Reflections on the science society relationship. A mixed-methods study on science skepticism in Austria

HAUPTBEITRÄGE https://doi.org/10.1007/s11614-025-00607-4 Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie (2025) 50:20 0123456789 Reflections on the science society relationship. A mixed-methods study on science skepticism in Austria Johannes Starkbaum · Erich Griessler · Peter Grand · Fabian Seiser · Thomas König Received: 1 August 2024 / Accepted: 17 March 2025 © The Author(s) 2025 Abstract A recent debate on science skepticism in Austria portrayed the country’s population as highly skeptical of science. The actual extent of science skepticism remained unclear during the debate, and an explicit definition of it was never provided. This paper examines the phenomenon of science skepticism in Austria by reviewing studies on public perceptions of science and by applying a mixed methods approach, including secondary analysis of survey data and analysis of primary data from focus groups and expert interviews. Departing from different methodological perspectives, we show that degrees of criticism of science vary according to the way they are measured, that criticism can be observed in all societal groups, that individuals are not consistent in their attitudes towards science, and that critique is often directed at scientists’ presumed motives or entanglements with politics rather than at science per se. We conclude that the dualistic perspective that dominates public debates on this topic does not resonate with the empirical complexity illustrated in this paper. Keywords Science skepticism · Public perceptions of science · Trust · Mixed methods · Austria Johannes Starkbaum · Erich Griessler · Peter Grand · Fabian Seiser · Thomas König Institut für Höhere Studien—Institute for Advanced Studies (IHS), Josefstädterstraße 39, 1080 Vienna, Austria E-Mail: [email protected] Thomas König FORWIT. Austrian Council for Science, Technology and Innovation (Rat für Forschung, Wissenschaft, Innovation und Technologieentwicklung), Vienna, Austria K 20 Page 2 of 23 Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie (2025) 50:20 Überlegungen zum Verhältnis von Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft. Eine Mixed-Methods-Studie zu Wissenschaftsskepsis in Österreich Zusammenfassung Eine aktuelle Debatte in Österreich über Wissenschaftsskepsis stellte die Bevölkerung des Landes als besonders wissenschaftskritisch dar. Das tatsächliche Ausmaß von Wissenschaftsskepsis blieb in der Debatte unklar und auch eine explizite Definition wurde nicht gegeben. Dieser Beitrag untersucht das Phänomen der Wissenschaftsskepsis in Österreich. Dazu werden zunächst Studien zur öffentlichen Wahrnehmung von Wissenschaft ausgewertet. Eine darauffolgende Methodentriangulation kombiniert eine Sekundäranalyse von Umfragedaten mit der Analyse von Primärdaten aus Fokusgruppen und Experteninterviews. Ausgehend von den unterschiedlichen methodischen Perspektiven zeigen wir, dass das Ausmaß der Wissenschaftskritik je nach Messmethode variiert, dass Kritik in allen gesellschaftlichen Gruppen zu beobachten ist, dass die Einstellungen der Menschen zur Wissenschaft nicht konsistent sind und dass sich Kritik vor allem auf vermeintliche Motive von Wissenschafter:innen oder die Verbindungen zwischen Wissenschaft und Politik richtet und weniger auf die Wissenschaft selbst. Wir kommen zu dem Schluss, dass die dualistische Perspektive, welche die öffentliche Debatte zu diesem Thema dominiert, der in diesem Beitrag dargestellten empirischen Komplexität nicht gerecht wird. Schlüsselwörter Wissenschaftsskepsis · Öffentliche Wahrnehmung von Wissenschaft · Vertrauen · Methodentriangulation · Österreich 1 Introduction In 2021, journalists, scientists, and politicians in Austria initiated a public discourse that portrayed the country’s population as highly skeptical of science (Salzburger Nachrichten 2022; Taschwer 2021), accompanied by calls for political action (Nowotny 2021; Starkbaum et al. 2022). Proponents of the assertion of prevailing science skepticism in Austria used, as their main point of reference, a Eurobarometer survey in which Austrian respondents expressed relatively low interest in and expectations of science and technology in some items compared to other European countries (European Commission 2021). Advocates of this claim also supported their assertion by pointing at segments of the Austrian population that had loudly criticized the government’s policies to combat the COVID-19 pandemic, which were based in part on the advice of scientists. That science skepticism was widespread, and had increased during the pandemic, became the dominant topos of public discourse. Although the actual extent of science skepticism in Austria remained unclear during the debate, and an explicit definition of the phenomenon was never provided. In response to this, the Austrian Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Research (BMBWF) issued a call for tenders for a study to investigate skepticism towards science and democracy in Austria. The study, which was carried out beK Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie (2025) 50:20 Page 3 of 23 20 tween 2022 and 2023, explored the characteristics and extent of science skepticism in Austria, its relation to socio-demographic factors, as well as historical, socioeconomic and structural aspects that may be relevant to understanding the situation (Starkbaum et al. 2023). Based on this study, this paper examines the phenomenon of “science skepticism” in Austria applying a mixed methods approach including secondary analysis of survey data and analysis of primary data from focus groups and expert interviews. We address three main questions: (1) What public attitudes towards science can be observed and how are they distributed in Austria? (2) How can the critique of science and science skepticism be differentiated? (3) What are the implications for the public discussion on science skepticism in Austria? We start with a reflection on the science society relationship and different approaches to science skepticism, drawing on theoretical considerations and international research. Subsequently, we investigate perceptions of science in the population, how critical attitudes toward science distribute among different groups and in the population, how experts assess this, and the extent and characteristics of skepticism and other critical attitudes toward science in Austria. The findings show that in Austria, positive views dominate the public perception of science. Yet, there are also different forms of science critique in the population, but their prevalence varies according to how critique and skepticism are defined and measured. In addition, disapproval mainly concerns selective parts of science or the relationship of it with other societal institutions, such as politics and economy. Furthermore, science critique is not restricted to particular social groups. The paper emphasizes that the discussion about science skepticism in Austria is yet another political controversy about the proper place of science in society. 