Measuring public trust in science from the perspective of Iranians

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Associate Professor, National Research Institute for Science Policy

2 Research expert , National Research Institute for Science Policy

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this article is to measure public trust in scientific findings, scientific centers and researchers in Iran. With the increasing specialization of science and technology and its influence in everyday life and the expansion of media and communication tools, awareness about the consequences of the development of science and technology is distributed among social groups and people are aware of science and technology and its achievements. They look with more doubt. In the conditions of social distribution of knowledge, scientists alone do not have the knowledge and ability to predict all the social implications of innovation; This evolution has taken the evaluation of moral implications of science and technology out of the monopoly of scientists. Researchers of science and society try to explain different aspects of people's relationship with science and technology by posing their own questions, how to measure people's trust in science and technology and make them contribute to the growth and development of society, did
Method: In this study, we used descriptive method and survey design. To achieve the goal, a multi-stage cluster sampling method was used. The data collection tool was a questionnaire. The content and form validity of the questionnaire was done by using experts' opinion and checking their agreement coefficient. Also, the method of measuring the structural validity of the conceptual model (confirmatory factor analysis and examination of fit indices) was used, and Cronbach's alpha coefficient was used for the reliability of the prepared questions and items.
Findings: Regarding scientific findings, the respondents trusted issues related to scientific rules and regulations, confirmation of other sources, confirmation of other scientists, and the Internet. While the review by ordinary people and the confirmation of the media were not trusted by the respondents, the findings also showed that the majority of the society trusts

