Page 371 - Invited Paper Session (IPS) - Volume 1

IPS169 Markku L.
(Slovic 1993). Hence, Davies (2018) notes: “Whereas it is impossible to
conclusively prove that a politician is morally innocent or that a news report is
undistorted, it is far easier to demonstrate the opposite. Scandals, leaks,
whistleblowing and revelations of fraud all serve to confirm our worst
suspicions.”
However, unlike Lenard (2008, 318), who sees distrust as “by and large
inimical to democracy”, but “mistrust is in some ways good for democracy”, I
argue that even distrust can have its constructive side. The notion of
‘alternative facts’ indeed points towards the fact that the desire to take
distance via strategies of independence, autonomy and autarky can be
beneficial for society, in fuelling autonomous civil society activity (e.g.
Lehtonen & de Carlo 2019). Instead of false data and fake news used to
provide “alternative facts”, constructive distrust could manifest itself in the
production of indicators that represent framings radically distinct to those of
the dominant official indicators and statistics. Instead of contesting and
challenging the existing indicators, this type of distrustful indicators would
provide an independent alternative, building on either alternative data sources
or official statistics. As opposed to mistrustful vigilance, constructive distrust
would represent an alternative, these indicators not discussing and
challenging directly the dominant indicators, but would provide truly
alternative, hitherto neglected, framings. Examples from this type of distrust
can be found in the development of radically alternative accounting methods
and frameworks, including indicators such as ecological footprint and various
well-being indicators. Obviously the distinction between mistrustful vigilance
and distrustful autonomy is not sharp and clear-cut: also radically alternative
indicator frameworks can indirectly shape mainstream indicator work.

6. Discussion and Conclusion: Post-truth, Big Data, and cultural
differences?
In this paper, I have argued that indicator work would do well in drawing
on lessons from social science literature on the respective roles, virtues and
benefits of trust, mistrust and distrust. In particular, both mistrust and distrust
can have virtues that could be intentionally exploited in indicator work, not
least in the current context of ‘post-truth’, Big Data, and multiplication of data
sources. Statistical institutions in their attempts to safeguard the public
interest against the risk of the emergence of private-sector data oligopolies,
yet the traditional model of authority of these institutions is no longer
operational: indicator work needs innovate, engagement with data users and
new data communication and visualisation technologies, taking seriously the
importance of contextualisation, if indicators are to engender trust.
In practice, this could entail measures such as:

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