2 Reflecting science skepticism Luhmann (2024) conceptualizes science as one of several subsystems of modern societies. Born in the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century to generate solid knowledge in the midst of religious division (Rommetveit et al. 2013), and then pursued only by a few gentleman scientists from the upper echelons of society, science was professionalized in the nineteenth century (Weber 1946). It developed into a vast social subsystem and enterprise in the twentieth century that is central to the cultural and economic concept of modernity (Stehr 2023). Today, through an implicit social contract (Guston 2000), science contributes to societal subsystems such as the economy and politics by providing knowledge. In return, science receives public funding under this implicit social contract. Because of its central role for economic growth, governments around the world promote science (Durant 1994; Griessler 2024). However, science is not unchallenged, as the recent debates on science skepticism exemplify. There is no unified definition of science skepticism in the academic literature and the term is used for a variety of attitudes. Although skepticism is often viewed negatively, it is also integral to scientific practice, known as “organized skepticism” (Merton 1957, p. 560). This is the fourth of the Mertonian norms, which also include K 20 Page 4 of 23 Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie (2025) 50:20 communism, universalism and disinterestedness. They describe an ideal version of science, emphasizing common ownership, inclusiveness, orientation towards the benefit of science and critical reflection of scientific work. However, this is not the kind of skepticism that dominated the Austrian discourse. We discuss various approaches related to science skepticism, sorting them broadly into three groupings: studies on negative attitudes towards science in general; studies that link identities and social positions to science skepticism; and studies that investigate criticisms of collaborations between science and policy. Skepticism is often used to describe various negative attitudes towards science. Criticism of science has long been framed in European science and policy discourse as a deficit of the citizenry, suggesting in particular a lack of public knowledge and understanding that could be remedied through education and science communication (Royal Society 1985). From this perspective, science skepticism and other negative attitudes toward science are conceptualized as a deficit that is mainly located in segments of the population and is associated with a lack of knowledge or trust. Many of the existing studies focus on populations that express critical attitudes aiming to investigate explanatory factors. Typically, these studies survey the prevalence of and explanatory factors for attitudes towards science and try to identify groups that hold sentiments such as low trust in science or science skepticism. The outcomes depend heavily on the wording of the survey questions and how they conceptualize negative attitudes towards science, such as science skepticism. In other words, the object of study is reified by its conceptualization in survey questions. Contrary to the prevailing public discourse in Austria, several surveys show that in most countries, large parts of the population express high levels of trust in science (European Commission 2021; Cologna et al. 2025) and that science is one of the most trusted institutions (Ipsos 2023). Various studies, mostly quantitative, try to identify societal groups that are more prone to express negative attitudes towards science. However, several studies show that predictors of negative attitudes, such as political preferences, religiosity, or science literacy, are not universal explanatory factors, but vary by topic and field of science (Scheitle and Corcoran 2021). Philipp-Muller et al. (2022) find that while political “conservatives” are more likely to reject scientific findings (e.g., on evolution or climate change), this trend is not consistent across technological fields, as “liberals” are, for example, more critical in areas such as nanotechnology. Consistent with this, Rutjens et al. (2022) show, using comparative surveys, that predictors such as spirituality or political orientation differ among fields of science, such as climate change or genetic modification. Other studies have looked at the actual rejection of science by segments of the citizenry, often referred to as science skepticism. This concerns a smaller but more critical group of the public. Partheymüller and Eberl (2023, p. 89) note that science skepticism refers to a general or fundamental criticism of science that is ideologically motivated and resists scientific scrutiny. Similarly, Starkbaum et al. (2023) operationalize skepticism “as a systematic and unjustified rejection of science,” i.e., a rejection of scientific knowledge that spans several areas of science. Several studies highlight the importance of misand disinformation to explain rejection of scientific knowledge. Aslett et al. (2024) conclude that online searches to evaluate misinformation can increase its perceived credibility, as respondents end K Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie (2025) 50:20 Page 5 of 23 20 up in informational spaces with low-quality sources confirming wrong information. Thus, the authors call for increasing media literacy in the population and regulating search engines. Spampatti et al. (2023, p. 9) found “that climate disinformation influences how people feel about, think of and evaluate climate change and climate actions” and show that the exposure to disinformation cannot simply be countered by (psychological) mitigation strategies. Oswald and Bright (2022) demonstrate that beliefs of communities, who self-identify as climate skeptics, are characterized by long-term stability and these groups react with counterarguments to science-based knowledge. Several studies examine identities and reasoning related to skepticism, rather than exploring attitudes toward science. Dissenting voices within the scientific community have criticized studies that frame criticism of science as a characteristic (or deficit) of certain populations. Already decades ago, this led to calls for more engagement of societal actors in research and innovation (R&I) to better understand different positions, rather than framing criticism solely as a problem (Wilsdon and Willis 2004). Furthermore, several studies challenge the role of science as a privileged form of knowledge production by highlighting the importance of considering different forms of local knowledge, such as that of activists or farmers (Epstein 1998; Wynne 1996). Research that aligns with this tradition is typically interested in understanding the social and cultural conditions that foster the emergence of critique or skepticism and how it is justified. There is a body of literature—mostly qualitative—that actively and reflexively engages with groups critical of science. Haltinner and Sarathchandra (2023)show that people in the US who are skeptical about anthropogenic climate change are not homogeneous, but rather express many different beliefs. Several people with whom they interacted expressed overall confidence in science and expertise but rationalized their critical position by questioning the competence of climate scientists. Similarly, Neresini (2024) recommends avoiding exclusively negative framing when dealing with groups critical of science. Other studies are more explicit