Loading…
The “replication crisis” in the public eye: Germans’ awareness and perceptions of the (ir)reproducibility of scientific research
Several meta-analytical attempts to reproduce results of empirical research have failed in recent years, prompting scholars and news media to diagnose a “replication crisis” and voice concerns about science losing public credibility. Others, in contrast, hoped replication efforts could improve publi...
Saved in:
Published in: | Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) England), 2021-01, Vol.30 (1), p.91-102 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c407t-471015bc928d9ebfd82c306c73db77bbe9f54bffaa9671f4db98d3f8beaddc443 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c407t-471015bc928d9ebfd82c306c73db77bbe9f54bffaa9671f4db98d3f8beaddc443 |
container_end_page | 102 |
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 91 |
container_title | Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) |
container_volume | 30 |
creator | Mede, Niels G. Schäfer, Mike S. Ziegler, Ricarda Weißkopf, Markus |
description | Several meta-analytical attempts to reproduce results of empirical research have failed in recent years, prompting scholars and news media to diagnose a “replication crisis” and voice concerns about science losing public credibility. Others, in contrast, hoped replication efforts could improve public confidence in science. Yet nationally representative evidence backing these concerns or hopes is scarce. We provide such evidence, conducting a secondary analysis of the German “Science Barometer” (“Wissenschaftsbarometer”) survey. We find that most Germans are not aware of the “replication crisis.” In addition, most interpret replication efforts as indicative of scientific quality control and science’s self-correcting nature. However, supporters of the populist right-wing party AfD tend to believe that the “crisis” shows one cannot trust science, perhaps using it as an argument to discredit science. But for the majority of Germans, hopes about reputational benefits of the “replication crisis” for science seem more justified than concerns about detrimental effects. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1177/0963662520954370 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2442843476</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_0963662520954370</sage_id><sourcerecordid>2476811764</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c407t-471015bc928d9ebfd82c306c73db77bbe9f54bffaa9671f4db98d3f8beaddc443</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kc1qFTEYhoNY7LG6dyUBN3UxNX-TTLorB1uFgpu6HvLzxabMmZkmM5Sz68p7EOzN9UrMeNoKBVdZvM_75IMXoXeUHFGq1CeiJZeS1YzoWnBFXqAV5ZJWUhL9Eq2WuFryffQ65ytCCBdMvkL7nGkmGlmv0M-LS8D3t78TjF10ZopDj12KOeb72zscezyVfJxtCTFs4RifQdqYvqS_sLkxCXrIGZve4xGSg3ERZDyEv73DmD4WcRr87KKNXZy2S5RdhH6KoSgTZDDJXb5Be8F0Gd4-vAfo--nni_WX6vzb2df1yXnlBFFTJRQltLZOs8ZrsME3zHEineLeKmUt6FALG4IxWioahLe68Tw0Foz3Tgh-gA533nLU9Qx5ajcxO-g608Mw55YJwRrBhZIF_fAMvRrm1JfrCqVkUwaQi5DsKJeGnBOEdkxxY9K2paRdNmqfb1Qq7x_Es92Afyo8jlKAagdk8wP-_fpf4R-Jfp4N</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2476811764</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The “replication crisis” in the public eye: Germans’ awareness and perceptions of the (ir)reproducibility of scientific research</title><source>PAIS Index</source><source>Sage Journals Online</source><creator>Mede, Niels G. ; Schäfer, Mike S. ; Ziegler, Ricarda ; Weißkopf, Markus</creator><creatorcontrib>Mede, Niels G. ; Schäfer, Mike S. ; Ziegler, Ricarda ; Weißkopf, Markus</creatorcontrib><description>Several meta-analytical attempts to reproduce results of empirical research have failed in recent years, prompting scholars and news media to diagnose a “replication crisis” and voice concerns about science losing public credibility. Others, in contrast, hoped replication efforts could improve public confidence in science. Yet nationally representative evidence backing these concerns or hopes is scarce. We provide such evidence, conducting a secondary analysis of the German “Science Barometer” (“Wissenschaftsbarometer”) survey. We find that most Germans are not aware of the “replication crisis.” In addition, most interpret replication efforts as indicative of scientific quality control and science’s self-correcting nature. However, supporters of the populist right-wing party AfD tend to believe that the “crisis” shows one cannot trust science, perhaps using it as an argument to discredit science. But for the majority of Germans, hopes about reputational benefits of the “replication crisis” for science seem more justified than concerns about detrimental effects.