Re-thinking trust in Scotland: from theory to practice

5. Summary and reflections: What can Scotland do to improve trust, based on evidence?

The evidence we have available to us shows that the public’s trust in Scottish government has declined, making it a topic of increased attention in Scotland and for the Scottish Government. To demonstrate the importance of trust and improving how we measure trust, this report links trust to democracy, including questions about what makes a healthy democracy, what levels of trust are important to democracy and, what levels can pose a potential threat? It also shows that trust is a complex and multi-dimensional concept, understood and measured in different ways. It is within this context that this report has been produced, forming a first step in developing Scottish Government’s strategic approach to trust and transparency.

The main research question has been: what can Scotland do to improve trust, based on evidence? To answer this question, the report aimed to map existing knowledge on trust and its potential gaps. There has been a focus on critically examining how existing knowledge on trust is greatly shaped, and at times limited, by the methods used to produce this knowledge. As a result, this report has focused on conceptual, empirical, and methodological aspects of trust.

Conceptually, understanding and framing trust as part of a family (trust, mistrust and distrust) is a beneficial approach to take. Evidence shows us that scepticism represents an important feature of a democracy and democratic engagement, and is not necessarily representative of distrust. This can be better understood when the concept of the ‘critical citizen’ comes into view: people who often express political views and engage in political activities, with the notable aim of keeping office-holders accountable. This is why scepticism should be encouraged and enabled by governments, and why constructive engagement with scepticism – rather than fear of scepticism – can help to maintain and improve public trust.

The second important takeaway from using the ‘family of trust’ framework, is that it is when mistrust turns into widespread distrust or cynicism that the quality of democracy may change. What can governments do to avoid scepticism from developing into cynicism or distrust?

This adds nuance to debates around declining trust, by challenging assumptions that: (a) we only measure trust in a binary, as opposed to its relation to its ‘family’, (b) trust and distrust are opposites or symmetrical, and (c) a lack of trust therefore signifies a threat to democracy.

The report has also critiqued potential over-reliance on (national and international) survey data to understand and measure trust. The main knowledge produced on trust today is through surveys, many of which focus exclusively on the concept of trust and have yet to design questions that engagement with the ‘family of trust’. Recognising trust as complex and multi-dimensional, a methodological exploration of how to measure trust in this way would be beneficial for government. The report has highlighted the need for more mixed-method research, as well as more qualitative research, to broaden our understanding of levels of trust, how they transition from one to the other, and their consequences for democracy. There is also the need for more research on trust in Scotland, producing evidence that is more accurate, takes national context into account, and therefore offers improved scope for operationalisation. This evidence should be considered alongside learning from other countries, including of initiatives and policies being undertaken that aim to improve trust in government.