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  • اجاق، زهرا؛ شیخ جباری، محمد مهدی؛ وصالی، منصور؛ زارع، مهدی، درستیان، آرزو. (1391). تبیین ماهیت و ضرورت درک عامه از علم. فصلنامه آموزش مهندسی ایران،14(56)،132-117
  • بیکر، ترز ال. (1386). نحوه انجام تحقیقات اجتماعی. ترجمه هوشنگ نایبی. تهران: نشر نی.
  • پایا، علی؛ کلانتری‌نژاد، رضا. (1389). ارزیابی فلسفی و دلالت های سیاست‌گذارانه تأثیرات چهارمین موج توسعه علمی و فناورانه بر فرهنگ و جامعه: ملاحظاتی از دیدگاه عقلانیت. سیاست علم و فناوری، 2(4).
  • خرمشاد، محمدباقر؛ سوری، فرزاد. (1398). نقش سرمایه اجتماعی در جامعه پذیری سیاسی (مطالعه موردی: دانشجویان مقطع کارشناسی دانشگاه های دولتی شهر تهران). پژوهش های راهبردی سیاست، 8(29)، 43-79.
  • ریتزر، جورج .(1374). نظریه جامعه شناسی در دوران معاصر. ترجمه محسن ثلاثی علمی، تهران: نشر علمی.
  • سیسموندو، سرجیو. (1392). مقدمه‌ای بر مطالعات علم و تکنولوژی. ترجمه یاسر خوشنویس. تهران: انتشارات سروش.
  • فراستخواه، مقصود.(1399) .پارادوکس قدرت علم در ایران امروز، روزنامه اینترنتی«دیده بان علم در ایران»، برگرفته ازسایت اینترنتی464https://www.isw.ir/
  • فراستخواه، مقصود. (1386). فرهنگ دانشگاهی و زندگی دانشجویی در ایران با تأکید بر اخلاق علمی، یازدهمین نشست علمی سال ماه اردیبهشت سوم فنّاوری، و علوم در اخلاق ایرانی انجمن، آدرس اینترنتی: http://www.iranethics.ir/find-
  • قانعی‌راد محمد امین؛ مرشدی؛ ابوالفضل. (1390). پیمایش فهم عمومی از علم و فناوری: مطالعه موردی شهروندان تهرانی. سیاست علم و فناوری، 3(3)، 93-103.
  • قانعی راد، محمد امین. (1385). نقش تعاملات دانشجویان و اساتید در تکوین سرمایه اجتماعی دانشگاهی. مجله جامعه شناسی ایران, 7(1), 3-29.
  • قانعی‌راد، محمد امین.(1395). پیمایش علم و جامعه؛ تجربه جهانی و اجرای نسخه ایرانی،تهران: پژوهشکده مطالعات فرهنگی و اجتماعی.
  • گیدنز، آنتونی. (1380). پیامدهای مدرنیت، ترجمه محسن ثلاثی، تهران: نشرنی.
  • محسنی، منوچهر. (1372). مبانی جامعه شناسی علم: جامعه، علم و تکنولوژی. تهران: کتابخانه طهوری.
  • وحیدی، محمد. (1388). علم در جامعه. تهران: پژوهشکده مطالعات فرهنگی و اجتماعی.
  • وحیدی، محمد. (1388). علم در جامعه: از تک‌گویی تا گفت‌وگو. فصلنامه مطالعات میان‌رشته‌ای در حوزه علوم انسانی، 1(4)، 195-169.
  • وصالی، منصور. (1386). تدوین مبانی نظری فهم عامه از علم در ایران. تهران: مرکز تحقیقات سیاست علمی کشور.
  • Ajorloo, M., Irani, Z., & Aliakbari Dehkordi, M. (2016). Story therapy effect on reducing anxiety and improvement habits sleep in children with cancer under chemotherapy. Quarterly Journal of Health Psychology, 5(18), 87-107.
  • Anderson, J. C., and Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-step Approach.  Bull.103 (3), 411–423. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411
  • Achterberg, P., De Koster, W., & Van der Waal, J. (2017). A science confidence gap: Education, trust in scientific methods, and trust in scientific institutions in the United States, 2014. Public Understanding of Science, 26(6), 704-720.
  • Bucchi, M., & Trench, B. (2008). Handbook of public communication of science and technology. Routledge.
  • Battiston, P., Kashyap, R., & Rotondi, V. (2021). Reliance on scientists and experts during an epidemic: Evidence from the COVID-19 outbreak in Italy. SSM-population health, 13, 100721.
  • Bromme, R., & Goldman, S. R. (2014). The public’s bounded understanding of science. Educational Psychologist, 49(2), 59–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.921572.
  • Brewer, P. R., & Ley, B. L. (2013). Whose science do you believe? Explaining trust in sources of scientific information about the environment. Science Communication, 35(1), 115-137.
  • Bak, H. J. (2001). Education and public attitudes toward science: Implications for the “deficit model” of education and support for science and technology. Social Science Quarterly, 82(4), 779-795.
  • Dohle, S., Wingen, T., & Schreiber, M. (2020). Acceptance and adoption of protective measures during the COVID-19 pandemic: The role of trust in politics and trust in science. Social Psychological Bulletin, 15(4), 1-23
  • Huber, B.; Barnidge, M.; Gil de Zúñiga, H.; Liu, J. (2019). Fostering Public Trust in Science: The Role of Social Media. Public Underst. Sci.28, 759–777
  • https://davidhorsager.com/the-8-pillars-of-trust-the-leading-indicator/
  • Gauchat, G. (2011). The Cultural Authority of Science: Public Trust and Acceptance of Organized Science. Public Underst Sci.20 (6), 751–770. doi:10.1177/0963662510365246
  • Liu, H., and Priest, S. (2009). Understanding Public Support for Stem Cell Research: Media Communication, Interpersonal Communication and Trust in Key Actors. Public Underst Sci.18 (6), 704–718. doi:10.1177/0963662508097625
  • Miller, S. (2001). Public understanding of science at the Public Understanding of Science, 10(1), 115-120.
  • Miller, J.D. (2001). The Acquisition and Retention of Scientific Information by americanAdults. In J.H. Falk(ed)Free-choice Science Education: How We Learn Science Outside ofSchool, pp. 93-114, New York: Teachers College Press
  • Ministry of Science and Technology of Brazil, (2004) Science, Technology & Innovation Indicators in The State of São Paulo/ Brazil- 2004, Published by FAPEST.
  • Myers, S. S., Smith, M. R., Guth, S., Golden, C. D., Vaitla, B., Mueller, N. D., ... & Huybers, P. (2017). Climate change and global food systems: potential impacts on food security and undernutrition. Annual review of public health, 38, 259-277.
  • Ministry of Science and Technology of Brazil, (2004) Science, Technology & Innovation Indicators in The State of São Paulo/ Brazil- 2004, Published by FAPEST.
  • NISTEP Publications. (1995 - 2006). Science and Technology Indicators: A Systematic Analysis of Science and Technology Activities in Japan. available from: http://www.nistep.go.ip/logo-e.html.
  • Roberts, M. R., Reid, G., Schroeder, M., & Norris, S. P. (2013). Causal or spurious? The relationship of knowledge and attitudes to trust in science and technology. Public Understanding of Science, 22(5), 624-641.
  • ‏Lidskog, Rolf (1996). in Science We Trust? On the Relation Between Scientific Knowledge, Risk Consciousness and Public Trust. Acta Sociologica, 39, (1), 31-56.
  • priest, S. H., Bonfadelli, H., and Rusanen, M. (2003). The "Trust Gap" Hypothesis: Predicting Support for Biotechnology across National Cultures as a Function of Trust in Actors. Risk Anal.23 (4), 751–766. doi:10.1111/1539-6924.00353
  • Liu, H., & Priest, S. (2009). Understanding public support for stem cell research: media communication, interpersonal communication and trust in key actors. Public Understanding of science, 18(6), 704-718.
  • Roberts, Mary Roduta. Reid, Grace Schroeder, Meadow & Norris, Stephen P. (2011). Causal or spurious? The relationship of knowledge and attitudes to trust in science and technology. Public Understanding of Science, pp 1-18.
  • Sismondo, S. (2010). An introduction to science and technology studies(Vol. 1, pp. 1-11). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
  • Siegrist, M . (2000). The Infuence of Trust and Perceptions of Risks and Benefits on the Acceptance of Gene Technology. Risk Analysis, Vol 20, Issue 2 , PP 195-203
  • Sztompka, Piotr (2007). “Trust in Science” Robert K. Merton’s Inspirations, Journal of Classical Sociology, SAGE Publications Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore Vol 7(2): 211–220
  • Sturgis, P., & Allum, N. (2004). Science in society: re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science, 13(1), 55-74.
  • Sztompka, P. (2000). Cultural trauma: The other face of social change. European journal of social theory, 3(4), 449-466.
  • von Roten, F. C. (2009). European Attitudes towards Animal Research.  Techn. Soc.14 (2), 349–364. doi:10.1177/097172180901400207
  • Torgersen, H., & Bogner, A. (2005). Austria's agri-biotechnology regulation: political consensus despite divergent concepts of precaution. Science and Public Policy, 32(4), 277-284.
  • Wellcome Global Monitor, part of the Gallup World Poll (2018). https://wellcome.org/reports/wellcome-global-monitor/2018/appendix-country-level-data
  • Wintterlin, F., Hendriks, F., Mede, N. G., Bromme, R., Metag, J., & Schäfer, M. S. (2022). Predicting public trust in science: The role of basic orientations toward science, perceived trustworthiness of scientists, and experiences with science. Frontiers in Communication, 291.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics