Scholarship on (mis)information does not easily translate into recommendations for policy-makers and policy influencers who wish to judge the accuracy of science-related truth claims. This is partly ...due to much of this literature being based on lab experiments with captive audiences that tell us little about the durability or scalability of any potential intervention in the real world. More importantly, the “accuracy” of scientific truth claims is much more difficult to define than many scholars in this space acknowledge. Uncertainties associated with the nature of science, sociopolitical climates, and media systems introduce compounding error in assessments of claim accuracy. We, therefore, need a more nuanced understanding of misinformation and disinformation than those often present in discussions of the “infodemic.” Here, we propose a new framework for evaluating science-related truth claims and apply it to real-world examples. We conclude by discussing implications for research and action on (mis)information, given that distinguishing between true and false claims is not as easy as it is sometimes purported to be.
Abstract
Paralleling very visible debates in psychology, some parts of the communication field have recently pushed for a wholesale endorsement of the principles of open science and its practices, ...including a particular focus on replicability and reproducibility as quality criteria. Unfortunately, these discussions have been plagued by a set of at least 3 interrelated problems: A lack of conceptual clarity when defining open science-related challenges to communication scholarship; the irony of using intuition rather than evidence when trying to improve communication science; and our field’s surprising lack of attention to nonreplicability in social media data as one of our field’s most rapidly growing data sources. In response to these problem areas, we argue that communication as a field proceed empirically as it applies open science practices to different subfields in communication and end our essay with pathways forward for a science of open (communication) science.
The science of science communication Fischhoff, Baruch; Scheufele, Dietram A.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences - PNAS,
08/2013, Letnik:
110, Številka:
Supplement 3
Journal Article
Deference to scientific authority theoretically captures the belief that scientists and not publics should make decisions on science in society. Few studies examine deference, however, and none test ...this central theoretical claim. The result is deference is often conflated with concepts such as trust in scientists and belief in the authority of science. This study examines two claims key to conceptualizing deference: that deference (1) predicts anti-democratic views of decision-making and (2) relates to but is distinct from beliefs of science as authoritative knowledge. Analyzing US nationally representative data, we find deference to scientific authority does predict anti-democratic views, and this is its distinct conceptual value: trust in scientists and belief in science as authoritative knowledge strongly relate to deference, but both predict pro-democratic views, unlike deference. We discuss how these findings highlight deference as vital for understanding perceptions of science and societal decision-making and how we can better develop the concept.
Social media and its embedded user commentary are playing increasingly influential roles in the news process. However, researchers’ understanding of the social media commenting environment remains ...limited, despite rising concerns over uncivil comments. Accordingly, this study used a supervised machine learning–based method of content analysis to examine the extent and patterns of incivility in the comment sections of 42 US news outlets’ Facebook pages over an 18-month period in 2015–2016. These outlets were selected as being broadly representative of national, local, conservative, and liberal-news media. The findings provide the first empirical evidence that both the level and the targets of incivility in the comments posted on news outlets’ Facebook pages vary greatly according to such entities’ general type and ideological stance.
U.S. attitudes on human genome editing Scheufele, Dietram A.; Xenos, Michael A.; Howell, Emily L. ...
Science (American Association for the Advancement of Science),
08/2017, Letnik:
357, Številka:
6351
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Although views on human genome editing differ, all want public engagement
The emergence of CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing has given new urgency to calls from social scientists, bench scientists, and ...scientific associations for broad public dialogue about human genome editing and its applications. Most recently, these calls were formalized in a consensus report on the science, ethics, and governance of human genome editing released by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the National Academy of Medicine (NAM) that argued for public engagement to be incorporated into the policy-making process for human genome editing (
1
). So, where does the public stand on the issue of human genome editing? And how do those attitudes translate into the desire for more public input on human genome editing as new applications emerge in the policy arena?
