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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) England), 2021-01, Vol.30 (1), p.91-102
Main Authors: Mede, Niels G., Schäfer, Mike S., Ziegler, Ricarda, Weißkopf, Markus
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