| Title |
Investigating Public trust in Expert Knowledge: Narrative, Ethics, and Engagement
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11673-016-9767-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Silvia Camporesi, Maria Vaccarella, Mark Davis |
| Abstract |
"Public Trust in Expert Knowledge: Narrative, Ethics, and Engagement" examines the social, cultural, and ethical ramifications of changing public trust in the expert biomedical knowledge systems of emergent and complex global societies. This symposium was conceived as an interdisciplinary project, drawing on bioethics, the social sciences, and the medical humanities. We settled on public trust as a topic for our work together because its problematization cuts across our fields and substantive research interests. For us, trust is simultaneously a matter of ethics, social relations, and the cultural organization of meaning. We share a commitment to narrative inquiry across our fields of expertise in the bioethics of transformative health technologies, public communications on health threats, and narrative medicine. The contributions to this symposium have applied, in different ways and with different effects, this interdisciplinary mode of inquiry, supplying new reflections on public trust, expertise, and biomedical knowledge. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 7 | 32% |
| United States | 2 | 9% |
| Ireland | 1 | 5% |
| Australia | 1 | 5% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 5% |
| Canada | 1 | 5% |
| India | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 8 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 36% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 7 | 32% |
| Scientists | 4 | 18% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 64 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 6% |
| Researcher | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 16% |
| Unknown | 22 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 11 | 17% |
| Arts and Humanities | 5 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 6% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 13% |
| Unknown | 27 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 April 2017.
All research outputs
#2,439,244
of 24,166,768 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#100
of 628 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,383
of 427,388 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#3
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,166,768 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 628 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 427,388 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.