Why so many people choose not to believe in scientific research and evidence

Despite the ability to verify the facts and easily examine the results of research, a new article explains why many people simply choose not to believe the evidence.

This emerging trend leads authors to suggest social media and other alternative forums as places to share research.

"More and more evidence suggests that even when individuals are aware of research findings supported by a vast majority of studies, they often choose not to believe it," wrote Ernest O. Boyle, Ph.D. D., Associate Professor of Management Entrepreneurship at Indiana University and two co-authors.

Their conclusions appear in the Management Journal.

"There are reasons to worry about the disbelief of scientific discoveries in a wide range of professional fields, as this seems to reflect a much greater drop in the credibility of academics and scientists."

In an editorial commentary, O'Boyle and two professors from the University of Iowa – Drs. Sara Rynes and Amy Colbert – explain why people often do not believe in research results.

Some public mistrust arises from a rapid increase in the number of studies suggesting that the results of current research are not as robust as expected. Reasons range from innocent causes, such as undetected errors in analysis, to questionable research practices.

However, the authors also point to "concerted and well-funded efforts to discredit solid scientific research for political, ideological or economic purposes that interest it". This trend affects US firms and the workplace, as managers are less likely to turn to university research. advice or apply empirically validated best practices.

For example, they may not accept the idea that intelligence is the best predictor of job performance, which has been largely proven by research.

Organizational or cultural factors also play a role.

"Research that suggests the benefits of diversifying the workforce or promoting women or minorities in leadership positions may threaten the vested interests of members of currently overrepresented groups while raising hopes and expectations. the aspirations of others, "they said.

"Many people are also likely to use reasoned reasoning when evaluating research-based claims about the causes and consequences of pay inequity."

To address these challenges, O'Boyle and his colleagues said that in-house researchers should broaden the scope of research to focus on broader and larger issues, as well as the needs of clients, communities, the environment and society as a whole.

They must find opportunities to co-create research with practitioners, beyond the mere provision of data and other information. They must also improve the way they report and communicate about their research.

"For the uninitiated, the current model for publishing university research may seem strange, counterintuitive and useless," they said.

"Experts have long recommended publishing results in more accessible outlets.

"Many practitioners, students, and members of the general public now derive their information from sources that were barely used a little more than a decade ago, such as blogs, online videos, and various forms of social media. The best opportunities to … communicate research evidence to the public can be found in these alternative forums. "

These forums may include TED conferences, online forums, and open and massive online courses, known as MOOCs. O'Boyle and his co-authors also suggest that researchers must better anticipate and combat resistance to specific outcomes in their research.

"Much of what we do to bridge the gap between academic practice and publication, such as publishing in more accessible materials and training more executives, does not work if we are unable to overcome some of these barriers. natural persuasion, "O & # 39; Said Boyle.

Source: University of Indiana / Newswise

Related Articles