Credibility and advocacy in conservation science

Abstract

Conservation policy sits at the nexus of natural science and politics. On the one hand, conservation scientists strive to maintain scientific credibility by emphasizing that their research findings are the result of disinterested observations of reality. On the other hand, conservation scientists are committed to conservation even if they do not advocate a particular policy. The professional conservation literature offers guidance on negotiating the relationship between scientific objectivity and political advocacy without damaging conservation science's credibility. The value of this guidance, however, may be restricted by limited recognition of credibility's multidimensionality and emergent nature: it emerges through perceptions of expertise, goodwill, and trustworthiness. We used content analysis of the literature to determine how credibility is framed in conservation science as it relates to apparent contradictions between science and advocacy. Credibility typically was framed as a static entity lacking dimensionality. Authors identified expertise or trustworthiness as important, but rarely mentioned goodwill. They usually did not identify expertise, goodwill, or trustworthiness as dimensions of credibility or recognize interactions among these 3 dimensions of credibility. This oversimplification may limit the ability of conservation scientists to contribute to biodiversity conservation. Accounting for the emergent quality and multidimensionality of credibility should enable conservation scientists to advance biodiversity conservation more effectively.

Critical Review of the Complex Interactions between Trust and Credibility Associated with Conservation Science

“…The introductory or concluding paragraph was used if the publication did not have an abstract. Building on Horton et al (2016), we used 2 categories (credibility and risk) and 7 subcategories (credibility-expertise, goodwill, trustworthiness, and risk-biodiversity, scientific credibility, sustainability, trust). We defined credibility-expertise as conservation scientists' specialized knowledge, credibility-goodwill as conservation biologists' care for natural resources and society, and credibilitytrustworthiness as conservation biologists' integrity.…”

The Impact of Source Credibility on Scientific Skepticism of Climate Change and Genetically Modified Foods: Findings from the General Social Survey

“…Frewer, Scholderer, and Bredahl (2003) have also found that trust can mediate attitudes toward new scientific technologies. Expertise refers to "competence" (McCroskey & Teven, 1999), "specialized knowledge" (Horton et al, 2016), and the degree to which a source is perceived as making correct assertions (Hansen, Holm, Frewer, Robinson, & Sandøe 2003;Hovland & Weiss, 1951-1952. Scientists are ascribed particular expertise because they communicate from what Goodnight (2012) has called the "technical sphere," or discursive context that privileges particular norms, styles of engagement, and argumentative appeals, a position that affords them legitimacy and cultural authority (Gauchat, 2011;O'Brien, 2012).…”

“…Goodwill, the third-and perhaps "lost" (McCroskey & Teven, 1999)-dimension of source credibility has received considerably less attention. Rooted in the Aristotelian concept of ethos, goodwill represents the degree to which a speaker is perceived as caring, demonstrated through empathy in direct interactions with others (Horton et al, 2016;Hovland et al, 1953;Teven, 2008). Thus, goodwill is "a meaningful predictor of believability and likeableness" (McCroskey & Teven, 1999).…”

“…Thus, goodwill is "a meaningful predictor of believability and likeableness" (McCroskey & Teven, 1999). In the context of science communication, this dimension has been interpreted as publics' perception of scientists as working in the public's best interest (Horton et al, 2016;Heazle & Kane, 2015;McCroskey, 1992). Eagly, Wood, and Chaiken (1978) found that a source is "considered less manipulative and more sincere when he [sic]disconfirmed rather than confirmed the expectancy based on the audience's identity" (p. 431).…”

“…The three dimensions of source credibility-trust, expertise, and goodwillhave been largely studied individually, yet previous research suggests that a multi-item construct that includes all three dimensions is a more accurate measure of source credibility (McCroskey & Teven, 1999;Peters, Covello, & McCallum, 1997). Furthermore, Horton et al (2016) suggest the need for a "situationally nuanced understanding of credibility," and encourage consideration of "which dimensions of credibility are most important in each [communication] situation" (p. 31). With this in mind, the present study compares perceptions of source credibility across two environmental science communication contexts: climate change (CC) and genetically modified foods (GM).…”