Toward a Field Approach to the Cultural Authority of Science: Comparing Durkheim and Bourdieu

• In Event: 340 - Section on Science, Knowledge, and Technology Paper Session. What Would Bourdieu Do? New Approaches to Field Studies in Science, Knowledge and Technology

Abstract

In this paper, we posit that field theory offers a unique theoretical approach for understanding public perceptions of science. Because, it offers a vocabulary for connecting structure (or social location) and culture. To examine these theoretical claims, we use data from the National Science Foundation’s Survey of Public Attitudes Toward and Understanding of Science and Technology (2006 and 2010). This data is unique, because we can analyze public perceptions across five specific scientific controversies (i.e., global warming, stem cells, income taxes, genetically modified foods, and nuclear energy) and three alternate cognitive authorities (i.e., elected officials, business leaders, and religious leaders). For each controversy, we examine the difference in logs between perceptions of scientists’ authority on a controversy and perceptions of the alternate authority, yielding a factorial design of controversy by alternate authority. Overall, we find that public perceptions do differ significantly across science controversy. However, some patterns emerge net of controversy and alternate authority. We find political and religious divisions in public perceptions, after accounting for between-controversy variation. Most surprisingly, the epistemic authority of scientists relative to other cognitive authorities is politicized net of between-controversy differences. In addition, women tend to have positive evaluations of scientists’ authority relative to alternates as do ethnic “whites.” Finally, strong religious conviction is associated with negative evaluations of scientists relative to other authorities.

Authors

• Timothy L O'Brien, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

• Gordon Gauchat, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee