Misunderstood misunderstanding: social identities and public uptake of science
Abstract
This paper draws general insights into the public reception of scientific knowledge from a case study of Cumbrian sheep farmers' responses to scientific advice about the restrictions introduced after the Chernobyl radioactive fallout. The analysis identifies several substantive factors which influence the credibility of scientific communication. Starting from the now-accepted point that public uptake of science depends primarily upon the trust and credibility public groups are prepared to invest in scientific institutions and representatives, the paper observes that these are contingent upon the social relationships and identities which people feel to be affected by scientific knowledge, which never comes free of social interests or implications. The case study shows laypeople capable of extensive informal reflection upon their social relationships towards scientific experts, and on the epistemological status of their own `local' knowledge in relation to `outside' knowledge. Public uptake of science might be improved if scientific institutions expressed an equivalent reflexive discourse in the public domain.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The science communications and public understanding of science literature has largely rejected the 'knowledge deficit model' underlying the framing of public resistance to science-backed policies.
“This literature has largely rejected the 'knowledge deficit model' underlying the framing of public resistance to sciencebacked policies (Wynne 1991; 1992; 1995; 2006; Lewenstein 1992; Layton et al. 1993; Evans and Durant 1995; Irwin and Wynne 1996; Miller 2001; Jasanoff 2005).”
From Public Misunderstanding of Science? Reframing the Problem of Vaccine Hesitancy (2016) · cites this paper as Wynne 1992
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Developing a framework for responsible innovation
Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008 · Cited by 3,184 · see citing works
Beck, U. (1996) · Theory, Culture & Society · doi:10.1177/0263276496013004001 · Cited by 397 · see citing works
The relationship between trust in AI and trustworthy machine learning technologies
Toreini, E., Aitken, M., Coopamootoo, K., Elliott, K., Zelaya, C. G., & van Moorsel, A. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3351095.3372834 · Cited by 296 · see citing works
Public identification with sustainable development
Macnaghten, P., & Jacobs, M. (1997) · Global Environmental Change · doi:10.1016/s0959-3780(96)00023-4 · Cited by 244 · see citing works
Communicating science in social settings
Scheufele, D. A. (2013) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1213275110 · Cited by 231 · see citing works
Public Misunderstanding of Science? Reframing the Problem of Vaccine Hesitancy
Goldenberg, M. J. (2016) · Perspectives on Science · doi:10.1162/posc_a_00223 · Cited by 218 · see citing works
The common in-group identity model enhances communication about recycled water.
Schultz, T., & Fielding, K. (2014) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.07.006 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
Grabowski, Z. J., Wijsman, K., Tomateo, C., & McPhearson, T. (2022) · Environmental Science & Policy · doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2022.09.022 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
- Authors
- Wynne, B.
- Affiliations
- Lancaster University (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Wynne, Brian
- ORCID
- Wynne, Brian
- Venue
- Public Understanding of Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1992-07
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 281-304
- ISSN
- 0963-6625 (ISSN-L)
- 1361-6609
- OpenAlex
- W2342352258
- Cited by
- 1,675
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 81 · 2025: 58 · 2024: 56 · 2023: 47 · 2022: 61 · 2021: 82 · 2020: 104 · 2019: 63 · 2018: 59 · 2017: 79 · 2016: 99 · 2015: 86 · 2014: 84 · 2013: 78 · 2012: 69
- FWCI
- 32.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Public Understanding of Science (publishedVersion, public-domain)
- Funders
- Economic and Social Research Council
- Los Alamos National Laboratory
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Climate Change Communication and Perception
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Science Education and Perceptions
- Keywords
- social identity, public trust in science, sheep farmers, scientific advice, lay knowledge, local knowledge, epistemology, Cumbria
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review