In the IANUS project, Policy Labs are a tool to develop and validate science policy recommendations on trust in science with European science experts. After listening to the opinions of RFOs and RPOs, our partners from UNIROMA1, together with Fraunhofer ISI, identified stakeholders from Higher Education Institutions to discuss the issue of trust in science from their perspective as researchers and academics.
HEIs are a key pillar of the science system. According to the International Encyclopedia of Education (2010), HEIs are systems that support economic growth and poverty reduction by equipping students with skills and knowledge. Because of system differences, there is no consistent typology of HEIs across EU states. Still, the process of ‘working with knowledge’ is considered the general characteristic that connects different European HEIs (Clark 1983; Becher & Kogan 1992). This can include research (the discovery of new knowledge), dissemination (its transfer to parties inside and outside the institution), and education (dissemination to specific groups of learners).
The discussion highlighted the main issues facing trust in higher education. A key aspect was the contrast between media and public understanding of science versus scientists’. According to the participants, a stronger focus should be put on communicating science as a collaborative and constantly changing process rather than something always right or set in stone.
Despite recent political and social crises, participants noted that public trust in HEIs is still relatively high across Europe. In the Netherlands, for example, bi-annual national surveys tend to rank politicians at the bottom in terms of trust and scientists at the top. However, this kind of data is not necessarily indicative of perfect societal trust in scientific institutions, because it is really difficult to establish trust in society and public distrust is growing.
The issue, then, seems to shift from scientists being the top-trusted source to general public distrust, so that if, comparatively, trust in science and scientists is still high, overall trust in institutions is still decreasing. The participants place responsibilities on the scientific world, which often lacks openness and transparency. These tendencies are further exacerbated by the perceived inaccesibility of academic language and jargon, which are hardly understandable by the outside world.
Another major issue stemmed from how performing science has gone from being a privilege to being a job in its own right. While this has contributed to lowering the barriers to academia and generally democratized knowledge, it has also demystified science to the point that many professionals within HEIs do not fully grasp the responsibility they hold toward civil society. The increasing over- specialization of scientists and the pressure to produce results at all costs can even give rise to questionable research practices. Directly connected to this last point about the media, the participants highlighted another major issue, that is poor handling of misconduct cases. According to them, universities tend to respond with institutional silence in cases of research misconduct, because they want to maintain HEIs’ reputation rather than investigate the researchers who perform poorly to the full extent. Yet, this often has the opposite result, as the public still sees the research misconduct case reported in the media and sees that the institutions are unwilling to take on responsibility, with the result of further jeopardizing trust in science and HEIs.
Poor science communication was also underscored as an increasingly timely issue for HEIs. In particular, the participants observed that scientists should do a better job at communicating the social construction of knowledge, that is how science can be contextual and constructed through time, constantly changing and evolving. On the contrary, the public often has the impression that science is ‘objective’ per se and this is often dependent on how the media portrays science and academia. When people cannot access research papers and briefs, they will look into what is the most available source to them and that is often the information presented by media outlets. These kinds of communication channels have a very important role in how people trust science, but they are often imprecise, so HEIs need to develop better relationships with media professionals and curate a more accurate representation of the production of knowledge.
After describing the main issues HEIs face in terms of trust in science, the participants discussed possible solutions and fields of action. Participants observed an increasing need to both “explain to people” and “to listen to people in society” in order to fulfill their mission to improve society and educate the general public. Relationships with the media should be strengthened, making science more accessible to all through better science communication, able to explain not only research results but also the constructed nature of the scientific process. Additionally, HEIs should also engage in public communication and stimulate citizen science through national organizations and projects to help bridge the gap between society and academia. This will also help academia learn from new perspectives, improve, and produce results that align better with the needs of civil society.
Another central take-away was that transparency and accountability are as areas in which scholars can and should do “much better,” especially because the general public and civil society do not always have the tools to interpret academic research without intermediaries.
In order to tackle issues of misconduct and personal responsibility, the participants suggested better auditing and controls be put in place by both HEIs and policy- makers. This would allow better handling of incidents and overall better quality of research performance and communication. Additionally, they also foresaw the creation of a supportive structure for researchers at universities in general. Overall, given the increasing number of threats to the scientific production of knowledge (from a shifting political climate to pressures within institutions and the role of digital media in fueling skepticism and misinformation), quality management of research processes and outputs is also paramount, as is the handling of incidents through consistent safety precautions.