|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
Listening Without Prejudice?Re-discovering the Value of the Disinterested Citizen
Robert Evans
Glamorgan Building, King Edward VII Avenue, Cardiff CF10 3WT, UK; fax: +44 29 2987 4175, EvansRJ1{at}Cardiff.ac.uk
Alexandra Plows
6 Museum Place, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF10 3BG, UK; fax: +44 29 2987 0024, PlowsA{at}Cardiff.ac.uk
Public participation in technological decision-making is increasingly seen as de rigueur, but the limits and purpose of such participation remain open to debate. In this paper we explore the tension between different rationales for widening participation and examine their implications for its practice. Taking debates about medical genomics in the UK as an illustrative example, we argue that more heterogeneous participation and debate have the potential to improve the scrutiny and accountability of science within representative democracies. In doing so we also argue that it is necessary to replace the language of `lay expertise' with a more systematic and rigorous treatment of the expertise or its absence that characterizes different participants. Drawing on the theoretical work of Collins & Evans (2002), we distinguish between those processes where expert knowledge is required and debate is conducted within the public domain, rather than by the public itself, and those where the views of non-expert lay citizens are needed and valued. The effect of adopting this approach is to permit a more inclusive treatment of the `technical' while also providing a positive role for non-expert citizens in the democratic control and oversight of science.
Key Words: democratizing science • expertise • public engagement with science and technology • public participation
References
- Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission (2001) Crops on Trial: A Report by the AEBC ( London: Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission ). Available online at: <www.aebc.gov.uk/aebc/pdf/crops.pdf> (accessed 11 August 2004).
- Bal, Roland, Wiebe E. Bijker& Ruud Hendricks (2004) `Democratisation of Scientific Advice', British Medical Journal 329 (4 December): 1339—41.[Free Full Text]
- Bijker, Wiebe E., Thomas P. Hughes & Trevor J. Pinch (eds) (1987) The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology (Cambridge, MA, and London: MIT Press).
- Boyce, Tammy (2005) Sowing the Seeds of Doubt: The MMR and Autism Story, PhD Thesis. Cardiff University.
- Busch, Lawrence, Robin Grove-White, S. Jasanoff, D. Winickoff & Brian Wynne (2004) `Amicus Curiae Brief Submitted to the Dispute Settlement Panel of the World Trade Organization in the Case of EC Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products'. Available online at: <www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/ieppp/wtoamicus/> (accessed 7 July 2005).
- Collins, H.M. (2004a) `Interactional Expertise as a Third Kind of Knowledge', Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 3(2): 125—43.
- Collins, H.M. (2004b) `The Trouble with Madeleine', Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 3(2) 165—70.
- Collins, H.M. & Robert J. Evans (2002) `The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience', Social Studies of Science 32(2): 235—96.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Collins, H.M. & Robert J. Evans (2007) Rethinking Expertise (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press ).
- Collins, H.M., Robert J. Evans, Rodrigo Ribeiro & Martin Hall (2006) `Experiments with Interactional Expertise', Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 37(4): 633—655.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
- Council for Science and Technology (CST) ( 2005) Policy Through Dialogue (London: CST). Available online at <www.cst.org.uk/reports > (accessed 27 September 2005).
- Department of Trade and Industry (2003) GM Nation?: The Findings of the Public Debate ( London: Department of Trade and Industry). Available online at <www.gmpublicdebate.org.uk/docs/gmnation_finalreport.pdf > (accessed 6 May 2004).
- Epstein, Steven (1995) `The Construction of Lay Expertise: AIDS Activism and the Forging of Credibility in the Reform of Clinical Trials', Science, Technology, & Human Values 20(4): 408—37.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Epstein, Steven. (1996) Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press).
- European Commission (2005) Europeans, Science and Technology: Special Eurobarometer 224 (Brussels: European Commission). Available online at: <http://europa.eu.int/comm/public_opinion/index_en.htm > (accessed 13 November 2005).
- Evans, Robert J. (2004) `Talking about Money: Public Participation and Expert Knowledge in the Euro Referendum', British Journal of Sociology 55(1): 35—53.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Fischer, Frank (2000) Citzens, Experts and the Environment: The Politics of Local Knowledge (Durham, NC, and London: Duke University Press).