about aspects of cultural and social identity as relevant factors in the explanation of negative attitudes towards science. Based on survey data, Stoetzer and Zimmermann (2024) see group identity as a plausible explanation for climate change denial, concluding that people may reject or downplay anthropogenic climate change because it is part of their political identity. Addressing this criticism, they suggest it would require a weakening or changing related group norms. Philipp-Muller et al. (2022), through a review of several studies, explore factors relevant to anti-science attitudes, all of which indicate a social and cultural distance between science and individuals or groups expressing anti-science attitudes. Such factors include a perceived lack of credibility of science communication and its sources, a sense of belonging to groups that identify with anti-science attitudes, or conflicts between scientific messages, personal values, and the preferences or epistemic styles of recipients. The relationship between science and policy is a field related to skepticism that has gained particular attention since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. In this context, selective consultation of scientific disciplines and a lack of transparency were pointed out by critics (Prainsack 2022). Indeed, much of the criticism that K 20 Page 6 of 23 Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie (2025) 50:20 has been labeled science skepticism in public debates refers to the involvement of science or scientists in policy making or an alleged entanglement with economic interests, which would mean the violation of another Mertonian norm of science, i.e., “disinterestedness” (Merton 1942). Bogner’s (2021) concept of the epistemization of the political provides a useful framework for conceptualizing this approach to science skepticism. He argues that there is a tendency for political debates to be framed by epistemic (evidenceor knowledge-based) claims. Thus, political decisions and their legitimacy are increasingly tied to scientific evidence and factual correctness, especially in times of controversy and crisis. Framing policy decisions as merely evidence-based encourages the neglect of issues of values, conflicting interests, and deliberation, while at the same time relieving policymakers of some of the responsibility for making decisions. Such evidence-based claims promote a policy of no alternatives, which is always in conflict with some political or societal interests. The political process may then appear to suppress alternative viewpoints. At the same time, as Bogner (2021) argues, science in such constellations becomes a major address for criticism of political decisions and is thus subject to the same polarization and contestation as politics. Groups opposed to certain policies may then challenge the science (or scientists) involved, not necessarily because they doubt science itself, but because it is seen as political and elitist. They then bring in selective science-based claims or alternative expertise to challenge the (mainstream) science involved in policymaking, which brings us back to the issue of misinformation. Finally, these reflections show that science skepticism encompasses a variety of things, including levels of public knowledge, attitudes towards science, rejection of scientific knowledge, as well as the engagement of science with economic interests or the political domain. Negative expressions of science, such as skepticism, are researched and conceptualized differently, which also leads to different conclusions about its prevalence and quality. 3 Methodology This paper consolidates findings from the aforementioned study on skepticism toward science and democracy in Austria (Starkbaum et al. 2023). In order to provide a comprehensive understanding of science skepticism in Austria we analyzed polled public opinions, narratives in group context and expert insights. The data consisted of: (a) a secondary analysis of survey data which provided a basic overview of attitudes towards science; (b) focus groups exploring how criticism is reasoned and embedded in group settings; and (c) expert interviews. This methodological triangulation was implemented to increase the validity of the results and to arrive at a more comprehensive understanding of science skepticism. (a) For the quantitative analysis, the paper utilized survey data from the Eurobarometer 516 (2021), European Social Survey (ESS) wave 10, the Austrian Corona Panel Project (ACPP) 2020–2022, the Citizens’ Attitudes Under Covid-19 Pandemic (CAUCP) survey 2020 and the Wellcome Global Monitor (WGM) 2018 and 2020. K Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie (2025) 50:20 Page 7 of 23 20 These surveys collect expressed opinions of members of the public and each of these include data on the Austrian population. We included only data from one survey wave in 2021 of the Eurobarometer and ESS but included multiple years from the other surveys. ACPP included data from March 2020 to August 2022. CAUCP data consisted of four waves collected in 2020, and WGM included data from 2018 and 2020. Differences in data collection, sample size, the way these surveys conceptualize science, and which questions they include made a direct comparison more challenging. We thus did not combine these data at individual levels, but contrasted the findings for each survey, to generate a more comprehensive picture of attitudes towards science. The surveys allow longitudinal and comparative insights into public understandings of science and show how science, in return, epistemically co-creates the notion of science skepticism. Next to a critical and interpretive analysis, this study used a combination of descriptive and multivariate analyses, such as recoded data and items or logistic regression. For further details, see Starkbaum et al. (2023, p. 139f.). (b) In addition, five focus groups with a total of 39 participants from the Austrian population were conducted, with seven to ten participants per group. These groups were designed to facilitate conversation among a set of citizens to investigate how opinions emerge in group settings and how discussions evolve (Reed and Payton 1997). Participants were recruited through public advertisements, contacting institutions and via personal contacts. The focus groups were held in early 2023 in Vienna, Upper Austria, and Styria. Our overall sample was relatively balanced in terms of educational background, age, and gender, although there was a bias toward participants with higher education, and a stronger presence of older adults and younger people (Starkbaum et al. 2023, pp. 243–246). The focus groups were conducted in a two-stage process. First, participants answered a questionnaire, which, in addition to socio-economic aspects, covered also nine survey-questions related to science and democracy, e.g. from the Eurobarometer 516. These assessed how participants scale (fourand five-point Likert) the importance of science, their trust in science, as well as how they perceive the impact of politics. The next step consisted of a facilitated discussion initiated by the moderator, relying on a semi-structured interview guide incorporating open ended questions. Each group thus discussed the survey items they answered in the questionnaire at the beginning, which