1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Sociology
  4. Volume 49, 2023
  5. Article

Annual Review of Sociology

Volume 49, 2023

The Legitimacy of Science

Abstract

The ongoing pandemic and quickening climate crisis make it difficult to overstate the significance of science and science policy to our world. These global catastrophes have laid bare the fragility of science's legitimacy and its dependence on broader cultural understandings and institutional norms. Challenges to science's legitimacy are numerous and daunting in the early twenty-first century but also nothing new. This review interrogates science as culture in our highly fragmented and polarized social environment, and the idea that scientific knowledge and expertise are experiencing a profound and accelerating legitimacy crisis. The challenges are internal and external to the production of scientific knowledge, emphasizing the publicly financed sector in colleges and universities worldwide. Internal threats include fraud, replicability, knowledge diffusion and equability, disciplinary fragmentation, and overproduction. Equally important are the external threats, such as polarization, authoritarianism, religious beliefs, information technology, and economic capital—commanding financial flows to organized science. While sociology is uniquely situated to study these composite issues, it faces sobering challenges and its own scientific legitimacy crisis.

Keyword(s): culture, knowledge, legitimacy, polarization, public policy, science
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-030320-035037
2023-07-31
2025-04-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/soc/49/1/annurev-soc-030320-035037.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-030320-035037&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Albrecht D. 2022. Vaccination, politics and COVID-19 impacts. BMC Public Health 22:96
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Bauer MW, Petkova K, Boyadjieva P. 2000. Public knowledge of and attitudes to science: alternative measures that may end the ‘science war. .’ Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 25:30–51
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Beck U. 1992. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity London: SAGE
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bourdieu P. 1983. The field of cultural production, or: the economic world reversed. Poetics 12:311–56
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bourdieu P. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Bourdieu P. 1988. Homo Academicus Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bugden D. 2022. Denial and distrust: explaining the partisan climate gap. Clim. Change 170:34
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Brenan M. 2021. Americans’ confidence in major U.S. institutions dips. Gallup July 14. https://news.gallup.com/poll/352316/americans-confidence-major-institutions-dips.aspx
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Calhoun CJ. 2008. Sociology in America: A History Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Calhoun CJ. 2011. Merton: Sociology of Science and Sociology as Science New York: Columbia Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Campbell C, Horowitz J. 2016. Does college influence sociopolitical attitudes?. Am. Sociol. Rev. 89:40–58
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Carlson J, Ramo E. 2022. ‘I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but…’: knowledge and conservative politics in unsettled times. Soc. Forces 2022:soac082
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Chen H, Karim SA 2022. Relationship between political partisanship and COVID-19 deaths: future implications for public health. Am. J. Public Health 44:716–23
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Collins R. 1999. Macrohistory: Essays in Sociology of the Long Run Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Converse JM, Presser S. 1986. Survey Questions: Handcrafting the Standardized Questionnaire Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Deane C, Parker K, Gramlich A. 2021. A year of U.S. public opinion on the coronavirus pandemic. Pew Research Center Blog March 5. https://www.pewresearch.org/2021/03/05/a-year-of-u-s-public-opinion-on-the-coronavirus-pandemic
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Dewey J. 1923. Democracy and Education New York: Macmillan
     [Google Scholar]
  18. DiMaggio P. 1997. Culture and cognition. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 23:263–87
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Drori GS, Meyer JW, Ramirez FO, Schofer E. 2003. Science in the Modern World Polity: Institutionalization and Globalization. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Druckman JN, McGrath MC. 2019. The evidence for motivated reasoning in climate change preference formation. Nat. Clim. Change 9:111–19
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Evans JH, Evans MS. 2008. Religion and science: beyond the epistemological conflict narrative. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 34:87–105
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Farrell J. 2016. Corporate funding and ideological polarization about climate change. PNAS 113:92–97
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Fosse E, Winship C. 2019. Analyzing age-period-cohort data: a review and critique. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 45:467–92
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Foucault M. 1972. The Archeology of Knowledge. New York: Harper & Row
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Foucault M. 1977. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Random House
