In the same vein, many academic studies addressed the general public as requiring education on fundamental scientific processes, typically focusing on identifying and rectifying knowledge gaps and attitudes that may influence COVID-19 risk perception. Conventional studies commonly assumed that attitudes towards science can be predicted through associations with sociodemographic factors, as well as psychological and contextual elements, to forecast varying levels of ‘public trust’. However, citizens' perceptions and behaviors are more intricate than traditionally assumed. A more comprehensive and diverse approach to understanding how citizens connect with science during the COVID-19 pandemic requires acknowledging that terms like 'science' and 'trust' are multifaceted and relational.
In our publication, we conducted qualitative interviews with 209 residents across Austria, Bolivia, Germany, Italy, Mexico, and Portugal. Drawing inspiration from social studies of science and technology (STS), we delved into the complexity and dynamics of how participants understand and relate to science in the context of COVID-19.
Unpacking the meanings of ‘publics’ and ‘science’
In our study, we explored how people utilize their cultural and social resources to construct identification and differentiation processes not only in relation to science but also to other publics. The concept of 'performing' publics, as proposed by Epstein (1996) and Michael (2009), sheds light on how individuals use their experiences and knowledge to constitute alternative stances in contrast to expert scientific narratives. The performativity aspect reveals that when individuals understand and relate to science, they define themselves as belonging to a particular public with distinct views about science.
By unpacking the meanings of 'publics' and 'science' amid the COVID-19 pandemic, this paper delves into how public formation intertwines with controversial science-related issues: COVID-19 vaccination, media communication of science, and government-science interactions.
Performing publics in the COVID-19 context
Our research suggests that people not only understand and relate to science but also see themselves as specific types of publics. They actively perform public roles that vary from supportive to questioning, confused to proactive, and trusting to mistrusting publics.
Diverse criteria shaping public identities
Participants employed diverse and fluid criteria to distinguish between different public stances. Some identified with vaccination defense, viewing unvaccinated individuals as skeptics hostile to science. Others, adopting a questioning stance, sought and contrasted scientific information before deciding about vaccination. And yet others, rejected binary categorizations and embraced complementary medical knowledges to deal with COVID-19.
Navigating uncertainty
Amidst the overwhelming and often contradictory information about COVID-19, participants either found themselves confused or took a proactive approach to navigate the maze of information. Some trusted scientific advice without questioning, while others engaged in lay expert practices, making credibility judgments and challenging the cultural authority of science.
Trust in science amidst political dynamics
The high visibility of scientific experts during the pandemic raised significant challenges. Trust in science was associated with respected experts offering advice free from political interests. Conversely, mistrust emerged from perceived political leanings, scientists seeking media attention, or potential economic interests, forming a complex tapestry of trusting and mistrusting publics.
Contextual values and emerging divides
Participants' views were deeply intertwined with contextual values, shaping diverse perspectives across countries. The performativity of publics highlighted how beliefs about scientific knowledge intersect with social and cultural memberships, generating new differentiations and divides related to trust in scientists, media, and governments.
Concluding thoughts
The unique circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic have illuminated the intricate relationship between individuals, science, and public identity. Our study emphasizes the need to move beyond traditional measures of trust and literacy, recognizing the fluid and diverse nature of public engagement with science in these unprecedented times.
References:
Epstein S (1996) Impure Science: AIDS Activism and the Politics of Science. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Michael M (2009) Publics performing publics: Of PiGs, PiPs and politics. Public Understanding of Science 18(5): 617–631.
This study can be read in full at: https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625231220219
