From climate change and technological advancements to healthcare decisions and food choices, navigating the complex landscape of risks has become an integral part of our daily lives. The interactions and impact of these risks have also made it increasingly evident how experts and the public differ in their perception and responses. This gap in risk perception is not just a matter of differing opinions; it has profound implications for public policy, individual behaviour, and the collective well-being of society.
At its core, the gap between expert and public risk perception can be attributed to a myriad of factors, many of which are deeply intertwined. These disparities are not always a result of ignorance or stubbornness; rather, they often arise from a complex interplay of knowledge, emotion, communication, and societal influences.
Getting to the heart of the topic is the main motivation behind Project Wavelength, IPUR’s flagship project to uncover the fundamental differences in the ways publics and experts perceive risk, with the aim of enabling risk communicators to better attune information and guidance to the frequency of their audiences.
But in order to study these differences, we first need to be able to identify who the ‘experts’ are, a subject that in itself raises a host of issues.
Workshop to understand the role of experts
To delve into questions around expert identity and the role of experts to organisations and to society in the face of risk, scholars from multiple disciplines joined the “Who are the experts? Crossing international perspectives from the social sciences”, workshop on 31 August at NUS.
Jointly organised by IPUR and the Laboratoire de Recherche en Gestion de Paris Assas, Paris-Panthéon-Assas University, the workshop was made possible thanks to funding from the Merlion programme, which aims to create and strengthen bilateral scientific cooperation between France and Singapore.
The workshop convened by Dr Olivia Jensen and Dr Claire Picque-Kiraly.
| Presentation Title | Presenters |
|---|---|
| Do experts and the public disagree about climate change risk? | Olivia Jensen |
| Trust and mistrust in experts: an exploratory case study of an R&D center | Claire Picque-Kiraly and Laura D'Hont |
| What experts think about public risk perceptions | Leonard Lee |
| Helping experts in climate change improve science communication: insights from interviews with international policy makers | Wändi Bruine de Bruin |
| An expert, I presume? Opening new perspectives on expert definition | Pedro Gonzalo and Claire Picque-Kiraly |
| Trust in experts: behaviour change and support for the government during a pandemic: panel evidence from 13 countries | Simon Porcher |
| The role of experts in group decision-making under risk and ambiguity | Yiyun Shou |
| Identity of experts: the role of trials | Claire Picque-Kiraly |
| Geopolitical risk analysis, still a people’s game? | Antonio M Ribeiro |
| The challenge of recognising expertise in environments decentralised by public blockchains: the case of decentralised arbitration | Yann Aouidef and Claire Picque-Kiraly |
| Understanding the expert-patient dynamics in diabetes management | Carolyn Lo |
| Toxic experts | Mustafa Ozbilgin |
In his presentation, Prof Leonard Lee, IPUR Director, presented initial findings from Project Wavelength. He noted that different risks feature different risk profile characteristics – such as potential for consequences that are fatal, catastrophic, uncontrollable and dreadful, or whether the risks were well understood or known by scientists and the public. These perceived characteristics offer some insight as to why some risks receive social acceptance, while other risks are rejected, and importantly, explain why experts may view risks differently from the public.
Laying out five factors which influence risk perception: 1) Information; 2) Characteristics of the risk source; 3) Affect and emotion; 4) Cognitive biases and 5) Social amplification; Prof Lee noted that although the public tend to make their inferences based on heuristics and prior observations rather than statistical evidence, experts themselves are not immune to biases in risk perception and may underestimate risks when they overlook critical pathways to disaster.
Other presentations and discussions at the experts’ workshop looked at multiple dimensions of what it means to be an expert, the different kinds of experts, and how experts operate in settings relating to trust, decision-making and organisational structure.
Identity of experts
Dr Picque-Kiraly explored the role of trials in the identity construction of experts within organisations. By analysing the limitations and challenges in which experts are identified, Dr Picque-Kiraly noted that identifying as an expert goes beyond an official status formalisation: it requires ‘trials’ – testing and being placed in challenging situations. This could take the form of mobilising acquired expertise or acquiring new knowledge to stay relevant. She emphasised that the key to maintaining or reinforcing their identity as experts lies in their ability to update, complete or renew their expertise in the face of concrete situations.
The notion of trials also serves to highlight the precarious nature of expert identity, implying that “expert” status is constantly subject to change. To identify themselves as experts, individuals rely on their organisations to provide conditions which allow them to thrive and succeed.
Experts in public policy-making
Central to the discussions at the workshop was the role of experts in public policy-making. Drawn from diverse fields such as academia, government, non-governmental organisations, and industry, these individuals play a pivotal role in ensuring that policies are not only well-informed but also aligned with the best interests of the public. Their contribution to the policy-making process is important, but not always perceived positively. Experts may face skepticism from the public, who may perceive them as biased or out of touch with the lived experiences of citizens as well as from politicians.
To harness the value of experts to organisations and to society in the face of risk, there needs to a better understanding of who the experts are, how they see themselves and how they are perceived by others.
Development of Project Wavelength
Addressing the gaps between experts and public risk perception is a complex and multifaceted challenge. Experts must recognise the importance of clear, transparent communication that takes into account the emotional and cultural dimensions of risk perception. Public engagement and education initiatives are essential to empower individuals to critically evaluate information and make informed decisions.
To this end, IPUR is devising a conceptual framework as part of Project Wavelength to better understand risk perception gaps which incorporates societal-level, domain-level and perspective-level factors. Alongside this, the Wavelength team has been gathering data on public and expert perceptions of risks through surveys and focus groups. Over the coming months, IPUR will be publishing findings from these studies which will be available on the IPUR website.
