A desire for authoritative science? How citizens' informational needs and epistemic beliefs shaped their views of science, news, and policymaking in the COVID-19 pandemic.

Senja Post,Nils Bienzeisler,Mareike Lohöfener

doi:10.1177/09636625211005334

Senja Post, Nils Bienzeisler + Show 1 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625211005334

Copy DOI

Abstract

The coronavirus pandemic created a situation in which virological and epidemiological science became highly politically relevant but was uncertain and fragmented. This raises the question as to how science could inform policymaking and public debate on societal crisis management. Based on an online survey of Germans (N = 1513) representative for age, gender, education, and place of residence, we investigate citizens’ prescriptive views of the relationships between science, policymaking, and the media. Views differ depending on their informational needs and epistemic beliefs. People with a need for definite information and a view of scientific knowledge as static wanted scientists to dominate policymaking and journalists to deliver definite information about the coronavirus. People with an informational need to construct their own opinions wanted journalists to question policy and scientific advice. Furthermore, they rejected the idea of scientists dominating policymaking. Results are discussed with reference to theories of science and democracy.

Highlights

The coronavirus pandemic created a situation in which virological and epidemiological science became highly politically relevant but was uncertain and fragmented
Theorists of knowledge, science, and democracy have repeatedly argued that in science-based policymaking, the distinction between science and policy must be clear-cut to enable citizens to acknowledge scientific facts while engaging in political disputes over values and societal priorities (e.g. Pielke, 2004; Popper, 1957; Weber, 1904). It appears that some members of the public hold strong preferences for delegating political decision making to scientists or expert circles, for example, for the sake of efficiency or because they cannot cope with ambivalence in public discourse (e.g. Hibbing and Theiss-Morse, 2003)
We investigate how people’s normative views of the relationships between policymakers, scientists, and journalists relate to their approval of the public pandemic crisis communication, their informational needs, and their beliefs about the nature of scientific knowledge

Summary

Introduction

The coronavirus pandemic created a situation in which virological and epidemiological science became highly politically relevant but was uncertain and fragmented. Pielke, 2004; Popper, 1957; Weber, 1904) It appears that some members of the public hold strong preferences for delegating political decision making to scientists or expert circles, for example, for the sake of efficiency or because they cannot cope with ambivalence in public discourse We investigate how people’s normative views of the relationships between policymakers, scientists, and journalists relate to their approval of the public pandemic crisis communication, their informational needs, and their beliefs about the nature of scientific knowledge. Scientists typically identify and solve isolated, increasingly specific research problems (“puzzles”), while society’s “really pressing problems, e.g. a cure for cancer or the design of a lasting peace, are often not puzzles at all, largely because they may not have any solution” (Kuhn, 1970: 36–37)

Methods

Results

Conclusion