How do citizens make sense of nanotechnology as more applications reach the market and the mainstream media start to debate the potential risks and benefits of technology? As with many other ...political and scientific issues, citizens rely on cognitive shortcuts or heuristics to make sense of issues for which they have low levels of knowledge. These heuristics can include predispositional factors, such as ideological beliefs or value systems, and also short-term frames of reference provided by the media or other sources of information. Recent research suggests that 'religious filters' are an important heuristic for scientific issues in general, and nanotechnology in particular. A religious filter is more than a simple correlation between religiosity and attitudes toward science: it refers to a link between benefit perceptions and attitudes that varies depending on respondents' levels of religiosity. In surveys, seeing the benefits of nanotechnology is consistently linked to more positive attitudes about nanotechnology among less religious respondents, with this effect being significantly weaker for more religious respondents. For this study, we have combined public opinion surveys in the United States with Eurobarometer surveys about public attitudes toward nanotechnology in Europe to compare the influence of religious beliefs on attitudes towards nanotechnology in the United States and Europe. Our results show that respondents in the United States were significantly less likely to agree that nanotechnology is morally acceptable than respondents in many European countries. These moral views correlated directly with aggregate levels of religiosity in each country, even after controlling for national research productivity and measures of science performance for high-school students.
Abstract Artificial intelligence (AI) not only holds immense potential for improving quality of life but also creates complex ethical, legal, and societal challenges. AI has gained significant ...attention recently, particularly by introducing ChatGPT and other emerging applications. This paper offers a comprehensive overview of public opinion trends on AI, drawing from fifteen surveys conducted in the USA over the past 4 years. The findings reveal a divided American public regarding AI’s applications. Americans generally call for more regulation and government oversight, expressing a need for increased measures before fully embracing AI. While specific AI applications, such as skin cancer screening, have been welcomed, most Americans emphasize the importance of addressing societal concerns such as racial bias and inequities before the widespread implementation of AI. The evolving landscape of AI necessitates ongoing monitoring of public sentiment and the consideration of societal implications.
Scientists are expected to engage with the public, especially when society faces challenges like the COVID-19 pandemic or climate change, but what public engagement means to scientists is not clear. ...We use a triangulated, mixed-methods approach combining survey and focus group data to gain insight into how pre-tenure and tenured scientists personally conceptualize public engagement. Our findings indicate that scientists’ understanding of public engagement is similarly complex and diverse as the scholarly literature. While definitions and examples of one-way forms of engagement are the most salient for scientists, regardless of tenure status, scientists also believe public engagement with science includes two-way forms of engagement, such as citizen and community involvement in research. These findings suggest that clear definitions of public engagement are not necessarily required for its application but may be useful to guide scientists in their engagement efforts, so they align with what is expected of them.
Scholars are increasingly concerned with the potential for uncivil discourse to enhance political polarization in society (Mutz, 2006; Stryker, 2011). Political elites and partisans boost levels of ...incivility in news media (Muddiman, 2013), and people perceive higher levels of incivility in politics when individuals rather than issues are attacked (Stryker, Conway, & Danielson, 2014). The concerns over incivility extend to the online information environment, where nasty comments can harm healthy back-and-forth dialogue central to democracy that often happens in spaces such as newspapers (Coe, Kenski, & Rains, 2014; Meltzer, 2015). Early research shows that incivility in online comments can be a polarizing factor in how people perceive issues in media, particularly for individuals who hold stronger opinions before seeing the comments (Anderson, Brossard, Scheufele, Xenos, & Ladwig, 2014). In particular, incivility has been found to affect people’s perceptions of the content covered in news articles, a phenomenon dubbed the “nasty effect” (Anderson et al., 2014). It can also increase the perception that individuals in society hold polarized attitudes (Hwang, Kim, & Huh, 2014). Yet, we still do not fully understand how incivility in comments affects perceptions of the news stories themselves or the effect it can have on lines of political polarity in society. Here, we explore the effects of uncivil comments proximate to a blog post containing hard news content on individuals’ perceptions of media. We examine these effects across two controversial scientific issues—nuclear energy and nanotechnology—on perceptions of bias of the news blog post. We also examine how political ideologies are related to how people interpret incivility in online comments as it relates to perceptions of bias. In doing so, this study contributes to understanding of the polarizing nature of incivility. While this is a common concern in the literature, few have empirically tested whether online incivility heightens existing divisions in society. We find that perceptions of bias are greatest after seeing online incivility among politically conservative ideologues, providing evidence for the polarity of incivility in online comments.
PDF
