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
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)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
