Climatic Change

, Volume 143, Issue 3–4, pp 297–306 | Cite as

The legitimacy of environmental scientists in the public sphere

Article

Abstract

Previous research has examined public perceptions of climate change, including opinions about the severity of its effects, whether it is human caused, the degree of its exaggeration in the news media, and the level of scientific consensus on the issue. This research has shown that public beliefs about each of these aspects of climate change are politically charged. What remains understudied are the sources of environmental scientists’ authority in the broader society and whether perceptions of environmental scientists themselves are polarized. Using data from the General Social Survey’s Science and Technology Module, this study fills this gap in knowledge by examining public perceptions of environmental scientists across several dimensions. We develop and formally test a theoretical model of the legitimacy of environmental scientists in the public sphere, as measured by public support for their influence on climate policy. Consistent with other research on public beliefs about climate change, we find that perceptions of environmental scientists are polarized across multiple measures. Moreover, while previous theory and research have emphasized beliefs about scientific consensus on climate change, we find that perceptions of scientists’ understanding of the issue and the integrity of their policy advice are each stronger predictors of scientists’ legitimacy in the public sphere.

Supplementary material

10584_2017_2015_MOESM1_ESM.docx (13 kb)
ESM 1(DOCX 13 kb)
10584_2017_2015_MOESM2_ESM.docx (12 kb)
ESM 2(DOCX 12 kb)
10584_2017_2015_MOESM3_ESM.docx (16 kb)
ESM 3(DOCX 15 kb)

References

  1. Asparouhov T, Muthén B (2010). Multiple imputation with Mplus. MPlus Web Notes https://www.statmodel.com/download/Imputations7.pdf
  2. Bauer MW (2009) The evolution of public understanding of science: discourse and comparative evidence. Sci Technol Soc 14:221–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dunlap RE (2014) Clarifying anti-reflexivity: conservative opposition to impact science and scientific evidence. Environ Res Lett 9:1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dunlap RE, McCright AM (2008) A widening gap: republican and democratic views on climate change. Environment 50:26–35Google Scholar
  5. Dunlap RE, McCright AM, Yarosh JH (2016) The political divide on climate change: partisan polarization widens in the U.S. Environment 58:4–23Google Scholar
  6. Gauchat G (2012) Politicization of science in the public sphere: a study of public trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010. Am Sociol Rev 77:167–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gauchat G (2015) The political context of science in the United States: public acceptance of evidence-based policy and science funding. Soc Forces 94:723–746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hamilton LC (2011a) Climate change. Partisanship, understanding, and public opinion. Issue Brief No. 26. Carsey Institute. University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH http://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1133&context=carsey Google Scholar
  9. Hamilton LC (2011b) Education, politics and opinions about climate change evidence for interaction effects. Clim Chang 104:231–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hamilton LC (2014) Do you trust scientists about the environment? News media sources and politics affect New Hampshire resident views. Regional Issue Brief No. 40. Carsey Institute. University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH http://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1213&context=carsey Google Scholar
  11. Hamilton LC (2015) Conservative and liberal views of science. Does trust depend on topic? Regional Issue Brief No. 45. Carsey Institute. University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH https://carsey.unh.edu/publication/views-of-science Google Scholar
  12. Hamilton LC, Saito K (2015) A four-party view of US environmental concern. Env Polit 24:212–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hamilton LC, Cutler MJ, Schaefer A (2012) Public knowledge about polar regions increases while concerns remain unchanged. Issue Brief No. 42. Carsey Institute. University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH http://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1156&context=carsey Google Scholar
  14. Hoyle RH (2012) Introduction and overview. In: Hoyle RH (ed) Handbook of structural equation modeling. Guildford, New York, pp 3–16Google Scholar
  15. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2014) Climate change 2014: synthesis report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, GenevaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kahan DM (2015) Climate-science communication and the measurement problem. Polit Psychol 36:1–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kahan DM, Peters E, Wittlin M, Slovic P, Ouellette LL, Braman D, Mandel G (2012) The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nat Clim Chang 2:732–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McCright AM, Dunlap RE (2011) The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001-2010. Sociol Q 52:155–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McCright AM, Dunlap RE, Xiao C (2013) Perceived scientific agreement and support for government action on climate change in the USA. Clim Chang 119:511–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McCright AM, Dunlap RE, Xiao C (2014a) Increasing influence of party identification on perceived scientific agreement and support for government action on climate change in the United States, 2006–12. Weather Clim Soc 6:194–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McCright AM, Dunlap RE, Xiao C (2014b) The impacts of temperature anomalies and political orientation on perceived winter warming. Nat Clim Chang 4:1077–1081CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Muthén B, du Toit SHC, Spisic D (1997) Robust inference using weighted least squares and quadratic estimating equations in latent variable modeling with categorical and continuous outcomes. Unpublished technical report. https://www.statmodel.com/download/Article_075.pdf
  23. O’Brien TL (2013) Scientific authority in policy contexts: public attitudes about environmental scientists, medical researchers, and economists. Public Underst Sci 22:799–816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Oreskes N, Conway EM (2010) Merchants of doubt: how a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. Bloomsbury Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Perrin AJ, Roos MJ, Gauchat GW (2014) From coalition to constraint: modes of thought in contemporary American conservatism. Sociol Forum 29:285–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. van der Linden SL, Leiserowitz AA, Feinberg GD, Maibach EW (2015) The scientific consensus on climate change as a gateway belief: experimental evidence. PLoS One 10:e0118489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wynne B (2006) Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science: hitting the notes, but missing the music? Community Genet 9:211–220Google Scholar
  28. Wynne B (2007) Public participation in science and technology: performing and obscuring a political–conceptual category mistake. East Asian Sci Technol Soc 1:99–110Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gordon Gauchat
    • 1
  • Timothy O’Brien
    • 1
  • Oriol Mirosa
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Wisconsin MilwaukeeMilwaukeeUSA

Personalised recommendations