Values, objectivity and credibility of scientists in a contentious natural resource debate

Abstract

In contentious natural resource debates, the credibility of scientists is at risk. In this case study, citizens in contending communities and scientists in a forest management controversy constructed the scientists’ credibility differently. Shared values and views of the nature of science and objectivity were primary factors for constructing scientists’ credibility. Citizens who expected value-free, objective scientists to authenticate their knowledge were concerned about how the values of scientists on the opposite side affected research framing. Citizens who emphasized limited objectivity were less skeptical of scientists. Scientists acknowledged their values but defended their credibility in terms of professional standards, balance and resource constraints. In short, scientists’ credibility is relative because each individual has unique values and views of the nature of science and objectivity. Through a collaborative policymaking process, citizens and scientists should develop shared values and visions to reconstruct a temporary, intersubjective sense of credibility.