The DOI matches its Crossref record; 74 of the 77 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Contesting epistemic authority: Conspiracy theories on the boundaries of science
Abstract
Conspiracy theories are immensely popular today, yet in the social sciences they are often dismissed as “irrational,” “bad science,” or “religious belief.” In this study, we take a cultural sociological approach and argue that this persistent disqualification is a form of “boundary work” that obscures rather than clarifies how and why conspiracy theorists challenge the epistemic authority of science. Based on a qualitative study of the Dutch conspiracy milieu, we distinguish three critiques that are motivated by encounters with scientific experts in everyday life: the alleged dogmatism of modern science, the intimate relation of scientific knowledge production with vested interests, and the exclusion of lay knowledge by scientific experts forming a global “power elite.” Given their critique that resonates with social scientific understandings of science, it is concluded that conspiracy theorists compete with (social) scientists in complex battles for epistemic authority in a broader field of knowledge contestation.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Citations
Cites
Wagner, H. R., Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1968) · Social Forces · doi:10.2307/2575405 · Cited by 46,525
(1984) · Cited by 21,166
(2006) · Cited by 18,730
The social construction of reality : a treatise in the sociology of knowledge
Simpson, G., Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2091739 · Cited by 16,462
Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age
Giddens, A. (2020) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781003060963-59 · Cited by 13,399
Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society
Bijker, W. E., & Latour, B. (1988) · Technology and Culture · doi:10.2307/3105094 · Cited by 10,770
(1994) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.31-4888 · Cited by 9,298
(1987) · Cited by 8,955
Powers, C. H., & Giddens, A. (1988) · Social Forces · doi:10.2307/2579442 · Cited by 8,854
Baudrillard, J. (1995) · University of Michigan Press eBooks · doi:10.3998/mpub.9904 · Cited by 6,884
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- Aaronovitch D, 2010, Voodoo Histories: How Conspiracy Theory Has Shaped Modern History
- Campbell C, 1972, Sociological Yearbook of Religion in Britain, 5, 119
- Falzon MA, 2012, Multi-Sited Ethnography: Theory, Practice and Locality in Contemporary Research
- Fassin D, 2011, Brown Journal of World Affairs, 17, 39
- Foucault M, 1970, The Order of Things: An Archeology of the Human Sciences
- Glaser BG, 1967, The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research
- Sheldrake R, 2013, The Science Delusion: Freeing the Spirit of Inquiry
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Conspiracy theories as barriers to controlling the spread of COVID-19 in the U.S.
Römer, D., & Jamieson, K. H. (2020) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113356 · Cited by 1,065
Science-related populism: Conceptualizing populist demands toward science
Mede, N. G., & Schäfer, M. S. (2020) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/0963662520924259 · Cited by 472
Belief in conspiracy theories: Basic principles of an emerging research domain
van Prooijen, J., & Douglas, K. M. (2018) · European Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1002/ejsp.2530 · Cited by 483
Conspiracy Theories: Evolved Functions and Psychological Mechanisms
van Prooijen, J.-W., & van Vugt, M. (2018) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691618774270 · Cited by 414
Conspiracy Theories and the People Who Believe Them
(2018) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190844073.001.0001 · Cited by 294
Metadata
- Authors
- Harambam, J., & Aupers, S.
- Affiliations
- Erasmus University Rotterdam (NL)
- KU Leuven (BE)
- Venue
- Public Understanding of Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2014-12-01
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 466-480
- ISSN
- 0963-6625 (ISSN-L)
- 1361-6609
- OpenAlex
- W2066753585
- Cited by
- 328
- References
- 77
- Citations by year
- 2026: 50 · 2025: 46 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 45 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 44 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 21.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Public Understanding of Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion)
- EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
- Lirias (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Paranormal Experiences and Beliefs
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Education, Healthcare and Sociology Research
- Keywords
- conspiracy theories, epistemic authority, boundary work, science and religion, lay knowledge, scientific expertise, power elite, knowledge contestation
- MeSH terms
- Culture, Delusions, Public Opinion, Science, Knowledge, Trust
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