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0963-6625</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1361-6609</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/0963662520954370</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32924865</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London, England: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Barometers ; Crises ; Empirical analysis ; Humans ; Mass Media ; News media ; Public concern ; Public opinion ; Quality ; Quality control ; Replication ; Reproducibility ; Reproducibility of Results ; Research methodology ; Science ; Secondary analysis ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Trust</subject><ispartof>Public understanding of science (Bristol, England), 2021-01, Vol.30 (1), p.91-102</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2020</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c407t-471015bc928d9ebfd82c306c73db77bbe9f54bffaa9671f4db98d3f8beaddc443</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c407t-471015bc928d9ebfd82c306c73db77bbe9f54bffaa9671f4db98d3f8beaddc443</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-5707-7568 ; 0000-0002-0847-7503 ; 0000-0002-8439-4726</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27865,27923,27924,79135</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32924865$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Mede, Niels G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schäfer, Mike S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ziegler, Ricarda</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weißkopf, Markus</creatorcontrib><title>The “replication crisis” in the public eye: Germans’ awareness and perceptions of the (ir)reproducibility of scientific research</title><title>Public understanding of science (Bristol, England)</title><addtitle>Public Underst Sci</addtitle><description>Several meta-analytical attempts to reproduce results of empirical research have failed in recent years, prompting scholars and news media to diagnose a “replication crisis” and voice concerns about science losing public credibility. Others, in contrast, hoped replication efforts could improve public confidence in science. Yet nationally representative evidence backing these concerns or hopes is scarce. We provide such evidence, conducting a secondary analysis of the German “Science Barometer” (“Wissenschaftsbarometer”) survey. We find that most Germans are not aware of the “replication crisis.” In addition, most interpret replication efforts as indicative of scientific quality control and science’s self-correcting nature. However, supporters of the populist right-wing party AfD tend to believe that the “crisis” shows one cannot trust science, perhaps using it as an argument to discredit science. But for the majority of Germans, hopes about reputational benefits of the “replication crisis” for science seem more justified than concerns about detrimental effects.</description><subject>Barometers</subject><subject>Crises</subject><subject>Empirical analysis</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Mass Media</subject><subject>News media</subject><subject>Public concern</subject><subject>Public opinion</subject><subject>Quality</subject><subject>Quality control</subject><subject>Replication</subject><subject>Reproducibility</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Research methodology</subject><subject>Science</subject><subject>Secondary analysis</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><subject>Trust</subject><issn>0963-6625</issn><issn>1361-6609</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kc1qFTEYhoNY7LG6dyUBN3UxNX-TTLorB1uFgpu6HvLzxabMmZkmM5Sz68p7EOzN9UrMeNoKBVdZvM_75IMXoXeUHFGq1CeiJZeS1YzoWnBFXqAV5ZJWUhL9Eq2WuFryffQ65ytCCBdMvkL7nGkmGlmv0M-LS8D3t78TjF10ZopDj12KOeb72zscezyVfJxtCTFs4RifQdqYvqS_sLkxCXrIGZve4xGSg3ERZDyEv73DmD4WcRr87KKNXZy2S5RdhH6KoSgTZDDJXb5Be8F0Gd4-vAfo--nni_WX6vzb2df1yXnlBFFTJRQltLZOs8ZrsME3zHEineLeKmUt6FALG4IxWioahLe68Tw0Foz3Tgh-gA533nLU9Qx5ajcxO-g608Mw55YJwRrBhZIF_fAMvRrm1JfrCqVkUwaQi5DsKJeGnBOEdkxxY9K2paRdNmqfb1Qq7x_Es92Afyo8jlKAagdk8wP-_fpf4R-Jfp4N</recordid><startdate>202101</startdate><enddate>202101</enddate><creator>Mede, Niels G.</creator><creator>Schäfer, Mike S.</creator><creator>Ziegler, Ricarda</creator><creator>Weißkopf, Markus</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>Sage Publications Ltd</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5707-7568</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0847-7503</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8439-4726</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202101</creationdate><title>The “replication crisis” in the public eye: Germans’ awareness and perceptions of the (ir)reproducibility of scientific research</title><author>Mede, Niels G. ; Schäfer, Mike S. ; Ziegler, Ricarda ; Weißkopf, Markus</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c407t-471015bc928d9ebfd82c306c73db77bbe9f54bffaa9671f4db98d3f8beaddc443</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Barometers</topic><topic>Crises</topic><topic>Empirical analysis</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Mass Media</topic><topic>News media</topic><topic>Public concern</topic><topic>Public opinion</topic><topic>Quality</topic><topic>Quality control</topic><topic>Replication</topic><topic>Reproducibility</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Research methodology</topic><topic>Science</topic><topic>Secondary analysis</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><topic>Trust</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Mede, Niels G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schäfer, Mike S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ziegler, Ricarda</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weißkopf, Markus</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Public understanding of science (Bristol, England)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Mede, Niels G.</au><au>Schäfer, Mike S.</au><au>Ziegler, Ricarda</au><au>Weißkopf, Markus</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The “replication crisis” in the public eye: Germans’ awareness and perceptions of the (ir)reproducibility of scientific research</atitle><jtitle>Public understanding of science (Bristol, England)</jtitle><addtitle>Public Underst Sci</addtitle><date>2021-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>30</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>91</spage><epage>102</epage><pages>91-102</pages><issn>0963-6625</issn><eissn>1361-6609</eissn><abstract>Several meta-analytical attempts to reproduce results of empirical research have failed in recent years, prompting scholars and news media to diagnose a “replication crisis” and voice concerns about science losing public credibility. Others, in contrast, hoped replication efforts could improve public confidence in science. Yet nationally representative evidence backing these concerns or hopes is scarce. We provide such evidence, conducting a secondary analysis of the German “Science Barometer” (“Wissenschaftsbarometer”) survey. We find that most Germans are not aware of the “replication crisis.” In addition, most interpret replication efforts as indicative of scientific quality control and science’s self-correcting nature. However, supporters of the populist right-wing party AfD tend to believe that the “crisis” shows one cannot trust science, perhaps using it as an argument to discredit science. But for the majority of Germans, hopes about reputational benefits of the “replication crisis” for science seem more justified than concerns about detrimental effects.</abstract><cop>London, England</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>32924865</pmid><doi>10.1177/0963662520954370</doi><tpages>12</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5707-7568</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0847-7503</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8439-4726</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0963-6625 |
ispartof | Public understanding of science (Bristol, England), 2021-01, Vol.30 (1), p.91-102 |
issn | 0963-6625 1361-6609 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2442843476 |
source | PAIS Index; Sage Journals Online |
subjects | Barometers Crises Empirical analysis Humans Mass Media News media Public concern Public opinion Quality Quality control Replication Reproducibility Reproducibility of Results Research methodology Science Secondary analysis Surveys and Questionnaires Trust |
title | The “replication crisis” in the public eye: Germans’ awareness and perceptions of the (ir)reproducibility of scientific research |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-12T19%3A09%3A52IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20%E2%80%9Creplication%20crisis%E2%80%9D%20in%20the%20public%20eye:%20Germans%E2%80%99%20awareness%20and%20perceptions%20of%20the%20(ir)reproducibility%20of%20scientific%20research&rft.jtitle=Public%20understanding%20of%20science%20(Bristol,%20England)&rft.au=Mede,%20Niels%20G.&rft.date=2021-01&rft.volume=30&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=91&rft.epage=102&rft.pages=91-102&rft.issn=0963-6625&rft.eissn=1361-6609&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/0963662520954370&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2476811764%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c407t-471015bc928d9ebfd82c306c73db77bbe9f54bffaa9671f4db98d3f8beaddc443%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2476811764&rft_id=info:pmid/32924865&rft_sage_id=10.1177_0963662520954370&rfr_iscdi=true |