- Fishkin, James S (2002) `Deliberative Democracy', in Robert L Simon (ed.), The Blackwell Guide to Social and Political Philosophy (Oxford: Blackwell): 221—38.
- Functowicz, Silvio. O. & Jerome R. Ravetz (1993) `Science for the Post-normal Age', Futures 25: 739—55.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
- Gerold, Rainer & Angela Liberatore (2001) Report of the Working Group `Democratising Expertise and Establishing Scientific Reference Systems' (Brussels: European Commission). Available online at: <http://europa.eu.int/comm/governance/areas/group2/report_en.pdf> (accessed 4 July 2002).
- Grin, John, Henk van de Graaf & Rob Hoppe (1997) Technology Assessment Through Interaction: A Guide (The Hague: Rathenau Institute).
- Hargreaves, Ian & Galit Ferguson (2001) Who's Misunderstanding Whom? Bridging the Gulf of Understanding between the Public, the Media and Science (Swindon, Wilts. ESRC).
- Harvey, Matthew (2005) Experts and Citizens in Technical Decision-Making: A Case Study of `GM Nation? The Public Debate'. PhD Thesis, Cardiff University.
- Healey, Peter (2004) Scientific Connoisseurs and Other Intermediaries — Mavens, Pundits and Critics, Report on ESRC Science in Society Programme Workshop (Oxford, 11—12 March).
- Hilgartner, Stephen (2000) Science on Stage: Expert Advice as Public Drama (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press).
- Horlick-Jones, Tom, John Walls, Gene Rowe, Nick Pidgeon, Wouter Poortinga & Tim O'Riordan (2007) `The GM Debate: Risk, Politics and Public Engagement (Genetics and Society) (London: Routledge).
- House of Lords (2000) Science and Society. Select Committee on Science and Technology, Session 1999—2000, Third Report, HL Paper 38 (London: H.M. Stationery Office).
- Hughes, Thomas P. (1983) Networks of Power: Electrification in Western Society, 1880—1930 (Baltimore, MA: Johns Hopkins University Press).
- Irwin, Alan (2001) `Constructing the Scientific Citizen: Science and Democracy in the Biosciences', Public Understanding of Science 10: 1—18.[Abstract]
- Irwin, Alan & Brian Wynne (eds) (1996) Misunderstanding Science?: The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
- Irwin, Alan & Mike Michael (2003) Science, Social Theory and Public Knowledge (Maidenhead, Berks: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill).
- Jasanoff, Sheila (1990) The Fifth Branch: Science Advisors as Policymakers (London and Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
- Jasanoff, Sheila (1995) Science at the Bar: Law, Science, and Technology in America (London and Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
- Jasanoff, Sheila (2003) `Breaking the Waves in Science Studies: Comment on H.M. Collins & Robert Evans, "The Third Wave of Science Studies "', Social Studies of Science 33(3): 389—400.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
- Jasanoff, Sheila (2005) Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
- Kerr, Anne, Sarah Cunningham-Burley, & Amanda Amos (1998a) `The New Genetics and Health: Mobilizing Lay Expertise ', Public Understanding of Science 7: 41—60.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Kerr, Anne, Sarah Cunningham-Burley & Amanda Amos (1998b) `Drawing the Line: An Analysis of Lay People's Discussion about the New Genetics', Public Understanding of Science 7: 113—33.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Latour, Bruno (2004) `Why Has Critique Run Out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern', Critical Inquiry 30: 225—48.[CrossRef]
- Law, John (ed.) (1986) Power, Action, Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? Sociological Review Monograph. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
- MacKenzie, Donald (1993) Inventing Accuracy: A Historical Sociology of Nuclear Missile Guidance (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
- Merton, Robert K. (1973) `The Normative Structure of Science', in R.K. Merton, Sociology of Science (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press): 267—78.
- Miller, Steve (2001) `Public Understanding of Science at the Crossroads ', Public Understanding of Science 10: 115—20.[Abstract]
- Nowotny, Helga, Peter Scott & Michael Gibbons (2001) Re-thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty ( Cambridge: Polity Press).
