Beyond Speaking Truth? Institutional Responses to Uncertainty in Scientific Governance

Braun, Kathrin; Kropp, Cordula

doi:10.1177/0162243909357916

Cited by 47 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These insights make it more likely that the selections made from the range of available options will also be more conducive to the general welfare. 8 While there is no guarantee of a positive outcome, past experience with citizen participation justifies cautious optimism.…”

Section: The Limits Of Communication and The Prospects Of Participationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public participation for infrastructure planning in the context of the German “Energiewende”

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: The Limits Of Communication and The Prospects Of Participationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public participation for infrastructure planning in the context of the German “Energiewende”

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Scientific evidence was used as a means through which the truth of H1N1 could be understood (Braun and Kropp 2010;Gieryn 1999), with the WHO and the Council of Europe each constructing different interpretations of the role of this evidence within this policy debate. The World Health Organization made reference to the epidemiological evidence produced by the makers of normal science (Jasanoff 2004b;Ravetz 2004;von Schomberg 1993b), where disciplinary-bound sets of anonymous scientific actors worked to produce knowledge that is privileged as grounded in an autonomous rational authority.…”

Section: Background To the Institutional Conflictmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contesting a Pandemic: The WHO and the Council of Europe

Abeysinghe

2016

Science as Culture

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contemporary risks are often understood as fundamentally uncertain. This uncertain status can be mobilized within political debates surrounding risks. Such a challenge serves to destablise scientific claims. The World Health Organisation's (WHO) management of the 2009/10 spread of the H1N1 virus became a site of one such contestation. Debate within the Council of Europe particularly served to criticize the action of the WHO. This resulted in a definitional and policy contestation between the two institutions. The WHO accounted for its actions through allusions to (seemingly stable) scientific facts, using epidemiological evidence of influenza and its management based on normal science. In contrast, in criticising public expenditure and panic, the Council of Europe critics problematised the stability of the science employed by the WHO. This included fundamental aspects of scientific knowledge such as the measurability of morbidity and mortality caused by H1N1 and the effect of vaccination against influenza viruses. This criticism relied upon the ability to destabilise the WHO's scientific knowledge, a process made possible through understandings of the uncertain nature of the science of risk (post-normal science). The case study illustrates that potential for previous-established and seemingly stable scientific facts to become destablised and problematised during contestations of risk management.

show abstract

“…The discursive meaning of science is thus tending to be more focused on a participation-based vision with functional, networking governance. Going further, the concept of "reflexive governance of knowledge"-arising out of the interactions between politics, society and science -can constitute a re-rationalisation and re-normativisation of the classical model of science, in the context of the post-modern/ post-normal differentiation of systems (Braun and Kropp 2010). To reach this point a postulated "medialisation of science" should be undertaken, to make science more open to non-scientists, and on the other hand to enhance wider audience participation (Carrier and Weingart 2009).…”

Section: Progress Towards Science Governance and Challengesfacedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Normativisation and its processes as seen from the neo-functional perspective: Towards science governance

Jedlikowska¹

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper scrutinises the notion of normativisation as a concept met with only relatively rarely in the sphere of the sociology of science. The normativisation concept is here embodied in the neo-functional perspective, with a view to its relationship with the sociology of science being elaborated more deeply, and new analytical paths provided, in this case in regard to the understanding of science. The work underpinning this paper has sought to help make good the lack of relevant studies in the field of the sociology of science. The material presented comes from literature-based research, while the main axis is put on the highlighting of theoretical relationships between types of normativisation and sociological neo-functional theory in order for the inputs of Gunther Teubner in particular to be better grasped. As is signaled at the end, this paper is ultimately targeted at science governance, though this is in itself a notion requiring additional studies if it is to be viewed in particular contexts.

show abstract

Beyond Speaking Truth? Institutional Responses to Uncertainty in Scientific Governance

Cited by 47 publications

References 26 publications

Public participation for infrastructure planning in the context of the German “Energiewende”

Public participation for infrastructure planning in the context of the German “Energiewende”

Contesting a Pandemic: The WHO and the Council of Europe

Normativisation and its processes as seen from the neo-functional perspective: Towards science governance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About