Send message to Authors

Paper short abstract

A comparative analysis of parliamentary debates in five countries examines how scientific authority is negotiated in politics, showing how research is strategically invoked and contested. The paper examines the politics of expertise in democratic institutions amid contemporary populist challenges.

Paper long abstract

Recent debates in Science and Technology Studies examine how the authority of expertise is negotiated in contemporary politics, particularly amid populist challenges to expert knowledge. While much attention has focused on explicit contestation of science, less is known about how research is routinely mobilized within democratic political institutions. This contribution examines how research and science are invoked and framed in parliamentary debates.

The analysis draws on a qualitative analysis of 325 parliamentary documents from 2023 across five countries: Australia, Germany, Poland, United Kingdom, and South Africa. Using a keyword search for research or science, the study identifies 6,091 coded segments. An inductively developed coding scheme captures different ways in which research appears in parliamentary discourse: as evidence supporting political arguments, as expressions of value attributed to science, and as instances where research agendas are problematized.

The findings show that parliamentary actors rarely reject science outright. Instead, critique more often targets the credibility of specific research outcomes or research activities. Conversely, when invoking scientific evidence, speakers frequently appeal to the authority of particular research institutions. These patterns are consistent across the five cases countries, while differences in framing seems primarily along the political spectrum.

By tracing how research is mobilized in parliamentary debates, the paper contributes to STS discussions on the politics of expertise and epistemic authority in democratic societies. The analysis highlights how scientific knowledge is strategically invoked, contested, and reframed within parliamentary politics at a time when the authority of science is simultaneously relied upon and challenged.