Cited by 1,675Risk Perception and ManagementClimate Change Communication and PerceptionScience Education and Perceptions

Misunderstood misunderstanding: social identities and public uptake of science

Wynne, Brian·1992·Public Understanding 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

Crossref · 10.1088/0963-6625/1/3/004

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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).”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wynne, B.
Affiliations
Lancaster University (GB)
Corresponding author
Wynne, Brian
Venue
Public Understanding of Science
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