From “Climate Sceptic” to “Dendro-Sociologist”: Considering the Role of Trust in the Communication of Science in Action

  • Meritxell Ramírez-i-Ollé


Science and Technology Studies (STS) scholars have historically struggled to convince their audiences that sociological accounts of scientific work are not a critique of science. Here I suggest that the challenge of communicating science in action should be understood as a problem of creating a community of knowledge with audiences outside STS. I draw upon my own research to investigate the role of trust in overcoming this communicative challenge. I present three social processes as an explanation of the simultaneous constitution of my contingent trust relations with a group of dendroclimatologists and STS knowledge. What emerges from my account is, therefore, an optimistic message for STS scholars regarding the role of trust in communicating science in action; to be sure, having trust bonds with our immediate scientific audiences does not generate immediate and complete communication but it cultivates greater tolerance and mutuality.


Sociology Trust Climate sciences Reflexivity Tolerance 


  1. Barnes, B. 1974. Scientific Knowledge and Sociological Theory. London; Boston: Routledge and K. Paul.Google Scholar
  2. ———. 2001. Tolerance as a Primary Virtue. Res Publica 7(3): 231–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bloor, D. 1991. Knowledge and Social Imagery. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  4. ———. 2008. Relativism at 30,000 Feet. In Knowledge as Social Order: Rethinking the Sociology of Barry Barnes, ed. M. Mazzotti, 13–33. Farnham, UK: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
  5. Collins, H., and T. Pinch. 1998. The Golem: What You Should Know about Science. Cambridge, MA; New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Collins, Harry, and Robert Evans. 2016. A Thousand Words Is Worth a Picture. Social Studies of Science 46(2): 312–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dees, R.H. 2004. Trust and Toleration. Oxfordshire, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Garfinkel, H. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  9. Garforth, L. 2012. In/Visibilities of Research: Seeing and Knowing in STS. Science, Technology & Human Values 37(2): 264–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Giddens, A. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge, MA: Polity.Google Scholar
  11. Gieryn, T. 1996. Policing STS: A Boundary-Work. Souvenir from the Smithsonian Exhibition on “Science in American Life”. Science, Technology & Human Values 21(1): 100–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goffman, E. 1956. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Social Sciences Research Centre.Google Scholar
  13. Horst, M., S.R. Davies, and I. Irwin. 2017. Reframing Science Communication. In Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, ed. U. Felt et al., 881–889. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Labinger, J., and H. Collins. 2001. The One Culture? A Conversation about Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Latour, B. 1999. Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Lynch, M. 2009. Science as a Vacation: Deficits, Surfeits, PUSS, and Doing Your Own Job. Organisation 16(1): 101–119.Google Scholar
  17. MacKenzie, D. 2002. What’s in the Bottle? London Review of Books 24(9): 21–22.Google Scholar
  18. Mazzoti, M. 2008. Knowledge as Social Order: Rethinking the Sociology of Barry Barnes. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  19. Merton, R.K. 1976. Postscript: The Ambivalence of Scientists. In Sociological Ambivalence and Other Essays, ed. R.K. Merton. London: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  20. ———. 1979. The Sociology of Science: An Episodic Memoir. Carbondale: University of Southern Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  21. Mol, A. 2002. The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mulkay, M., and N. Gilbert. 1982. Accounting for Error: How Scientists Construct their Social World When They Account for Correct and Incorrect Belief. Sociology 16(2): 165–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nethery, D., and E. Vincent. 2016. Climate Scientists Are Now Grading Climate Journalism. The Guardian, 26 April. Accessed 12 Oct 2016.
  24. Plemmons, D., and A.W. Barker. 2016. Anthropological Ethics in Context: An Ongoing Dialogue. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press, Inc.Google Scholar
  25. Ramírez-i-Ollé, M. 2015. Rhetorical Strategies for Scientific Authority: A Boundary-Work Analysis of “Climategate”. Science as Culture 24(4): 384–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ribeiro, Rodrigo, and Francisco P.A. Lima. 2016. The Value of Practice: A Critique of Interactional Expertise. Social Studies of Science 46(2): 282–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Reyes-Galindo, L. 2014. Linking the Subcultures of Physics: Virtual Empiricism and the Bonding Role of Trust. Social Studies of Science 44(5): 736–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shapin, S. 1992. Why the Public Ought to Understand Science-in-the-Making. Public Understanding of Science 1(1): 27–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. ———. 1995. Trust, Honesty, and the Authority of Science. In Society’s Choices: Social and Ethical Decision Making in Biomedicine, ed. R.E. Bulger, E.M. Bobby, and F.V. Fineberg, 388–408. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Meritxell Ramírez-i-Ollé
    • 1
  1. 1.Keele UniversityStaffordshireUK

Personalised recommendations