covered their definitions of science, science in everyday life and its relationship to common sense, trust in science, the influence of politics on science, and a question addressing democracy. This two-stage process allowed investigating how participants evaluate and understand relevant survey questions. It also showed that the focus group sample was somewhat less critical of science and democracy in comparison to the overall Austrian population, although critical voices were also present, and, through that, it paved the way for the discussion. The focus groups were transcribed and coded using Atlas.ti, following a grounded theory approach (Strauss and Corbin 1998) as we aimed to explore new knowledge inductively. Relevant phenomena were coded in an open coding process, in which the coding structure was developed by selective and axial steps working towards theoretical saturation and a common red thread. As we were interested in shared K 20 Page 8 of 23 Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie (2025) 50:20 meanings and the emergence of opinions in group context (Reed and Payton 1997), phenomena, i.e., coded segments of data, were not restricted to expressions of individuals but also included narratives and parts of discussions involving several participants. Additionally, we identified participants particularly critical of science and their contribution to the discussion. These 14 people were identified by clustering those participants who either expressed an opinion contrary to the scientific consensus (in knowledge-related questions) at least twice or did not explicitly express trust in science in the questionnaire at the beginning of the focus groups. This group includes persons with different educational backgrounds and is gender balanced with seven male and six female participants. Seven people stated an age of more than 60 years, while three people were under 30 years old, with the remaining three people aged between 30 and 59. (c) The 12 semi-structured expert interviews aimed to cover the discourse on skepticism towards science and democracy in Austria (Bogner et al. 2002). The selected interviewees were well-informed about the topics of “science” and “society”, and had engaged in public debate at events or in the media or, in one case, were recommended by one interviewee. Experts had a wide perspective on the topic and came from a broad range of professions. The sample of seven men and five women consisted of three natural scientists, two humanities scholars, one social scientist, two journalists, one psychologist, one lawyer and administrative scientist, one science official, and one person from a science communication background. Interviews were conducted from 2022 to 2023 and lasted between 23 to 90min; the average was about 45min. Most interviews were conducted in person; a small number of interviews were conducted online. Interviewees answered open questions which were derived from the central objectives of the study and were intended to clarify what the experts understand by science, science skepticism and society, how they evaluate and assess these, what evidence or experience this assessment is based on, what they perceive as the causes of science skepticism in Austria, what the ideal relationship between science and society would be, and what measures would be necessary to establish this relationship. Like the focus groups, the interviews were transcribed and coded following grounded theory (Strauss and Corbin 1998) and by using Atlas.ti. 4Results This chapter explores science skepticism by considering (a) general perceptions of science, (b) the distribution and prevalence of critique in the Austrian population, and (c) the multi-faceted character of such critique. Each aspect is addressed separately with data from surveys, focus groups, and expert interviews, except for (b) as this was not subject of the interviews. This structure was chosen to differentiate the various perspectives on science skepticism that come with these epistemic approaches. K Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie (2025) 50:20 Page 9 of 23 20 4.1 Perceptions of science 4.1.1 Survey data Across the investigated surveys and most items, the Austrian population supports positive statements about science more strongly than negative ones. ACPP, Eurobarometer, CAUCP, WGM, and ESS data indicate that trust in scientists, and more generally in science, is almost always higher over time and across countries than in other institutions and groups, such as political parties, the parliament or the police (Starkbaum et al. 2023, p. 141ff.). Exemplary descriptive data from the ESS round 10 in Fig. 1shows high trust in scientists in Austria, which is comparable to the levels of trust of the police and the judicial system. Trust towards any institution even loosely connected to the political realm is considerably lower than trust in scientists. Political parties and politicians themselves experience the lowest level of trust. There are pronounced negative perceptions of science from Austrian respondents, particularly in relation to specific items and topical domains, such as nuclear energy. However, in comparison to other countries, Austrians are overall no more negative about science (e.g., Fig. 2). The left panel in Fig. 2shows general trust in scientists in Europe, based on ESS data. Here again, the mean trust values are plotted and the associated confidence intervals are shown. The vertical line marks the average trust in scientists with a value of 7.06 across all countries displayed. In the countries with average trust values to the left of this line, the total of all responses is below average trust in scientists. The right panel shows the mean values of agreement and disagreement regarding the statement, that “groups of scientists manipulate, fabricate, or suppress evidence in order to deceive the public”. The higher the values, the stronger the rejection of this statement. The average approval/disapproval score among the countries presented here is 3.42. In countries whose mean approval ratings lie to the left of this line, respondents agree more strongly with this statement. Thus, the Austrian respondents show a comparably high rate of disagreement with the statement, which indicates Fig. 1 ESS: Trust in different institutions in Austria 2021 (mean values). (Own calculations using data from ESS 10 (2021, n= 1931, weight= dweight). The mean confidence and the 95% confidence interval are displayed) Political Parties Politicians EP UN Parliament Justice Police Scientists 3 4 5 6 7 Mean Trust K 20 Page 16 of 23 Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie (2025) 50:20 might eventually get a lot of money for what he [...] discovered or invented”(FG1). These quotes follow a similar pattern: The noble, male scientist in an antagonistic relationship with dishonest parts of science and external forces that corrupt science. During the focus groups, skepticism and other forms of science critique were also labelled as a problem that originates from the population. Especially the 14 people, who expressed reluctance towards science in the pre-questionnaire, were engaged in discussions about how too few people in society would ask critical questions. Some participants portrayed parts of the population as ignorant and miseducated. One participant emphasized: “humanity is becoming more and more stupid and nobody [emphasis] has any common sense anymore [...] nobody [emphasis] has a decent level of education any more” (FG3). Others concluded that scientists are not appreciated enough in Austria (FG3) and another participant pointed to the ignorance of the population regarding many (technological) impacts of science: “I use everything, but I don’t think about it anymore, it’s just there. I think you must make people a bit more aware of how it all came about, where it comes from”(FG1). Some focus group participants explained the assumed lack of critical thinking and education in Austria as the outcome of a deliberate strategy employed by politics, the media, or other seemingly powerful fractions of society. The next sequence exemplifies how focus group participants perceived the performance of COVID-19 experts in television programs in the Austrian Broadcasting Corporation (ORF) as selective and manipulative. Only two (B3 and B7) of the 14 people, who expressed criticism in the pre-questionnaire, were involved in the four-person discussion about media below. B7: [...] I believe he [the expert] was the least qualified person in the world to say anything about it, but he said something about everything [emphasis] and the ORF steered it that way. B9: yes B5: And politics [...] B7: The ORF has an educational mission. B9: Would have. Would have [emphasis] B3: Would have. B7: Would have. We pay for that. And, I mean, I am saying this almost maliciously, but there is hardly any other broadcaster that manipulates like the ORF. B9: Yes, that’s right, that is not malicious, that is realistic. (FG3). Consequently, negative expressions towards science emerged in various ways during the discussions. This included criticism of specific parts of science, selected scientists, or the institutional entanglements of science with other fields such as politics, media and economy. In the groups, a lack of critical thinking was also brought up, once again illustrating the heterogeneity of what is referred to as skepticism. 4.3.3 Expert interviews In line with the data presented above, the expert interviews revealed different approaches to and understandings of science skepticism. Experts either saw skepticism as a rejection of science, as an essential part of science, or as a critical attitude toK Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie (2025) 50:20 Page 17 of 23 20 wards the utilization of science. Experts mentioned social conflicts about science and technology such as the COVID-19 pandemic, genetically modified organisms, nuclear energy, and the climate crisis. Indeed, survey data confirms that certain of these technologies or science-areas are negatively viewed by Austrians (Starkbaum et al. 2023, p. 111). The controversy about these areas is not only about different assessments of technological risks, but includes issues concerning freedom of expression, the right to self-determination and autonomy, different conceptions of economy, justice, society, what relationship between science, society and nature would be “appropriate” and competing conceptions of societal futures in social and ecological terms. At the core, these are also conflicts about the role of science in society. In addition to different understandings and definitions of skepticism, there are also differing explanations for its incidence. Some arguments address a perceived distance between science and society, which is said to arise due to the separation between science and the lifeworld of the population and the difficulty of understanding and grasping research. Another expert narrative focuses on the increasing complexity of society and the resulting increased demands on the individual, which is also linked to the education system that is blamed for failing to communicate the workings of science and its importance to prosperity. Consistent with the findings from surveys and focus groups, we see explanations for science skepticism based on an assumed general skepticism towards elites, including politicians but also scientists, and issues of trust in institutions more broadly. In summary, science critique appears in different forms and intensities. While a smaller segment of 10% of the population rejects science across different domains, other forms of criticism, concerning the motives of scientists or entanglements with politics are a concern to a much wider group. Focus groups and expert interviews also show that criticism and presumed causes are varied. 5 Discussion The current public debate on science skepticism gathers, under this term, quite different forms of science critique. There is also no clear definition in the academic literature or in empirical studies. This paper discusses different approaches to science skepticism and provides empirical insights into this multifaceted phenomenon. It shows that most Austrians have a favorable view of science and that there is no clear evidence of a recent increase in negative attitudes toward science (Starkbaum et al. 2023, p. 261f.). Exploring different forms of criticism in the population can contribute to an understanding of science skepticism. Operationalizing science skepticism as a (systematic and unwarranted) rejection of science, focuses on a smaller but more critical group. Secondary analysis of data from a recent Eurobarometer study (European Commission 2021) shows that about 10% of the Austrian population can be considered science skeptics according to this definition. Based on different survey data, Partheymüller and Eberl (2023) arrive at slightly higher numbers and identify a share of 14% of Austrians who express K 20 Page 18 of 23 Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie (2025) 50:20 moderate interest and low trust in science or reject its findings as science skeptics. This proportion is not insignificant, however, far from being the majority. The secondary analysis of survey data emphasizes how the share of critics or skeptics differs depending on how skepticism is operationalized in surveys. 20 to 30% of the respondents in Austria, depending on the items and survey we analysed, are critical of scientists’ motives and competences or criticize perceived interlinkages between politics and science. Most often, criticism addresses certain areas of technology or scientific disciplines, perceived malpractices, or links between science, politics, and economic interests. In line with Bogner’s (2021) concept of the epistemization of the political, our focus group data showed that within our sample, there was little rejection of science, however this was framed by a critique of perceived political or economic meddling in science. An idealized image of science, close to the Mertonian norms (Merton 1942), was seen, in this line of argument, as threatened by elitist control of science and a disinterested public. Correspondingly, based on survey and interview data with an Austrian sample, Partheymüller and Eberl (2023) found that science skepticism is also an expression of a comprehensive world view that includes a broader skepticism towards democratic and political institutions. The authors conclude that the assumption that science lacks independence from politics and business contributes in a particular way to its rejection. Findings of a related dialogue process with Austrian citizens show