Democratizing Expertise and Environmental Governance: Different Approaches to the Politics of Science and their Relevance for Policy Analysis

Abstract

In the context of an increased attention to issues of participation, legitimacy, transparency and accountability in the field of environmental politics and policy, collaborative governance arrangements have been promoted to rearticulate the interactions between experts, policy-makers and citizens. This article discusses the relationship between the democratization of environmental governance and the democratization of expertise by focusing on two influential frameworks developed in the field of Science and Technology Studies: the framework of post-normal science, as elaborated by Funtowicz and Ravetz, and the notion of co-production developed by Jasanoff. By discussing in details the original formulations of these concepts, and by reviewing works adopting the two frameworks in the fields of climate science and policy, we discuss their potential contribution to the analysis of the politics of science in the context of environmental policy-making. We suggest that dynamics and outputs of the knowledge-making processes play a different role in the two frameworks, which reflects different sensibilities with respect to policy analysis—and in turn allows for a wide and diverse set of analytical opportunities.

Key Words:

• Expertise
• politics of science
• climate change
• post-normal science
• co-production

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my gratitude to Marco Allegra, Tiago Santos Pereira, Liz Sharp, Ana Cordeiro Santos, João Rodrigues and to three anonimous reviewers, for the valuable comments and suggestions offered on previous versions of this article. The usual disclaimer applies.

Funding

This work has been realized with the support of the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia—FCT), with the fellowship number SFRH/BPD/73278/2010.

Notes

1. In the article, the notion of expert is used to refer to a person who has extensive skill or knowledge in a particular field (whether of social or natural sciences), and whose legitimacy to participate in the public arena of the decision-making with an identifiable role is socially acknowledged. In this sense, the terms expertise (the extensive skill or knowledge in a particular field) and expert (the person carrying expertise) are used as closely associated notions.

2. It is worth mentioning that other scholars in the field refer to the idea of co-production. Jasanoff, however, has offered an extensive and articulated formulation (see Irwin, 2008, pp. 589–590).

3. The scholars edited a special issue on the topic on the journal Science and Public Policy, volume 30, number 3, June 2003, including articles from Nowotny, Jasanoff, Rayner, among the others.

4. Movements have arisen with the specific aim of democratizing science (Democratizing Science Movements, see McCormick, 2009), aiming at legitimating the role of lay knowledge in science and decision-making, and at changing the value structure underlying science by drawing attention to the biased nature of research trajectories and the uncertainties surrounding the impact of new technologies (McCormick, 2009, pp. 3–4).

5. As in the case of Mode 2, proposed by Gibbons, Limoges, Nowotny, Schwartzman, Scott and Trow in 1994 (Gibbons et al., 1994), a new paradigm of knowledge production that differs from the old paradigm of scientific discovery (called Mode 1) for being more socially distributed, application-oriented, trans-disciplinary and subject to multiple accountabilities (Nowotny, Scott, & Gibbons, 2003).

6. As in the case of the normative theory of expertise proposed by Collins and Evans in 2002 (developed in their 2007 book), developed through an extensive work of classification of all the kinds of expertise that might be used to cope with scientific and technological problems, with the aim of defining who should (and who should not) contribute to decision-making by virtue of his expertise.

7. Even if Jasanoff prefers to refer to co-production as an ‘idiom' rather than as a theory or a framework (see Jasanoff, 2004a), for the sake of clarity we will use a more common terminology.

8. I particularly thank one of the anonymous reviewers of the article for his/her clarifications about the intellectual history of the construct, as well as for encouraging a deeper engagement with the previous works of Ravetz (quoted) to understand better the epistemological foundations of post-normal framework and proposal. Of course, the responsibility for the final result is entirely mine.

9. For the authors (Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1993, p. 740) the concept of ‘normal science’ introduced by Kuhn (1962) refers to the routine puzzle solving by which science advances between conceptual revolutions, a situation in which uncertainties are managed automatically and values are not under discussion.

10. The authors developed a notational system called ‘NUSAP' for the management and communication of uncertainty in science for policy, providing five categories for characterizing any quantitative statement: Numeral, Unit, Spread, Assessment and Pedigree (Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1990). The original system has been further developed with the contribution of other colleagues and particularly of Van der Sluijs (see par. 2), see the website http://www.nusap.net/

11. The post-normal diagram of Funtowicz and Ravetz (1993, p. 745) is developed around two variables: system uncertainty and decision stakes (explained by the authors in terms of all the various costs, benefits and value commitments that are involved in the issue through the various stakeholders, Funtowicz and Ravetz (1993, p. 744). When dealing with questions that involve low levels of each, they suggest the use of ‘applied science'. In dealing with medium levels of both variables, ‘professional consultancy' is suggested. And when questions involve high levels of these two variables, ‘post-normal science' is called for.

