Authority is constructed and contextual

Knowledge practices and dispositions

● understand that scientific consensus is based on the existing body of evidence, using  review and evidence synthesis publications to gain an idea of that consensus, while  also recognizing that some areas of research may not have reached consensus and  that there is controversy within science;  

● are motivated to find authoritative sources, whether subscription or open, recognizing  that authority may be conferred or manifested in unexpected ways; 

● dissect claims to authority to assess whether they are well-founded for the context in  which they are made; 

● critically approach published research for bias, flaws in methodology or data analysis,  and identify funding sources and other potential conflicts of interest;  

● value updates, corrections, and retractions as part of the iterative process of scientific  knowledge creation; 

● value the approaches that members of non-hegemonic scientific communities  (community science, Indigenous knowledge, etc.) may apply to assess or evaluate authority; have the humility to seek out and learn these methods of evaluation when appropriate; and 

● understand that Western systems of authority are impacted by the structure of  tenure and reappointment in academia (e.g., number of publications in high  impact journals).

● understand that scientific consensus is based on the existing body of evidence, using review and evidence synthesis publications to gain an idea of that consensus, while also recognizing that some areas of research may not have reached consensus and that there is controversy within science;

● are motivated to find authoritative sources, whether subscription or open, recognizing that authority may be conferred or manifested in unexpected ways;

 ● dissect claims to authority to assess whether they are well-founded for the context in which they are made;

● critically approach published research for bias, flaws in methodology or data analysis, and identify funding sources and other potential conflicts of interest;

● value updates, corrections, and retractions as part of the iterative process of scientific knowledge creation;

● value the approaches that members of non-hegemonic scientific communities (community science, Indigenous knowledge, etc.) may apply to assess or evaluate authority; have the humility to seek out and learn these methods of 8 evaluation when appropriate;

● understand that Western systems of authority are impacted by the structure of tenure and reappointment in academia (e.g., number of publications in high impact journals).