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Gauchat G. 2011. The cultural authority of science: public trust and acceptance of organized science. Public Underst. Sci. 20:751–70
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Gauchat G. 2012. Politicization of science in the public sphere: a study of public trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010. Am. Sociol. Rev. 77:167–87
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Gauchat G. 2015. The political context of science in the United States: public acceptance of evidence-based policy and science funding. Soc. Forces 94:723–46
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Gauchat G, Andrews A. 2018. The cultural-cognitive mapping of scientific professions. Am. Sociol. Rev. 83:567–95
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Gauchat G, O'Brien T, Mirosa O. 2017. The legitimacy of environmental scientists in the public sphere. Clim. Change 143:297–306
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Giddens A. 1991. Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Gieryn TF. 1983. Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. Am. Sociol. Rev. 48:781–95
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Gieryn TF. 1999. Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Goffman E. 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Goldstone J. 1991. Revolution and Rebellion in the Early Modern World Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Gollust SE, Nagler RH, Fowler EF. 2020. The emergence of COVID-19 in the US: a public health and political communication crisis. J. Health Politics Policy Law 45:967–81
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Habermas J. 1970. Toward a Rational Society: Student Protest, Science, and Politics Boston: Beacon
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Hunter JD. 1991. Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America New York: Basic
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Imhoff R, Zimmer F, Klein O, António JHC, Babinska M et al. 2022. Conspiracy mentality and political orientation across 26 countries. Nat. Hum. Behav. 6:392–403
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Irwin A, Rothstein H, Yearley S, McCarthy E. 1997. Regulatory science—towards a sociological framework. Futures 29:17–31
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Iyengar S, Massey DS. 2018. Scientific communication in a post-truth society. PNAS 116:7656–61
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Jasanoff S. 1990. The Fifth Branch: Science Advisors as Policy Makers Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Joslyn MR, Sylvester SM. 2019. The determinants and consequences of accurate beliefs about childhood vaccinations. Am. Politics Res. 47:628–49
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Kahneman D. 2003. Maps of bounded rationality: psychology for behavior economics. Am. Econ. Rev. 93:1449–75
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Kelly M, Gauchat G, Acosta K, Withers E, McNair J 2020. Does science do more harm than good? A mixed-methods analysis of African American women's attitudes toward science. Feminist Research in Practice M Kelly, B Gurr 101–16. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Kennedy B, Tyson A, Funk C 2022. Americans’ trust in scientists, other groups declines. Pew Research Center Blog Febr. 15. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2022/02/15/americans-trust-in-scientists-other-groups-declines
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Kerr J, Panagopoulos C, van der Linden S. 2021. Political polarization on COVID-19 pandemic response in the United States. Personal. Individ. Differ. 179:110892
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Kleinman DL. 1995. Politics on the Endless Frontier: Postwar Research Policy in the United States Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Kleinman DL. 2005. Science and Technology in Society: From Biotechnology to the Internet Malden, MA: Blackwell
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Kleinman DL, Kloppenburg J. 1991. Aiming for the discursive high ground: Monsanto and the biotechnology controversy. Sociol. Forum 6:427–47
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Kluttz DN, Fligstein N. 2016. Varieties of sociological field theory. Handbook of Contemporary Sociological Theory S Abrutyn 185–204. New York: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Kozlowski AC. 2022. How conservatives lost confidence in science: the role of ideological alignment in political polarization. Soc. Forces 100:1415–43
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Krause M. 2021. On sociological reflexivity. Sociol. Theory 39:3–18
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Kreps SE, Kriner DL. 2020. Model uncertainty, political contestation, and public trust in science: evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic. Sci. Adv. 6:43eabd4563
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Krippner GR. 2011. Capitalizing on Crisis: The Political Origins of the Rise of Finance Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Latkin CA, Dayton L, Miller JR, Yi G, Jaleel A et al. 2021. Behavioral and attitudinal correlates of trusted sources of COVID-19 vaccine information in the US. Behav. Sci. 11:56
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Lewandowsky S, Gilles EG, Oberauer K. 2013. The role of conspiracist ideation and worldviews in predicting rejection of science. PLOS ONE 10:e0134773
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Lewandowsky S, Oberauer K. 2016. Motivated rejection of science. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 25:217–22
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Lewandowsky S, Oberauer K. 2021. Worldview-motivated rejection of science and the norms of science. Cognition 215:104820
