Academics who post their political views on social media may suffer from a “credibility penalty”, with those who express the most “polarised” views the least likely to be trusted by the public, a?report has claimed.
, published by researchers at the University of Bath, WZB Berlin Social Science Center and Imperial College Business School, measured scientists’ and academics’ political posts on?X (formerly Twitter) and their impact on public perceptions of the poster’s credibility.
It finds that academics who do not engage in online political debates are seen as the most trustworthy, and the more divisive a scholar’s opinions were, the less credible they became. The impact was felt across the political divide, with respondents less likely to engage with content and research from academics who expressed strong left- or right-wing views.
Not only does this “erode” public perceptions of academics’ credibility, but it “potentially exacerbates affective polarisation” across society, warns the report, which has been published as a CESifo Working Paper.
It comes as academics and universities face questions about their social media use. The University of Leeds earlier this year banned staff from posting content that was “insulting” or could be “considered likely to cause serious distress”, while Matthew Goodwin recently took redundancy from his position at the University of Kent following controversial posts on social media, although he insisted that these posts had nothing to do with his departure.
Some 17,000 participants from across the US were shown vignettes featuring fake academic profiles with different political posts. They were then asked to rate, on a scale of one to 10, how credible they considered the academic and their research to?be, and also their willingness to read an opinion piece written by the scholar.
Academics with strong Republican views were rated 39?per cent less credible than neutral peers, while those with strong Democratic views were seen as 11?per cent less credible.
The researchers also analysed posts from 100,000 academics’ social media channels between 2016 and 2022, and found that almost half (44?per cent) had engaged in political debates on?X, making them six times more likely than the average user to do so (7?per cent).
Academics in the social sciences and the humanities were found to be the most outspoken, at 65?per cent and 58?per cent, respectively. A gender divide also emerged in the research, with female academics more likely to be politically active than men (50?per cent, compared with 40?per cent).
Online scientific disinformation has risen in recent years, the paper says, and polarising academics coupled with a decline in trust of online information might mean that members of the public are more likely to ignore important scientific information on issues such as climate change or public health.
Eleonora Alabrese, a lecturer in economics at Bath and a co-author of the report, said trust in academic research – and especially scientific research – was “key” for making informed decisions.
“This study shows how crucial it is for academics to find the right balance between being visible and staying credible,” Dr?Alabrese added.
