Costa-FontJ.RudisillC.MossialosE. (2008). Attitudes as an expression of knowledge and “political anchoring”: The case of nuclear power in the United Kingdom. Risk Analysis, 28, 1273-1287.
17.
DijkstraA. M.GuttelingJ. M. (2012). Communicative aspects of the public-science relationship explored: results of focus group discussions about biotechnology and genomics. Science Communication, 34, 363-391.
18.
DobrowM. J.GoelV.UpshurR. E. G. (2004). Evidence-based health policy: Context and utilization. Social Science & Medicine, 58, 207-217.
19.
DruckmanJ. (2001). On the limits of framing effects: who can frame?Journal of Politics, 63, 1041-1066.
20.
FischerF. (1995). Evaluating public policy. Chicago, IL: Nelson Hall.
21.
FiskeS.DupreeC. (2014). Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111, 13593-13597.
22.
GaskellG.EinsiedelE.HallmanW.PriestS.JacksonJ.OlsthoornJ. (2005). Social values and the governance of science. Science, 310, 1908-1909.
23.
GauchatG. (2012). Politicization of science in the public sphere: A study of public trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010. American Sociological Review, 77, 167-187.
24.
GorenP.FedericoC. M.KittilsonM. C. (2009). Source cues, partisan identities and political value expression. American Journal of Political Science, 53, 805-820.
25.
GreenbergM.TrueloveH. (2010). Right answers and right-wrong answers: Sources of information influencing knowledge of nuclear-related information. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 44, 130-140.
26.
GroverS. L. (2013). Unraveling respect in organization studies. Human Relations, 67, 27-51.
27.
HeadB. W. (2010). Reconsidering evidence-based policy: Key issues and challenges. Policy and Society, 29, 77-94.
28.
HortonC. C.PetersonT. R.BanergeeP.PetersonM. J. (2016). Credibility and advocacy in conservation science. Conservation Biology, 30, 23-32.
29.
HovlandC. I.JanisI. L.KelleyH. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
30.
KahanD. M. (2013). Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection. Judgment and Decision Making, 8, 407-424.
31.
KahanD. M.Jenkins-SmithH.BramanD. (2011). Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of Risk Research, 14, 147-174.
32.
KinchyA. J.KleinmanD. L. (2003). Organizing credibility: Discursive and organizational orthodoxy on the borders of ecology and politics. Social Studies of Science, 33, 869-896.
33.
KotchetkovaI.EvansR.LangerS. (2008). Articulating contextualized knowledge: Focus groups and/as public participation?Science as Culture, 17, 71-84.
34.
LachD.ListP.SteelB.ShindlerB. (2003). Advocacy and credibility of ecological scientists in resource decision making: A regional study. BioScience, 53, 170-178.
35.
LachapelleE.MontpetitÉ.GauvinJ. P. (2014). Public perceptions of expert credibility on policy issues: The role of expert framing and political worldviews. Policy Studies Journal, 42, 674-697.
36.
LesterJ. P.WildsL. J. (1990). The utilization of public policy analysis. Evaluation and Program Planning, 13, 313-319.
37.
LiuH.PriestS. (2009). Understanding public support for stem cell research: Media communication, interpersonal communication, and trust in key actors. Public Understanding of Science, 18, 704-718.
38.
LombardiD.SeyranianV.SinatraG. M. (2014). Source effects and plausibility judgments when reading about climate change. Discourse Processes, 51, 75-92.
39.
LorencT.TynerE. F.PetticrewM.DuffyS.MartineauF. P.PhillipsG.LockK. (2014). Cultures of evidence across policy sectors: Systematic review of qualitative evidence. European Journal of Public Health, 24, 1040-1046.
40.
LunnP.RuaneF. (2013). When and how can evidence inform policy? In LunnP.RuaneF. (Eds.), Using evidence to inform policy (pp. 1-22). Dublin, Ireland: Gill & McMillan.
41.
MalkaA.KrosnickJ. A.LangerG. (2009). The association of knowledge with concern about global warming: Trusted information sources shape public thinking. Risk Analysis, 29, 633-647.
NowotnyH.ScottP.GibbonsM. (2001). Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
44.
O’KeefeD. J. (1990). Persuasion: Theory and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
45.
