Advanced search
Publication Cover
Biofuels Volume 5, 2014 - Issue 3: The Biofuels Quadrilemma, Public Perceptions and Policy
Submit an article Journal homepage
124
Views
2
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Perspective

Wickedness, reflexivity, and dialogue: toward a multivalent bioenergy

Wynne WrightDepartment of Community Sustainability and Department of Sociology, 330 B Natural Resources Building, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI48824-1222, USACorrespondence[email protected]
&
Weston M. EatonDepartment of Sociology, 422 Berkey Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA
Pages 219-232 | Published online: 04 Jul 2014

References

  • Papers of special note have been highlighted as
  • *of interest
  • ** of considerable interest
  • Wright W, Reid T. Green dreams or pipe dreams? Media framing of the biofuels movement. Biomass Bioenerg. 35, 1390–99 (2011).
  • Tilman D, Socolow R, Foley JA, Hill J, Larson E, Lynd L, Pacala S, Reilly J, Searchinger T, Somerville C, Williams R. Beneficial biofuels – the food, energy, and environment trilemma. Science 325, 270–271 (2009).
  • Pimentel D, Marklein A, Toth MA, Karpoff MN, Paul GS, McCormack R, Kyriazis, Krueger T. Food versus biofuels: Environmental and economic costs. Hum. Eco. 37, 1–12 (2009).
  • Robbins, P. Political Ecology (2nd Edition). Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, MA. (2012).
  • Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR. Three types of risk assessment and the emergence of post-normal science. In: Social Theories of Risk. Krimsky S, Golding D (Eds.). Praeger, Westport, Conn (1992).
  • **Argues for an approach to science that foregrounds uncertainty and human values over prediction and control and advocates for supplementing the knowledge reservoir by incorporating citizens views, values, and experience.
  • Harding SG. Whose Science? Whose Knowledge?: Thinking from Women's Lives. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY (1991).
  • Haraway D. Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Stud. 14(3), 575–599 (1988).
  • Jasanoff S, Wynne B. Scientific knowledge and decision making. In: Human Choice and Climate Change. Rayner S, Malone EL (Eds). Battelle Press, Columbus, Ohio (1998).
  • Wynne B. Risk and environment as legitimatory discourses of technology: reflexivity inside out? Curr. Sociol. 50(3), 459–477 (2002).
  • **Argues that, as a matter of democratic necessity as well as instrumental effectiveness, the epistemological ambiguity – implicit multivalency – of ‘realist’ environmental and risk discourse has to be recognized as essential, instead of being lamented, purified and deleted.
  • Wynne B. Seasick on the third wave? Subverting the hegemony of propositionalism: Response to Collins & Evans (2002). Soc. Stud. Sci. 33(3), 401–417 (2003).
  • Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL (1962).
  • Leefers LA, Vasievich JM. Timber resources and factors affecting timber availability and sustainability for Kinross, Michigan. Feedstock Supply Chain Center of Energy Excellence. Available from: www.michiganforestbiofuels.org/sites/default/files/Attachment%201_Feedstock%20Inventory%20report_v3_01072011.pdf (2010).
  • Jasanoff S, Sang-Hyun K. Containing the atom: sociotechnical imaginaries and nuclear power in the United States and South Korea. Minerva 47, 119–146 (2009).
  • State of Michigan. The clean, renewable, and energy efficiency act. Available from: www.michigan.gov/documents/mpsc/2007-SNB-0213_254495_7.pdf (2008).
  • Mueller LS, Shivan GC, Potter-Witter K. Michigan woody biomass supply snapshot. Department of Forestry, Michigan State University. Available from: http://www.michiganforestbiofuels.org/sites/default/files/michigan-woody-biomass-supply-snapshot_0.pdf N.D.
  • Hitchner S, Schelhas J. Social acceptability of biofuels among small-scale forest landowners in the U.S. South. Proceedings of the IUFRO 3.08.00 Small-Scale Forestry Conference 2012: Science for Solutions, 51–57. SR (Ed). Amherst, Massachusetts, USA. 24–27 September 2012. Amherst, MA: Family Forest Research Center. Available online at: http://iufrossf2012.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/iufro_3-08-00_proceedings_2012.pdf (2012).
  • Eaton WM, Gasteyer SP, Busch L. Bioenergy futures: framing sociotechnical imaginaries in local places. Rural Sociol. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ruso.12027/abstract (2013).
  • Van der Horst D. NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location and the politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies. Energy Policy 35, 2705–2714 (2007).