12. See Funtowicz and Ravetz (1994) for an extended discussion about the management of quality of information and the role of ‘extended peer review' in the context of ecological economics.

13. In an article published in 1993 (p. 754), the authors clarified that they are not arguing for the democratization of science on the basis of a generalized wish for the greatest possible extension of democracy in society but because of the important role of the extension of peer community for the effectiveness of science in meeting the new challenges of global environmental problems. On this point, see also Turnpenny, Jones, and Lorenzoni (2011, p. 292).

14. This was indeed one of the focuses of the book written by Ravetz in 1971, analysing the pathologies of what the author called ‘industrialised science’ and developing from the observation of the paradox of the ‘success' of Science, able to advance despite its social, negotiated and fallible nature: ‘No single result in science can be proven to be true; and indeed, most are not merely untrue ( … ) but are also of a very temporary usefulness and life' (Ravetz, 1971, p. 236).

15. The North Pole of their proposal being the notion of ‘quality': ‘We argue that there is a core of reality in this post-normal situation, which is quality. And even if quality itself is complex, contested and corruptible, it is none the less real for that' (Ravetz, 2005, p. 25).

16. In this sense, she speaks of the ‘politicization of science' (Jasanoff, 2012) in terms of a research agenda, rather than as a threat or a danger for democracy.

17. As opposed to the vision of citizens as non-knower incorporated or suggested by the ‘public understanding of science' or PUS movement, see Jasanoff (2012, pp. 26–27).

18. According to the Thompson Reuters Web of Science fewer than 30 papers representing 17 academic fields appeared in 1987 on the topic of climate change: in the following 24 years these numbers have risen to nearly 19,000 papers representing 178 fields (data for 2011). During this period, the contribution of social sciences passed from just four papers to more then 1500, the main contributors being the disciplines of Geography and Economics. See http://chronicle.com/article/Climate-Change-Research-Heats/131775

19. The original blogpost and the comments could be found at: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/09/climategate-plausibility-and-the-blogosphere-in-the-post-normal-age/ (accessed November 2013). The blogpost received a huge number of comments (almost 600) and many criticisms. See Ravetz (2011) for a reply to some of the criticisms.

20. The reference is to the introduction to the special issue dedicated to climate change as a post-normal science that Werner Krauss, Mike Schäfer and Hans von Storch edited in 2012 for the journal ‘Nature and Culture'.

21. It is worth reminding how the controversy ended: eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. See the Wikipedia entry on the topic, for a detailed account of the episode: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy (accessed November 2013).

22. See also Turnpenny et al. (2011) for a typology of post-normal science-related research.

23. The author has recently focused on the institutions of climate change science and policy, proposing an analysis of the practices of the IPCC through the lens of the post-normal notion of uncertainty (Van der Sluijs, 2012).

24. See Chapter 8 for a narrative of the Lomborg's controversy. Pielke discussed the topic previously in the 2004 special issue of the journal Environmental Science & Policy that he edited with Steve Rayner, dedicated to the controversy and to its broader implications for science and policy.

25. Farrell (2011, pp. 343–346) has discussed the same controversy as example of an emergent, phenomenological extended-peer-review process.

26. The 2007 book exemplifies four ideal-types of experts in policy-making: the Pure Scientists, the Issue Advocate, the Science Arbiter and the Honest Broker.

27. See Jasanoff (2010, pp. 246–248), for an account of some attempts in that respect.

28. The programme was called LUSTRA—Land Use Strategies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions—and was funded by the Swedish Government with the general aim of contributing to climate policies in the land use and forestry sector (Lövbrand, 2007, p. 42).

29. The project run from 2006 to 2009, involving a number of European (and few non-European) renowned universities and research centres in climate science.

30. As suggested by Irwin (2006) the politics of the public talk (that is, the talk both by and about the public) emerges in itself as a relevant site for analysis (see also Macnaghten & Guivant, 2011).

31. This is the main reason for which Jasanoff speaks of co-production in terms of an idiom, rather than as a theory, see note 7.

32. This turn emerged from the intellectual and professional crisis informing policy studies' community around 1980 (Hoppe, 1999). A number of approaches challenging mainstream positivism in policy analysis, and mostly grounded in social constructivism, emerged: ‘narrative policy analysis’ (Roe, 1994), ‘interpretive policy analysis’ (Yanow, 2000) and ‘deliberative policy analysis’ (Fischer, 2003; Hajer & Wagenaar, 2003) have come to be identified under the name Interpretive Policy Analysis.