transparency and independence of science from political and economic interests as a key recommendation of the discussants (Bechthold et al. 2023). The BMBWF study confirms that people with higher normative expectations of democracy and who perceive democracy as working better in Austria express higher levels of trust in scientists (Starkbaum et al. 2023). Consequently, criticism of science also stems from conflicts over the supremacy of certain forms of knowledge and from broader critique of politics and democratic institutions. Many international studies try to identify factors explaining why individuals or groups hold anti-science attitudes or have little trust in science. However, depending on the field or topic, these studies also show that criticism of certain areas of science is more pronounced in different groups, therefore, there is no single group of science skeptics (Rutjens et al. 2022). Similarly, Frei and Nachtwey (2022)show that protests against measures to contain COVID-19, which have been backed by scientists, included people from all social and educational strata of society. This study confirms that science critique is not limited to specific social groups. Our data also show that individuals are not consistent in their attitudes towards science. Focus group participants who had previously expressed generally positive attitudes towards science, were also among those who stated science critique in the discussions. In line with these findings, Neresini (2024) highlights that communities that refuse certain scientific knowledge are not homogeneous nor exclusively ignorant and irrational minorities. A lack of knowledge about science is repeatedly named as a factor relevant for skepticism (Bromme 2022), also in our expert interviews and focus groups. Thus, science and politics often address science skepticism with efforts to increase science literacy, i.e., to improve the level of scientific knowledge of the population. However, our survey and focus group data show no clear link between the extent of K Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie (2025) 50:20 Page 19 of 23 20 scientific knowledge and negative attitudes towards science. Accordingly, Ten Kate et al. (2021) reveal that well-educated people reject scientific knowledge as well, drawing on the example of vaccine refusal. The idea that increasing the knowledge and engagement of citizens will raise, in a linear way acceptance of science, has existed for decades and has been challenged ever since (Suldovsky 2016). A study by Lackner et al. (2023) emphasizes the complex role of knowledge by showing that overconfidence about knowing answers about science issues peaks at intermediate knowledge levels and that this group also expresses the least positive attitudes towards science. The authors thus conclude that increasing science literacy will not simply lead to increased support of science. However, distance between science and society exists to some extent. Focus groups suggest that many citizens know little about how science works in practice, which was also discussed in the expert interviews. Also, there is a high level of agreement (53%) in the Austrian population that knowledge of science and research is not relevant to everyday life (European Commission 2021). Some research suggests that this has to do with people’s social identity, which might conflict with the institution of science and its epistemic style (Philipp-Muller et al. 2022;Oswald and Bright 2022; Spampatti et al. 2023). This viewpoint speaks in favor of making science more participatory and anchoring it more firmly in everyday culture of different social groups (Dawson 2018). At the same time, science is more present in most people’s lives than ever. Over the centuries, science has moved to the center of Western societies, challenging religion as a core value, and driving economic growth, health, and education. Strengthening innovation capacity has also been a consistent goal of Austrian federal governments for decades and has led to remarkable developments like comparably high expenditure on R&I (Janger and König 2020). And yet, science’s role is not without challenges. While science is modern societies’ best approach to generate and validate new knowledge, it is also a human endeavor and thus subject to biases and error (Kuhn 1962). Some researchers call for avoiding idealized images of science and “promising less” (Collins and Pinch 1993, p. 142), as failed promises might foster antiscience attitudes. The same authors suggest that science should engage with criticism rather than acting like a “nest of ants with an intruder” (Collins and Pinch 1993, p. 142). While addressing science criticism is essential, a critical view on science is required as well. Science has historically also harmed groups and contributed to sexual identity discrimination and racial inequality (Graves et al. 2022). The Austrian public debate on science skepticism is in many ways driven by a dualistic perspective on attitudes towards science, which divides the population into a group of science supporters and a group of science deniers. The dominant discourse in the media, which is primarily shaped by journalists, politicians, scientists and science functionaries, characterizes a considerable part of the Austrian population as skeptical of science, i.e. as irrational in comparison to the other part and to themselves. While this is true, as we show in this paper, for a specific, but considerably smaller part of the population, and for some forms of radical critique, it is certainly not the case for all forms of critique of science. And it is certainly not the case for the majority of the population in which trust in science dominates. K 20 Page 20 of 23 Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie (2025) 50:20 Moreover, the claim that science skepticism prevails is based mainly on quantitative research, which constitutes a specific perspective on this topic. Also, researchers’ underlying and sometimes unconscious assumptions about science skepticism affect the results and their interpretation. This paper critically reviews relevant quantitative surveys and adds qualitative data from focus groups and expert interviews. These data show that science skepticism is held by different groups, and partly even by groups that are generally positive about science. This mixed-methods approach broadens the perspective on science skepticism and brings into focus those larger groups of citizens and experts who are central to the public discourse. Acknowledgements The collection of empirical data for this article was funded by the Austrian Ministry of Education, Science and Research (BMBWF, GZ: 2022-0.383.902). We would also like to thank our coauthors of the original study on which this article is based. We would like to thank all the participants in the focus groups and expert interviews. We are also grateful for the additional funding provided by the IHS to write this paper and to cover the open access fees. Finally, we thank Maggie Hardiman for proofreading. Funding Open access funding provided by Institute for Advanced Studies Vienna. Conflict of interest J. Starkbaum, E. Griessler, P. Grand, F. Seiser and T. König declare that they have no competing interests. Open Access Dieser Artikel wird unter der Creative Commons Namensnennung 4.0 International Lizenz veröffentlicht, welche die Nutzung, Vervielfältigung, Bearbeitung, Verbreitung und Wiedergabe in jeglichem Medium und Format erlaubt, sofern Sie den/die ursprünglichen Autor(en) und die Quelle ordnungsgemäß nennen, einen Link zur Creative Commons Lizenz beifügen und angeben, ob Änderungen vorgenommen wurden. Die in diesem Artikel enthaltenen Bilder und sonstiges Drittmaterial unterliegen ebenfalls der genannten Creative Commons Lizenz, sofern sich aus der Abbildungslegende nichts anderes ergibt. Sofern das betreffende Material nicht unter der genannten Creative Commons Lizenz steht und die betreffende Handlung nicht nach gesetzlichen Vorschriften erlaubt ist, ist für die oben aufgeführten Weiterverwendungen des Materials die Einwilligung des jeweiligen Rechteinhabers einzuholen. Weitere Details zur Lizenz entnehmen Sie bitte der Lizenzinformation auf http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/deed.de. References Aslett, Kevin, Zeve Sanderson, William Godel, Nathaniel Persily, Jonathan Nagler, and Joshua A. Tucker. 