  • Eaton WE. Justifications for trust: social acceptability and controversy over renewable energy technologies. Paper presented at The Changing Political Economy of Research and Innovation. York University, Toronto, Canada. December 9, 10 (2003).
  • Frickel S, Gibbon S, Howard J, Kempner J, Ottinger G, Hess DJ. Undone science: charting social movement and civil society challenges to research agenda setting. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 35(4), 444–473 (2010).
  • Rittel HWJ, Webber MM. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences 4(2), 155–169 (1973).
  • **Introduces the idea of “wicked” problems that resist definitive description, cannot be meaningfully correct or false, and have no clear solution in the sense of definitive and objective answers.
  • Batie SS. Wicked problems and applied economics. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 90(5), 1176–1191 (2008).
  • *Argues that normal science assumptions and approaches are inadequate for addressing the complexities of wicked problems in a policy context, but that science, including social science, remains crucial for the development of alternative policies.
  • Busch L. Climate change: how debates over standards shape the biophysical, social, political and economic climate. Int. J. Sociol. Agr. Food 18(3), 167–180 (2011).
  • Conklin J. Dialogue Mapping: Building Shared Understanding of Wicked Problems. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ. (2006).
  • Fischer F. Citizen participation and the democratization of policy expertise: From theoretical inquiry to practical cases. Policy Sci. 26(3), 165–187 (1993).
  • Harmon MM, Mayer RT. Organization Theory for Public Administration. Little, Brown, Boston. (1986).
  • Kreuter MW, De Rosa C, Howze EH, Baldwin GT. Understanding wicked problems: a key to advancing environmental health promotion. Health Educ. Behav. 31(4), 441–454 (2004).
  • Carroll MS, Blatner KA, Cohn PJ, Morgan T. Managing fire danger in the forests of the US inland northwest: a classic wicked problem in public land policy. J. Forestry 105(5), 239–244 (2007).
  • Rittel HWJ. On the planning crisis: systems analysis of the “first and second generations”. Bedriftskonomen 8 (1972).
  • Gieryn, TF. Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1999).
  • Spector M, Kitsuse JI. Constructing Social Problems. De Gruyter, New York (1987).
  • Rogers EM. Diffusion of Innovations (4th Edition). Free Press, New York (1995).
  • Busch L. The Eclipse of Morality: Science, State, and Market. Aldine de Gruyter, New York (2000).
  • Dryzek JS. Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York (2000).
  • Einsiedel EF, Eastlick DL. Consensus conferences as deliberative democracy a communications perspective. Sci. Comm. 21(4), 323–343 (2000).
  • Gastil J. By Popular Demand: Revitalizing Representative Democracy through Deliberative Elections. University of California Press, Berkeley (2000).
  • Middendorf G, Busch L. Inquiry for the public good: democratic participation in agricultural research. Agr. Hum. Values 14(1), 45–57 (1997).
  • Jasanoff S. Technologies of humility: citizen participation in governing science. Minerva 41(3), 223–244 (2003).
  • *Argues that policymakers need a set of ‘technologies of humility’ for systematically assessing the unknown and uncertain. As a complement to predictive approaches, technologies of humility assume uncertainty and prioritize the need for a plurality of viewpoints.
  • Chopyak J, Levesque P. Public participation in science and technology decision making: trends for the future. Technol. Soc. 24(1-2), 155–166 (2002).
  • Sarewitz D. How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environ. Sci. Pol. 7(5), 385–403 (2004).
  • Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR. Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25(7), 739–755 (1993).
  • Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR. Post-normal science - environmental policy under conditions of complexity [Internet] (2012). Available from: http://www.nusap.net/sections.php?op=printpage&artid=13.
  • Callon M. The role of lay people in the production and dissemination of scientific knowledge. Sci. Technol. Soc. 4, 81–94 (1999).
  • Carolan MS. Democratizing knowledge sustainable and conventional agricultural field days as divergent democratic forms. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 33(4), 508–528 (2008).
  • *Highlights differences between front end and back end models of democratizing science through public deliberation in two different contexts: sustainable and conventional agriculture.
