Send message to Authors

Paper short abstract

Using a case of conflict in an interdisciplinary science communication project, the contribution examines how disagreements over “scientific consensus” reveal divergent disciplinary assumptions and how such frictions produce confessional tales and expose the vulnerabilities of collaboration.

Paper long abstract

Conceptions of “scientific consensus” vary across research fields and publics. Moreover, explicit references to consensus serve different functions in contexts such as academia, politics, or popular media. Many scientists and communicators assume that communicating consensus is crucial for aligning science, politics, and other stakeholders in addressing real world problems. At the same time, in politicized public issues such as climate change or global health, communicating consensus poses significant challenges.

This paper offers a “confessional tale” from an interdisciplinary science communication research project involving scholars from STS, sociology, cultural studies, media studies, and science communication. In this project, a conflict arose over what is at stake when publicly problematizing the concept of scientific consensus in a handbook article. Disagreements over how to frame and communicate the project’s findings prevented the group from co-publishing their perspectives and presenting a shared position.

At first glance, this case appears to illustrate failed interdisciplinary cooperation. However, we argue that the disagreement proved analytically productive for knowledge-making and sense-making. The conflict exposed divergent assumptions about the meaning, function, and politics of “scientific consensus” across disciplinary and professional perspectives. It also stimulated new lines of empirical research on how the concept of scientific consensus is used across different societal contexts.

By analyzing this “dissensus about consensus,” the paper shows how interdisciplinary frictions can give rise to confessional tales, as team members are compelled to integrate experiences of conflict and disagreement into their professional identities. This also implies a reflection of the vulnerabilities of interdisciplinary collaboration.