The theoretical conflict between democracy and technocracy (rule by those with knowledge or skill) is an issue of ever-present interest in political science and democratic theory. In recent decades, much scholarship has shown that the influence of science and scientists over politics has grown more and more significant, in different ways. However, what seems to be an overlooked and understudied aspect of this relationship is how the scientific community, theoretically integral to technocratic forms of power due to their role as producers and first-hand disseminators of knowledge, themselves think and feel about their role in society and in relation to politics. This thesis seeks to remedy this perceived gap in the literature using a qualitative interview study with a number of professors from different fields at one Swedish university. It finds that the respondents are clearly sceptical about the feasibility of advancing scientists to positions of authority (i.e., technocracy), while at the same time emphasising scientific knowledge as an important or the pre-eminent basis for policy-making. In an attempt to remedy a priori theoretical insufficiencies and capture respondents’ expressed attitudes, the analysis culminated in two propositional theoretic models of decision making.