  • Epstein S. Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of knowledge. University of California Press, Berkeley (1996).
  • Sclove, R. Town meetings on technology: Consensus Conferences as Democratic participation. In: Science, Technology and Democracy. Kleinman DL (Ed.): SUNY Press, Albany, NY (2000).
  • Dewey, J. The Public and its Problems. Henry Holt, New York (1927).
  • Busch L. Standards: Recipes for Reality. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (2011).
  • de Vries, G. What is political in sub-politics?: how Aristotle might help STS. Soc. Stud. Sci. 37(5), 781–809 (2007).
  • Feyerabend P. Science in a Free Society. NLB, London (1978).
  • Brown JR. Who Rules in Science?: An Opinionated Guide to the Wars. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA (2001).
  • Cass N. Participatory-Deliberative Engagement: A Literature Review. Published by the School of Environment and Development, Manchester University, Manchester M13 9PL, UK. (2006). Available from: http://geography.exeter.ac.uk/beyond_nimbyism/deliverables/outputs.shtml.
  • Fischer F. Citizens, Experts, and the Environment: The Politics of Local Knowledge. Duke University Press, Durham, NC. (2000).
  • Jasanoff S. Designs On Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton University Press, NJ (2005).
  • Gastil J, Levine P (Eds). The Deliberative Democracy Handbook: Strategies for Effective Civic Engagement in the Twenty-first Century. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (2005).
  • Isaacs W. Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together: A Pioneering Approach to Communicating in Business and in Life. Crown Business, New York. (1999).
  • Mathews FD. Politics for People: Finding a Responsible Public Voice. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL (1999).
  • Senge PM, Kleiner A, Roberts C, Ross R, Smith B. The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization. Crown Business, New York (1994).
  • Cronin K. Deliberative dialogue for sustainable biotechnology governance in New Zealand. Report prepared for the University of Waikato research programme on Socially and Culturally Sustainable Biotechnology in New Zealand, funded by the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology (Contract UOWX0227). (2008).
  • Yankelovich D. Coming to Public Judgment: Making Democracy Work in a Complex World. Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, N.Y. (1991).
  • *In this classic book, Yankelovich argues that professionalism including our reliance on science and experts have challenged Americans’ ability to govern themselves. The corrective offered is participatory engagement through public deliberation.
  • Yankelovich D. The Magic of Dialogue: Transforming Conflict into Cooperation. Simon & Schuster, New York (1999).
  • Wynne B. Public uptake of science: a case for institutional reflexivity. Public Underst. Sci. 2(4), 321–337 (1993).
  • Callon M, Latour B. Don't throw the baby out with the bath school! A reply to Collins and Yearly. In: Science as Practice and Culture. Pickering A (Ed.): University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1992).
  • Alvesson M, Sköldberg K. Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative Research. Sage, (2000).
  • Partzsch L. The legitimacy of biofuel certification. Agr. Hum. Values 28, 413–425 (2011).
  • Wynne B. Risk and social learning: reification to engagement. In: Social Theories of Risk. Krimsky S, Golding D (Eds). Praeger, Westport, Conn, 275–297 (1992).
  • Busch L, Lacy WB. Science, Agriculture and the Politics of Research. Westview Press, Boulder, CO (1983).
  • Buttel, FH. 1985. The land grant system: a sociological perspective on value conflicts and ethical issues. Agr. Hum. Values 2, 78–95.
  • Henke C. Cultivating Science; Harvesting Power: Science and Industrial Agriculture in California. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (2008).
  • McDowell, GR 2001. Land Grant Universities and Extension into the 21st Century: Renegotiating or Abandoning a Social Contract. Ames: Iowa State Press.
  • Pielke Jr. RA. The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007).
  • van der Horst D, Evans J. Carbon claims and energy landscapes: exploring the political ecology of biomass. Landscape Res. 35(2), 173–193 (2010).

Website references

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Order Reprints Request Corporate Permissions

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

Request Academic Permissions

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.