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Lucas C, Leith P, Davison A. 2015. How climate change research undermines trust in everyday life: a review. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 6:79–91
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Luhmann N. 1979. Trust and Power New York: Wiley
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Mann M. 1986. The Sources of Social Power, Vol. 1: A History of Power from the Beginning to A.D. 1760 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Mann M, Schleifer C. 2020. Love the science, hate the scientists: Conservative identity protects belief in science and undermines trust in scientists. Soc. Forces 99:305–32
     [Google Scholar]
  64. McCright AM, Dunlap RE. 2011. The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public's views of global warming. Sociol. Q. 52:155–94
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Martin JL. 2003. What is field theory?. Am. J. Sociol. 109:1–49
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Martin JL. 2015. Thinking Through Theory New York: Norton
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Merton RK. 1938. Science and the social order. Philos. Sci. 5:321–37
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Merton RK. 1968. Social Theory and Social Structure New York: Free
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Miller JD, Suchner RW, Voelker AM. 1980. Citizenship in an Age of Science: Changing Attitudes Among Young Adults Oxford, UK: Pergamon
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Mills CW. 1967. Power, Politics and People: The Collected Essays of C. Wright Mills IL Horowitz Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Morris A. 2022. Alternative view of modernity: The subaltern speaks. Am. Sociol. Rev. 87:1–16
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Motta M. 2021. Republicans, not Democrats, are more likely to endorse anti-vaccine misinformation. Am. Politics Res. 49:428–38
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Motta M, Callaghan T, Sylvester S. 2018. Knowing less but presuming more: Dunning-Kruger effects and the endorsement of anti-vaccine policy attitudes. Soc. Sci. Med. 211:274–81
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Natl. Acad. Sci. Eng. Med 2016. Science literacy: concepts, contexts, and consequences Rep., Natl. Acad. Sci. Eng. Med. Washington, DC:
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Noy S, O'Brien TL. 2021. Learning right from wrong: a cross-national analysis of education, national scientific investment, and the morality of science. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values. https://doi.org/10.1177/01622439211055144
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  76. Pennycook G, Bago B, McPhetres J. 2023. Science beliefs, political ideology, and cognitive sophistication. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 152:80–97
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Perry SL. 2022. American religion in the era of increasing polarization. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 48:87–107
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Putnam H. 1981. Reason, Truth, and History Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Scheufele DA. 2022. Thirty years of science–society interfaces: What's next?. Public Underst. Sci. 31:297–304
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Scheufele DA, Tewksbury D. 2007. Framing, agenda setting, and priming: the evolution of three media effects models. J. Commun. 57:9–20
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Shapin S. 2008. The Scientific Life: A Moral History of a Late Modern Vocation Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Shelton RC, Snavely AC, De Jesus M, Othus MD, Allen JD. 2013. HPV vaccine decision-making and acceptance: Does religion play a role?. J. Relig. Health 52:1120–30
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Skocpol T. 1979. States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Strydhorst NA, Landrum AR. 2022. Charting cognition: mapping public understanding of COVID-19. Public Underst. Sci. 31:534–52
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Tinsley C, Prickett PJ, Ecklund EH. 2018. Black Protestant views of science. Du Bois Rev. 15:533–46
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Turchin P. 2016. Ages of Discord Chaplin, CT: Beresta
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Van Green T. 2021. Republicans increasingly critical of several major U.S. institutions, including big corporations and banks. Pew Research Center Blog Aug. 20. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/08/20/republicans-increasingly-critical-of-several-major-u-s-institutions-including-big-corporations-and-banks
    [Google Scholar]
  88. West Virginia v. The Environmental Protection Agency, 597 U.S. ___; 2022.)
  89. Withey SB. 1959. Public opinion about science and scientists. Public Opin. Q. 23:382–88
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Wolters EA, Steel BS. 2018. When Ideology Trumps Science: Why We Question the Experts on Everything from Climate Change to Vaccinations Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Wuthnow R. 1989. Communities of Discourse: Ideology and Social Structure in the Reformation, the Enlightenment, and European Socialism Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-030320-035037
Loading
The Legitimacy of Science
Annual Review of Sociology 49, 263 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-030320-035037
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-030320-035037
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-030320-035037
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error