- Office of Science and Technology (2002) The Government's Approach to Public Dialogue on Science and Technology (London: OST). Available online at <www.ost.gov.uk/society/public_dialogue.htm > (accessed 27 September 2005).
- Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) (2001). Open Channels: Public Dialogue in Science and Technology. Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, Report No. 153. London.
- Pinch, Trevor & Frank Trocco ( 2002) Analog Days: The Invention and Impact of the Moog Synthesizer (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press).
- Plows, Alexandra (2003) Praxis and Practice: The What, How and Why of the UK Environmental Direct Action Movement in the 1990s. PhD thesis, University of Wales, Bangor. Available online at: <www.iol.ie/~mazzoldi/toolsforchange/afpp/plowsphd.rtf > (accessed 25 January 2005).
- Polanyi, Michael (1958) Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul ).
- Rayner, Steve (2003) `Democracy in the Age of Assessment: Reflections on the Roles of Expertise and Democracy in Public-Sector Decision Making', Science and Public Policy 30(2): 163—70.[CrossRef]
- Renn, Ortwin (1999) `A Model for an Analytic—Deliberative Process in Risk Management', Environmental Science and Technology 33(18) 3049—55.
- Rip, Arie, Thomas J. Misa, & Johan Schot (eds) ( 1996) Managing Technology in Society: The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment (London; New York: Pinter Publishers).
- Rowe, Gene & Lynn J. Frewer (2004) `Evaluating Public Participation Exercises', Science, Technology, & Human Values 29(4): 512—57.[Abstract]
- Royal Commission for Environmental Pollution (RCEP) (1998) 21st Report: Setting Environmental Standards, Cm 4053 (London: H.M. Stationery Office ).
- Schot, Johan (1996/1998) `Constructive Technology Assessment Comes of Age: The Birth of a New Politics of Democracy'. Available online at <www.ifz.tugraz.ac.at/sumacad/schot.pdf> (accessed 1 April 2003). Also published in A. Jamison (ed.), Technology Policy Meets the Public, PESTO papers II (Aalborg: Aalborg University Press): 207—32.
- Shapin, Steven (1995) `Here and Everywhere: Sociology of Scientific Knowledge ', Annual Review of Sociology 21: 289—321.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
- Shapin, Steven & Simon Schaffer (1985) Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle and the Experimental Life (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
- Sturgis, Patrick & Nick Allum ( 2004) `Science in Society: Re-evaluating the Deficit Model of Public Attitudes', Public Understanding of Science 13(1): 55—74.[Abstract]
- Sturgis, Patrick, Helen Cooper, Chris Fife-Schaw & Richard Shepherd (2004) `Genomic Science: Emerging Public Opinion', in Alison Park, John Curtice, Katarina Thomson, Catherine Bromley & Miranda Phillips (eds), British Social Attitudes — The 21st Report (London: Sage Publications ): 119—45.
- Turner, Stephen (2001) `What is the Problem with Experts?', Social Studies of Science 31(1): 123—49.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Wajcman, Judy (2004) TechnoFeminism (Cambridge: Polity Press).
- Wakeford Tom, Jaz Singh, Bano Murtuja & Peter Bryant (2005) Towards Two-Way-Street Engagement: The Theory and Practice of NanoJury UK (Newcastle upon Tyne: PEALS).
- Wilsden, James & Rebecca Willis (2004) See-through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream (London: DEMOS, Green Alliance, RSA and Environment Agency).
- Wynne, Brian (1996) `May the Sheep Safely Graze? A Reflexive View of the Expert—Lay Knowledge Divide', in Scott Lash, Bronislaw Szerszynski & Brian Wynne (eds), Risk, Environment & Modernity: Towards a New Ecology (London: Sage Publications): 27—83.
Social Studies of Science, Vol. 37, No. 6,
827-853 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/0306312707076602
 CiteULike  Complore  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
R. Evans and I. Kotchetkova
Qualitative research and deliberative methods: promise or peril?
Qualitative Research,
November 1, 2009;
9(5):
625 - 643.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. C. Powell and M. Colin
Participatory Paradoxes: Facilitating Citizen Engagement in Science and Technology From the Top-Down?
Bulletin of Science Technology Society,
August 1, 2009;
29(4):
325 - 342.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