2024. Online searches to evaluate misinformation Can increase its perceived veracity. Nature 625(7995):548–556. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06883-y. Bechthold, Ulrike, Alexander Bogner, and Katharina Gangl. 2023. KAPITEL III: ,Österreich Am Wort‘ – Ein Dialogprozess Zur Aufarbeitung Der Corona-Krise. In Nach Corona. Reflexionen Für Zukünftige Krisen. Ergebnisse Aus Dem Coronaaufarbeitungsprozess, ed. Alexander Bogner, 88–116. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Science Press. Bogner, Alexander. 2021. Die Epistemisierung des Politischen: wie die Macht des Wissens die Demokratie gefährdet. Reclams Universal-Bibliothek Was bedeutet das alles?, Nr. 14083. Ditzingen: Reclam. Bogner, Alexander, Beate Littig, and Wolfgang Menz (eds.). 2002. Das Experteninterview. Wiesbaden: VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-93270-9. Bromme, Rainer. 2022. Informiertes Vertrauen in Wissenschaft: Lehren aus der COVID-19 Pandemie für das Verständnis naturwissenschaftlicher Grundbildung (scientific literacy). Unterrichtswissenschaft 50(3):331–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42010-022-00159-6. Collins, Harry, and Trevor Pinch. 1993. The golem: what you should know about science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cologna, Viktoria, Niels G. Mede, Sebastian Berger, John Besley, Cameron Brick, Marina Joubert, Edward W. Maibach, et al., 2025. Trust in scientists and their role in society across 68 countries. Nature Human Behaviour 9(4):713–730. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-02090-5. K Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie (2025) 50:20 Page 21 of 23 20 Dawson, Emily. 2018. Reimagining publics and (non) participation: exploring exclusion from science communication through the experiences of low-income, minority ethnic groups. Public Understanding of Science 27(7):772–786. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662517750072. Durant, John. 1994. What is scientific literacy? European Review 2(1):83–89. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S1062798700000922. Epstein, Steven. 1998. Impure science: AIDS, activism, and the politics of knowledge. Berkeley: University of California Press. Reprint. Medicine and Society 7. European Commission. 2021. Spezial-Eurobarometer 516: Kenntnisse und Einstellungen der europäischen Bürgerinnen und Bürger zu Wissenschaft und Technologie: Bericht. Publications Office. https://doi. org/10.2775/844093. Frei, Nadine, and Oliver Nachtwey. 2022. „Quellen Des „Querdenkertums“. Eine Politische Soziologie Der Corona-Proteste in Baden-Württemberg. SocArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/8f4pb. Preprint. Graves, Joseph L., Maureen Kearney, Gilda Barabino, and Shirley Malcom. 2022. Inequality in science and the case for a new agenda. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119(10):e2117831119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2117831119. Griessler, Julius. 2024. Images of science in Austrian secondary education. The short-lived experiment of the pre-scientific work. University of Vienna. Vorwissenschaftliche Arbeit (VWA)”.” Master thesis. Guston, David H. 2000. Between politics and science: assuring the integrity and productivity of reseach, 1st edn., Cambridge: University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511571480. Haltinner, Kristin, and Dilshani Sarathchandra. 2023. Inside the world of climate change skeptics. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Ipsos. 2023. Ipsos global trustworthyness index. Who does the world trust? Paris. Janger, Jürgen, and Thomas König. 2020. Forschungspolitik in Österreich: Zentrale Ansatzpunkte für eine Leistungssteigerung in der Grundlagenforschung. Vienna: Institute for Advanced Studies. https:// irihs.ihs.ac.at/id/eprint/5423/. Accessed 23 February 2023. Kuhn, Thomas. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lackner, Simone, Frederico Francisco, Cristina Mendonça, André Mata, and Joana Gonçalves-Sá. 2023. Intermediate levels of scientific knowledge are associated with overconfidence and negative attitudes towards science. Nature Human Behaviour 7(9):1490–1501. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562023-01677-8. Luhmann, Niklas. 2024. Die Wissenschaft der Gesellschaft, 8th edn., Suhrkamp-Taschenbuch Wissenschaft 1001. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Merton, Robert K. 1942. The normative structure of science. In The sociology of science. Theoretical and empirical investigations, 267–278. Chicago London: University of Chicago Press. Merton, Robert K. 1957. Social theory and social structure. New York: Free Press. Neresini, Federico. 2024. Can we look at refused knowledge differently? In Manufacturing refused knowledge in the age of epistemic pluralism, ed. Federico Neresini, Maria Carmela Agodi, Stefano Crabu, and Simone Tosoni, 21–52. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-98199-7188-6_2. Nowotny, Helga. 2021. „Wege Aus Der Pandemie: Zur Neubestimmung Des Verhältnisses von Wissenschaft Und Gesellschaft.“ Policy Brief. http://helga-nowotny.eu/downloads/helga_nowotny_l50. pdf. Accessed 7 Mar 2023. Oswald, Lisa, and Jonathan Bright. 2022. How do climate change skeptics engage with opposing views Online? Evidence from a major climate change skeptic forum on reddit. Environmental Communication 16(6):805–821. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2022.2071314. Partheymüller, Julia, and Jakob-Moritz Eberl. 2023. Fallstudie 5: Wissenschaftsskepsis. In Nach Corona. Reflexionen Für Zukünftige Krisen. Ergebnisse Aus Dem Coronaaufarbeitungsprozess, ed. Alexander Bogner, 88–116. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Science Press. Philipp-Muller, Aviva, W. S. Lee Spike, and Richard E. Petty. 2022. Why are people antiscience, and what can we do about it? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119(30):1–10. https://doi.org/ 10.1073/pnas.2120755119. Prainsack, Barbara. 2022. Einschätzungen Zur Wissenschaftskommunikation Aus Politologischer Perspektive. In Was Können Die Wissenschaften in Der Corona-Pandemie Leisten? Symposium Und Podiumsdiskussion in Kooperation Mit Der Gesellschaft Der Ärzte in Wien. Hybride Veranstaltung, 8 June 2021., ed. Austrian Academy of Science, 29–36. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Science Press. Reed, Jan, and Valerie Roskell Payton. 1997. Focus groups: issues of analysis and interpretation. Journal of Advanced Nursing 26(4):765–771. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.1997.00395.x. K 20 Page 22 of 23 Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie (2025) 50:20 Rommetveit, Kjetil, Ragnar Fjelland, Roger Strand, Andrea Saltelli, and Silvio Funtowicz. 2013. What can history teach us about the prospects of a European research area? Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2788/1057. Royal Society. 1985. The public understanding of science. London: Royal Society. Rutjens, Bastiaan T., Nikhil Sengupta, Romy van der Lee, Guido M. van Koningsbruggen, Jason P. Martens, André Rabelo, and Robbie M. Sutton. 2022. Science Skepticism Across 24 Countries. Social Psychological and Personality Science 13(1):102–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550621100 1329. Salzburger Nachrichten. 2022. „Polaschek will Wissenschaftsskepsis bekämpfen.“ Salzburger Nachrichten. https://www.sn.at/politik/innenpolitik/polaschek-will-wissenschaftsskepsis-bekaempfen-119367877 (Created 3 Apr 2022). Accessed 1 Apr 2023. Scheitle, Christopher P., and Katie E. Corcoran. 2021. COVID-19 skepticism in relation to other forms of science skepticism. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World 7:237802312110498. https:// doi.org/10.1177/23780231211049841. Spampatti, Tobia, Ulf J.J. Hahnel, Evelina Trutnevyte, and Tobias Brosch. 2023. Psychological inoculation strategies to fight climate disinformation across 12 countries. Nature Human Behaviour https://doi. org/10.1038/s41562-023-01736-0. Starkbaum, Johannes, Thomas König, and Klaus Taschwer. 2022. „IHS Policy Brief: Impulse Für Einen Neustart Der Wissenschaftskommunikation in Österreich.“ IHS Policy Brief. https://irihs.ihs.ac.at/id/ eprint/6082/. Accessed 7 Mar 2023. Starkbaum, Johannes, Katrin Auel, Valentina Bobi, Simon Fuglsang, Peter Grand, Erich Griessler, Thomas König, et al. 2023. Ursachenstudie Wissenschaftsund Demokratieskepsis. Vienna: Institut for Advanced Studies. Stehr, Nico. 2023. Moderne Wissensgesellschaften. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Stoetzer, Lasse S., and Florian Zimmermann. 2024. A representative survey experiment of motivated climate change denial. Nature Climate Change 14(2):198–204. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-02301910-2. Strauss, Anselm L., and Juliet M. Corbin. 1998. Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, 2nd edn., Thousand Oaks: SAGE. Suldovsky, Brianne. 2016. In science communication, why does the idea of the public deficit always return? Exploring key influences. Public Understanding of Science 25(4):415–426. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0963662516629750. Taschwer, Klaus. 2021. „Österreichs Fatale Wissenschaftsskepsis.“ Der Standard. https://www.derstandard. at/story/2000131037835/oesterreichs-fatale-wissenschaftsskepsis (Created 10 Nov 2021). Accessed 1 Apr 2023. Ten Kate, Josje, Willem De Koster, and Jeroen Van der Waal. 2021. Following your gut’ or ‘questioning the scientific evidence’: understanding vaccine skepticism among more-educated Dutch parents. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 62(1):85–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022146520986118. Weber, Max. 1946. Science as a vocation. In Max weber: essays in sociology, 129–156. Oxford: Oxford University Press. translated by H. H. Gerth and Mills Wright. Wilsdon, James, and Rebecca Willis. 2004. See-through science: why public engagement needs to move upstream. London: Demos. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3844.3681. Wynne, Brian. 1996. May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert–lay knowledge divide. In Risk, environment and modernity: towards a new ecology, ed. Scott Lash, Bronislaw Szerszynski, 44–83. London: SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446221983. Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Johannes Starkbaum is a sociologist and political scientist and received his Ph.D. from the University of Vienna in 2019. He has been researching the interaction of science and society in the fields of medicine, mobility and science policy for more than 10 years. His current research focuses on science for policy as well as on socio-economic energy communities. Recent publications: “Navigating care: understanding cancer patients’ experiences with systemic radionuclide therapy”, 2025, Supportive Care in Cancer, https:// doi.org/10.1007/s00520-025-09380-2, with S. Thircuir et al. | “Responsible Innovation across societal sectors: a practice perspective on Quadruple Helix collaboration”, Journal of Responsible Innovation, 2024, https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2024.2414531, with Braun et al. K Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie (2025) 50:20 Page 23 of 23 20 Erich Griessler studied sociology and history in Vienna and Maastricht and holds a PhD in sociology. Before joining the IHS in 1999, he conducted research at the University of Vienna, the AIT and the Ludwig Boltzmann Society. In 2016 he started a research group on science, technology and social change at the IHS, which he led until 2023. His research interests include social studies of science and technology, ethical, legal and social aspects of research and innovation and democratic participation. Recent publications: “The Regulation of Assisted Reproductive Technologies in Europe. Variation, Convergence and Trends” (2022) with L. Slepiˇ cková et al. (eds.). Routledge | “Improve alignment of research policy and societal values”, Science, 369 (6499), pp. 39–41, 2020, with P. Novitzky et al. Peter Grand is project leader of the European Social Survey (ESS) in Austria at IHS since 2017. His research interests focus on the analysis of behavioral and attitudinal data, welfare attitudes and electoral behavior as well as on the interactions between ecological and social attitudes. Recent publications: “Deservingness als Heuristik oder als Automatismus?” Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 48, 2023, 11–36, with M. Fink et al. | “Welfare solidarities in the age of mass migration: Evidence from European Social Survey 2016”, Acta Politica, 56(2), 2021, 351–375, with M. Fink et al. Fabian Seiser is student Assistant at the Institute for Advanced Studies and a master student in the field of Science and Technology Studies at the University of Vienna. His interests are oriented towards participatory methodologies, democracy, and deliberative formats as well as memory work and Serious Game Design. Thomas König is managing director of the Austrian Council for Sciences, Technology, and Innovation (FORWIT). His fields of expertise are on the interplay of science and politics, scientific research organisations, and the historical and epistemological foundations of the social sciences. Recent academic publications: “A Case of Scientific Policy Advice in Austria During the Pandemic” (2025, https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11024-025-09572-4, with M. Stampfer) | “Multi-layered sampling strategy for qualitative interviews” (2025, https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2025.2453935, with E. Mohammadi and B. Zimmermann). K