OnwuegbuzieA. J.DickinsonW. B.LeechN. L.ZoranA. G. (2009). A qualitative framework for collecting and analyzing data in focus group research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(3), 1-21.
PetersH. P. (1992). The credibility of information sources in West Germany after the Chernobyl disaster. Public Understanding of Science, 1, 325-343.
48.
PornpitakpanC. (2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades’ evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 243-281.
49.
PriestS. (2006). The public opinion climate for gene technologies in Canada and the United States: Competing voices, contrasting frames. Public Understanding of Science, 15, 55-71.
50.
RallisS. F. (2009). Reasoning with rigor and probity: Ethical premises for credible evidence. In DonaldsonS. I.ChristieC. A.MarkM. M. (Eds.), What counts as credible evidence in applied research and evaluation practice (pp. 168-180). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
51.
RiversA. E. (2012). Perceptions of advocacy and credibility in policy-relevant natural resource science (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
52.
RobinsR. (2001). Overburdening risk: Policy frameworks and the public uptake of gene technology. Public Understanding of Science, 10, 19-36.
53.
RogersK. M.AshforthB. E. (2014). Respect in organizations: Feeling valued as “we” and “me.”Journal of Management, 20(10), 1-31.
54.
SchapiraM. M.ImbertD.OhE.ByhoffE.SheaJ. A. (2014). Public engagement with scientific evidence in health: A qualitative study among primary-care patients in an urban population. Public Understanding of Science. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0963662514560489
55.
SiegristM.CvetkovichG. (2000). Perception of hazards: The role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis, 20, 713-719.
56.
SiegristM.CvetkovichG.RothC. (2000). Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Analysis, 20, 353-362.
57.
SiegristM.GutscherH.EarleT. C. (2005). Perception of risk: The influence of general trust, and general confidence. Journal of Risk Research, 8, 145-156.
58.
SilkK. J.HurleyA.PaceK.MaloneyE. K.LapinskiM. (2014). A diffusion of innovations approach to understand stakeholder perceptions of renewable energy initiatives. Science Communication, 36, 646-669.
59.
SjöbergL. (1999). Perceived competence and motivation in industry and government as factors in risk perception. In CvetkovichG.LofstedtR. (Eds.), Social trust and the management of risk (pp. 89-99). Florence, KY: Routledge.
60.
SmithW. R. (1956). Product differentiation and market segmentation as alternative marketing strategies. Journal of Marketing, 21(1), 3-8.
61.
SmithsonJ. (2000). Using and analyzing focus groups: Limitations and possibilities. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 3, 103-119.
62.
SpreckerK. (2002). How involvement, citation style, and funding source affect the credibility of university scientists. Science Communication, 24, 72-97.
63.
StewartD. W.ShamdasamiP. N.RookD. W. (2009). Group depth interviews: Focus group research. In BickmanL.RogD. J. (Eds.), Applied social research methods (2nd ed., pp. 589-616). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
64.
ThommE.BrommeR. (2012). “It should at least seem scientific!” Textual features of “scientificness” and their impact on lay assessments of online information. Science Education, 96, 187-211.
VicsekL. (2011). Costs and benefits of stem cell research and treatment: Media presentation and audience understanding in Hungary. Science Communication, 33, 309-340.
67.
ViklundM. (2003). Trust and risk perception: A West European cross-national study. Risk Analysis, 23, 727-738.
68.
WebberD. J. (1987). Legislators’ use of policy information. American Behavioral Scientist, 30, 612-631.
69.
WeichselgartnerJ.KaspersonR. (2010). Barriers in the science-policy-practice interface: Toward a knowledge-action-system in global environmental change research. Global Environmental Change, 20, 266-277.
70.
WynneB. (2008). Elephants in the room where publics encounter “science”? A response to Darrin Durant, “Accounting for Expertise: Wynne and the Autonomy of the Lay Public.”Public Understanding of Science, 17, 21-33.
71.
YamamotoY. T. (2012). Values, objectivity and credibility of scientists in a contentious natural resource debate. Public Understanding of Science, 21, 101-125.
72.
YoungI.GroppK.PintarK.WaddellL.MarshallB.ThomasK.. . . RajićA. (2014). Experiences and attitudes towards evidence-informed policy-making among research and policy stakeholders in the Canadian agri-food public health sector. Zoonoses and Public Health, 61, 581-589.
