Models of science and society: transcending the antagonism

Abstract

What is the appropriate place for science in society? Despite the vast literature on the subject, the science–society relation remains a disputed issue. A major reason is that, when we are asking about the right place of science in society, we are actually asking a range of interrelated and hard-to-answer individual questions. These questions include the role of social values in the research process, the neutrality of science in policy, the interplay between evidence and decision-making, and many others. A sensible way to organize these questions—and the set of potential answers—are science–society interaction models (SSIMs). SSIMs reduce the complexity of the science–society relation and provide generic templates for interactions between scientists and non-scientists. However, SSIMs are often used in an unproductive way, namely as antagonistic camps or as representations of real-world actors’ beliefs. Focusing on the popular distinction between technocratic, decisionist, and pragmatist models, this paper discusses the strengths and weaknesses of SSIMs. It argues that SSIMs should not, as is often done in the science–society literature, be understood as antagonistic camps or representations of actor beliefs, but as ideal types and heuristics. Building on this interpretation, this paper presents tentative ideas for a reflexive tool that real-world actors can use to assess their fundamental assumptions about science and society.

Science and Faith to Understand Milk Bioactivity for Infants

“…The term ‘research’ differs slightly from ‘science’, the latter being based more on well-defined theories and independent, strict methodologies. Historically, this has led classical science to be more detached from the surrounding society than research [ 50 , 51 ]. Research is broader than science and relates more to experience and practical solutions.…”

“…Many academic disciplines have sub-specialties that are more concerned with applied problems than logical reflections, thus focusing on practical solutions in society rather than theoretical, written knowledge for peers in science. Such more applied domains (e.g., technology, healthcare, finance, performing arts, and ethics) highlight a natural tension between theory and practice in universities, and between science and research [ 50 , 51 ]. In large research projects, researchers are often encouraged to move across the classical boundaries of theory and practice, and across natural, social, and human sciences in interdisciplinary research efforts, to improve basic understanding, as well as applied solutions.…”

Transdisciplinary transformative change: an analysis of some best practices and barriers, and the potential of critical social science in getting us there

“…COL-LAB 3 offers board games that enhance interdisciplinary research collaborations by encouraging discussions on diverse disciplinary principles. Dressel (2022) developed a tool for mapping actor assumptions for use in ITD settings. SHAPE-ID 4 (Shaping interdisciplinary practices in Europe) and Michigan State University's Toolbox Dialogue Initiative 5 provide tools to create collaborative spaces and environments.…”