Social studies of volcanology: knowledge generation and expert advice on active volcanoes

Abstract

International audienceThis paper examines the philosophy and evolution of volcanological science in recent years, particularly in relation to the growth of volcanic hazard and risk science. It uses the lens of Science and Technology Studies to examine the ways in which knowledge generation is controlled and directed by social forces, particularly during eruptions, which constitute landmarks in the development of new technologies and models. It also presents data from a survey of volcanologists carried out during late 2008 and early 2009. These data concern the felt purpose of the science according to the volcanologists who participated and their impressions of the most important eruptions in historical time. It demonstrates that volcanologists are motivated both by the academic science environment and by a social concern for managing the impact of volcanic hazards on populations. Also discussed are the eruptions that have most influenced the discipline and the role of scientists in policymaking on active volcanoes. Expertise in volcanology can become the primary driver of public policy very suddenly when a volcano erupts, placing immense pressure on volcanologists. In response, the epistemological foundations of volcanology are on the move, with an increasing volume of research into risk assessment and management. This requires new, integrated methodologies for knowledge collection that transcend scientific disciplinary boundaries

A science & arts sensitization program in Chapultenango, 25 years after the 1982 El Chichόn eruptions (Chiapas, Mexico)

“…Increasing the perception of volcanic risk and community resilience is most efficiently obtained when focusing on the local situation (Donovan et al 2012a;Cronin et al 2004a, b), El Chichón in our case. In November 2006 and March 2007, local authorities (Gobierno Municipal and Protección Civil, GM and PC hereafter, respectively), primary and secondary school students, and the entire community of Chapultenango was involved in this social, science & arts sensitization project (funded by the Belgische Stichting Roeping-Vocatio).…”

“…The presence of DP, a native Mexican, was not only necessary for his professional skills, but also "for just being a Mexican". Demonstration of local knowledge and mixing among local people is a method to become accepted by lay public as an "intruding" scientist near active volcanoes (Geertz 1973;Donovan et al 2012a;Gaillard and Mercer 2012). Basic methods of mixing among the local population were adopted: living and working in Chapultenango.…”

“…Basic methods of mixing among the local population were adopted: living and working in Chapultenango. Other motives to increase trust could be: (1) being a researcher from the UNAM, the most recognized university in Mexico, and (2) (Chester 2005;Donovan et al 2012a;Macías Medrano 2005); transmission of the impression of local knowledge is of help to gain trust. Based on personal experience from previous years of scientific campaigns at El Chichón, we assumed that the population of Chapultenango is sceptical to the authorities and have more trust in scientists.…”

“…Nevertheless, after friends and relatives, scientists are found to be the most trusted source of volcanological information, while government authorities are generally distrusted (Barberi et al 2008;Gavilanes-Ruíz et al 2009;Haynes et al 2008a;Eiser et al 2009). In recent years, some volcanologists feel that their work should be guided by its social relevance (mode 2 research), rather than being purely determined by traditional, research-based science (mode 1 research, Gibbons et al 1994) (Johnston et al 1999;Cronin et al 2004a, b;Gregg et al 2004;Barberi et al 2008;Haynes et al 2008a, b;Donovan et al 2011Donovan et al , 2012aBowman and White 2012;Donovan and Oppenheimer 2012;Johnston 2012).…”

Deterministic Versus Probabilistic Volcano Monitoring: Not “or” But “and”

“…The power of the single voice from the group of experts often misleads the receivers of the message (decision makers, authorities or lay public), believing the experts are "sure" on the evolution of volcanic activity. This is one of the reasons why volcanologists are often, correctly or incorrectly, highly trusted professionals by the public (Haynes et al 2008;Donovan et al 2011).…”