Participation to enhance the quality of science

From a scientific perspective, stakeholder participation is claimed to enhance the quality of science. According to Funtowicz and Ravetz (1990), the hazy boundaries between science and policy threaten the quality of science (Berk et al., 1999; 30). In policy and politics, science is exposed to games of power and abuse. Consequently the traditional scientific values such as independence, integrity and its critical function towards society decline. This concern is shared by Woodhouse and Nieusma who state:

“The point is not whether values are present in expert knowledge – of course they are – but whether some people’s values are systematically over-represented through access to and representation by expertise, while others’ are systematically under-represented.… Professionalised expertise in the 20th century arguably has become captured to an indefensible extent by large organisations and by elite who run them and benefit disproportionately from them” (Woodhouse and Nieusma, 2001; 79-80).

Funtowicz and Ravetz note that the unstructured character of environmental problems makes it impossible for scientists to produce ‘pure science’, since unambiguous scientific definitions of such problems are impossible. The answer to the problem cannot be to restore the traditional function of science. Rather, the science-policy interaction should be made transparent by designing new rules of conduct:

“The traditional methodologies of scientific research offer insufficient protection against the corruptions of reason which are encouraged in modern conditions, even in our dealings with the world of Nature. We need a methodology which both comprehends the issue of quality of information, and also operationalises the degree of quality, from the best to the worst. Otherwise we have at best only vague pronouncements, to provide an alternative to the old faith in science as embodying the True and the Good” (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1990; 32).

Funtowicz and Ravetz argue that a new picture of science is required, which they refer to as post-normal science. Post-normal science takes into account the uncertainties, value-loadings and commitments that characterise contemporary policy-related science (Ravetz, 1999; 648). Post-normal science is participatory in that the review process not only includes peers from the same disciplinary area but also scientists working in related areas and policy stakeholders. The participation of stakeholders in this so-called ‘extended peer review’ may help to bridge the gap between the way a problem is defined by members of the scientific community and the daily experiences and practices of the actors who have to contribute to the solution (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1992, 1993, 1994). Taking into account the diversity of stakeholder views and perspectives can help prevent the misuse of science and restore its integrity (Berk et al., 1999; 31).

Similar ideas can be found in the concept of transdisciplinarity (Gibbons et al., 1994; Häberli et al., 2000; Thompson Klein et al., 2001), which advocates a new mode of knowledge production, that involves stakeholders in the formulation of a (complex) problem and its potential solutions. Like post-normal science, transdisciplinarity pleas for a review process of knowledge that is extended to non-scientists in order to make knowledge more ‘socially robust’.

Date: 2015-12-11; view: 750