Page 370 - Invited Paper Session (IPS) - Volume 1

IPS169 Markku L.
vigilance (Lenard 2008; van Deth & Zmerli 2010, 2665). The current mistrust of
statistics and indicators should not be seen as an exclusively negative
phenomenon. Mistrust can, under certain conditions, constitute an asset in
efforts to bring about a more reflexive indicator culture. But what are those
conditions? When and how can mistrust be turned into a constructive force? I
can only provide a few pointers towards possible means of building on
mistrust, to be tested and confirmed via further empirical research.
A distinction between mistrust and distrust may be a first conceptual step
forward. While mistrust reflects a wait-and-see attitude and associated action,
the core of distrust is the desire to take distance. In other words, a mistrustful
individual retains the hope and expectation that the trustee might, after all,
prove trustworthy, whereas distrust implies the loss of such hope (Kuryo 2011).
Lenard (2008, 319) describes mistrust as an unstable situation, in which people
“make no decisions in advance about whether to trust others”, but “consider
a range of questions before making a decision”, concerning the immediate
risks and benefits involved, possible ‘safety nets’ in case of trust being
betrayed, and possibilities of gaining more information to back up one’s
decisions in the near future.
For indicators, constructive mistrust might entail vigilance, from civil
society actors or other stakeholders, towards the producers of official
indicators. Calls for openness and transparency of data, for greater
participation by the various potential user communities, and demands for
greater relevance of indicators could constitute useful civic vigilance. By
keeping a critical eye on producers of official statistics and indicators, and by
helping to show their strengths and weaknesses, such vigilance can actually
help to improve both the relevance of indicators and the reputation of
statistical offices. Trust and mistrust would thereby operate in tandem, with
vigilant mistrust helping to strengthen the necessary trust in official statistics.
The example provided by Ràfols of the potential usefulness of STI indicators,
when ”used to challenge the scientific establishment (Martin and Irvine 1983),
particularly in low-trust countries with a tradition of nepotism (Ràfols et al.
2016).”
Distrust, by contrast, is potentially more problematic, as it can feed on
suspicion close to paranoia, and manifest itself in the spreading of doubt, for
instance via social media. These are the kind of phenomena that Davies warns
against, the world in which facts, statistics and indicators do not matter,
alternative facts, etc. Lenard (2008, 316) describes distrust as a danger to
democracy, “an attitude that reflects suspicion or cynicism about the actions
of others; people are deemed untrustworthy in part because they have over
time provided (what is taken as) evidence that they cannot be trusted”. The
stability, evoked by Lenard (2008) as a key feature of distrust, reflects the
reciprocal, asymmetric and self-reinforcing characteristics of trust and mistrust

359 | I S I W S C 2 0 1 9