Breaking the expertise barrier: understanding activist strategies in science and technology policy domains

Framing deep geothermal energy in mass media: the case of Switzerland

“…Previous research shows that how a siting process is organized will have an impact on the perceived fairness of the entire process (Krütli et al, 2010(Krütli et al, , 2012. In turn, it will influence how the public reacts, which strategy activist groups will follow (Parthasarathy, 2010). However, until now, evidence on public perception of deep geothermal energy is scarce, practically nonexistent.…”

Engaging the Global South on climate engineering research

“…First, there are different forms of expertise, so a sharp dichotomy between 'expert' and 'public' fails to capture nuances in the status of participants and different forms of expertise in operation 29,30 . Second, expertise is context dependent and can be based on experience rather than training 31,32 . A hydrologist or wildlife ecologist, for instance, may have less relevant knowledge about SRM than a member of civil society without formal scientific training but who has taken a great interest in the issue.…”

Scientific contestations over “toxic trespass”: health and regulatory implications of chemical biomonitoring

“…EHJM organizations have demanded a greater role in environmental and health decision-making, pushing policymakers to incorporate lay knowledge alongside professional expertise (Corburn 2007). Social movements incorporate scientific expertise into their activism with the goal of introducing lay knowledge within the scientific enterprise and implementing new policy-making logics (Parthasarathy 2010;Ottinger and Cohen 2012). As EHJM scientific expertise grows, there is little analysis as to how advocacy scientists influence the scientific process through their participation in expert arenas and whether and how their participation might carry the potential for broadening the parameters of scientific debate.…”

“…Public biomonitoring debates highlight the concept of the Bpublic hypothesis,^whereby new scientific paradigms are the subject of public deliberations and involve the lay public, advocacy groups, and scientific experts (Krimsky 2000). In part by using the media, advocacy groups seek to democratize science, introduce lay knowledge within the scientific enterprise, and implement new policy-making logics, such as reforming existing chemical policies to better protect public health (Morello-Frosch et al 2009;Parthasarathy 2010;Wilson and Schwarzman 2009). Advocacy groups publicize biomonitoring results through storytelling, placing real faces on aggregated exposure data, and disseminating this information in diverse ways ranging from peer-reviewed journals to interactive websites (Washburn 2009).…”