Epistemic authority of professors and researchers: differential perceptions by students from two cultural-educational systems

Abstract

Teachers and researchers are considered epistemic authorities that provide reliable information if that information is relevant to their discipline. Students differentiate between relevant and irrelevant disciplines when assessing teachers' expertise. In this paper, it is investigated whether students' cultural-educational background plays a role in this differentiation between relevant and irrelevant disciplines. In large power distance cultures such as France, students learn to respect and obey their teacher, whereas in smaller power distance cultures such as the Netherlands, the relationships between students and teachers are more informal. Therefore, French students may be less sensitive to the actual discipline when assessing a source's expertise. In an experiment, it was empirically tested whether French students perceived smaller differences than Dutch students between fictitious professors and researchers who put forward information that was or was not related to their own discipline. Results showed that the French participants indeed differentiated to a much lesser degree between professors and researchers with a relevant and an irrelevant discipline than did the Dutch participants. Further analyses indicated that students' obedience partially mediated this effect of nationality on the difference between relevant and irrelevant disciplines. This study underlines the role that cultural-educational background can play in the assessments of epistemic authorities.

On the Conditional Acceptance of Arguments from Expert Opinion

“…In one of the two studies with an incongruent result (Hornikx & Hoeken, 2007), this result was actually consistent with a socio-cultural explanation. French participants not being sensitive to the expert's field of expertise has been related to the role of experts (i.e., teachers, professors) in education in France, in which these experts are attributed a relatively wide field of expertise (see Hornikx, 2011). Third, the level of expertise did not affect claim acceptance in the two studies that examined this relationship.…”

The Appeal to Expert Opinion: Quantitative Support for a Bayesian Network Approach

“…We argue that the Field question is an integral part of the Expertise question and do not therefore represent it separately. Not only is expertise invariably narrow in its scope (see e.g., Ericsson & Lehman, 1996), but recipients have been shown to be sensitive to the particular scope of an expert's expertise in evaluating his or her claim (e.g., Maddux & Rogers, 1980;Pornpitakpan & Francis, 2001; but see, Hornikx, 2011;Hornikx & Hoeken, 2007; for cultural differences in this sensitivity). One component of the appeal to expert opinion not explicitly captured in either Fig.…”

“It’s Fundamental”: Quantum Dot Blinking Experiment to Teach Critical Thinking

“…They are also incompatible with the belief in epistemic authority, which asserts that experts are the source of truth. [10][11][12][13] We find that, while students hold a range of beliefs about the origin of scientific knowledge, investigating quantum dots provides students with experience supporting constructivist epistemology.…”

“…Students are often unaware of subjective influences on science . In this experiment, students perform an experiment that challenges positivist epistemology or epistimic authoritarianism. − When students identify that their judgments cause bias, conceptual conflict occurs between positivist beliefs and experiences supporting constructivist epistemology. , The conflict has the potential to change students’ views about the nature of scientific reasoning.…”