Exploring Perceptions of Credible Science Among Policy Stakeholder Groups: Results of Focus Group Discussions About Nuclear Energy

L. Berdahl, M. Bourassa, S. Bell, Jana Fried

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)
34 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

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.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)382-406
Number of pages25
JournalScience Communication
Volume38
Issue number3
Early online date12 May 2016
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jun 2016

Fingerprint

nuclear energy
science policy
group discussion
stakeholder
credibility
trustworthiness
expertise
Group
funding
communication sciences
research method
science
knowledge

Keywords

  • credibility
  • expertise
  • stakeholders
  • nuclear energy

Cite this

Exploring Perceptions of Credible Science Among Policy Stakeholder Groups: Results of Focus Group Discussions About Nuclear Energy. / Berdahl, L.; Bourassa, M.; Bell, S.; Fried, Jana.

In: Science Communication, Vol. 38, No. 3, 01.06.2016, p. 382-406.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{037d6ab575e34ad39685733dae671a45,
title = "Exploring Perceptions of Credible Science Among Policy Stakeholder Groups: Results of Focus Group Discussions About Nuclear Energy",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "credibility, expertise, stakeholders, nuclear energy",
author = "L. Berdahl and M. Bourassa and S. Bell and Jana Fried",
year = "2016",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/1075547016647175",
language = "English",
volume = "38",
pages = "382--406",
journal = "Science Communication",
issn = "1075-5470",
publisher = "SAGE Publications",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Exploring Perceptions of Credible Science Among Policy Stakeholder Groups: Results of Focus Group Discussions About Nuclear Energy

AU - Berdahl, L.

AU - Bourassa, M.

AU - Bell, S.

AU - Fried, Jana

PY - 2016/6/1

Y1 - 2016/6/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - credibility

KW - expertise

KW - stakeholders

KW - nuclear energy

U2 - 10.1177/1075547016647175

DO - 10.1177/1075547016647175

M3 - Article

VL - 38

SP - 382

EP - 406

JO - Science Communication

JF - Science Communication

SN - 1075-5470

IS - 3

ER -