The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Climate Change Science and Responsible Trust: A Situated Approach
Abstract
I adopt a situated approach to the question of what would constitute responsible trust and/or distrust in climate change science, and I identify some of the major challenges for laypersons in their attempts to know well by placing their trust in climate change experts. I examine evidence that white males, as a group of relative privilege, are more likely to distrust the institutions of climate change science than are other demographic groups, and use this example to consider specific challenges facing those who occupy positions of privilege and who seek to place their epistemic trust wisely. I argue that the insights of feminist standpoint theory and epistemologies of ignorance concerning the role of positionality in knowledge production and the need for critical reflexivity can be applied to cases of epistemic trust as well; in some contexts, such as climate change science, considerations of how those differently situated from oneself place their trust will be valuable contributions to responsible assignments of trust.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“To do so, students can learn to use social indicators, such as evidence that a source has appropriate expertise and that the source's claims have been tested by the scientific community, when they are not in a position to evaluate the scientific information directly (Grasswick, 2014).”
From Learning to evaluate sources of science (mis)information on the internet: Assessing students' scientific online reasoning (2025) · cites this paper as Grasswick, 2014
Citations
Cites
Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing
Fricker, M. (2007) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198237907.001.0001 · Cited by 9,198
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Oreskes, N. (2004) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1103618 · Cited by 1,814
Climate change vulnerability, impacts, and adaptation: why does gender matter?
Denton, F. (2002) · Gender & Development · doi:10.1080/13552070215903 · Cited by 718
Research works printed but not linked: 34
- 10.1073/pnas.1003187107 · DOI
- 10.1080/02691728.2011.652213 · DOI
- Daukas, 2011, Feminist epistemology and philosophy of science: Power in knowledge
- 10.1111/j.1740-1461.2007.00097.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1023/A:1010636822581 · DOI
- 10.1017/CBO9780511841200 · DOI
- Jasanoff, 2011, The Oxford handbook of climate change and society
- 10.1111/j.1527-2001.2006.tb01110.x · DOI
- Kalof, 2002, Race, gender and environmentalism: The atypical values and beliefs of white men, Race, Gender and Class, 9
- Harding, 1991, Whose science? Whose knowledge?
- 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.06.003 · DOI · Paper page
- Dunlap, 2011, The Oxford handbook of climate change and society
- 10.1038/468345a · DOI
- Pachauri, 2007, Climate change 2007: Synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
- 10.1093/0195159438.001.0001 · DOI
- Dunlap, 2008, A widening gap: Republican and democratic views on climate change, Environment, 50, 26, 10.3200/ENVT.50.5.26-35 · DOI · Paper page
- Scheman, 2001, Engendering rationalities
- 10.2307/2027007 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.3366/epi.2011.0013 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/s11229-010-9789-0 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/s11111-010-0113-1 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01220.x · DOI
- Borick, 2012, Fall 2011 national survey of American public opinion on climate change, Issues in Governance Studies, 44, 1
- 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.00070.x · DOI
- Wylie, 2003, Science and other cultures: Issues in philosophies of science and technology
- 10.1007/978-1-4020-6835-5 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1999.tb00439.x · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00082.x · DOI
- 2008, A deeper partisan divide over global warming
- 10.1111/j.1527-2001.2004.tb01267.x · DOI
- 10.7312/mann15254 · DOI
- 10.1080/13552070802696839 · DOI
- 10.1016/0016-3287(93)90022-L · DOI
- Oreskes, 2010, Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Pimentel, D. R. (2025) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.21974 · Cited by 28
Metadata
- Authors
- Grasswick, H.
- Corresponding author
- Grasswick, Heidi
- Venue
- Hypatia
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2014
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 541-557
- ISSN
- 0887-5367 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-2001
- OpenAlex
- W2128629473
- Cited by
- 27
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 6.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Hypatia (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (1230600)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Feminist Epistemology and Gender Studies
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Climate Change Communication and Perception
- Keywords
- epistemic trust, climate science, situated knowledge, feminist standpoint theory, epistemology of ignorance, positionality, privilege, critical reflexivity, laypeople, research institutions
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