the ‘awareness principle’: theory, practice and praxis
Post on 26-Aug-2016
212 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
BOOK REVIEW
The ‘awareness principle’: theory, practice and praxis
Kjell Andersson: Transparency and accountability in scienceand politics: The awareness principle. New York:Palgrave-MacMillan, 2008, xiii+257pp, £63.00 HB
Virginia Baker
Published online: 24 June 2011
� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011
Andersson provides a timely contribution to the ‘science’ of public participation
processes, an area he notes is gathering increased attention, although still
‘immature’ and lacking in ‘systematic methodology’ (171). His book offers a
valuable framework to support conversations at the heart of risk communication,
practice, and research on public engagement with science and policy.
Drawing on Funtowicz and Ravetzs’ ideas of ‘post-normal science’ and Beck’s
‘Risk Society’ Andersson addresses current issues in the intersection of market and
deliberative democracy. He observes that a profound disconnect exists between the
capacity of our policy structures to deal with questions of social justice and values
and our use of new technologies, and that there is a need for new institutional
processes at all levels of policy making (210). His overarching concern is how
values can better inform science and policy decision making.
Andersson’s approach, which he describes as the ‘awareness principle’ is
primarily evaluative. It aims to secure a viable ethical standpoint for communication
amidst a quagmire of strategic play, often involving high stakes, uncertainty and
competition for limited public funding, changing markets, commercialisation of
science, and patterns of mutual colonisation between politics and media. Andersson
highlights and confronts patterns of citizen exclusion in science and technology
decision making where expert control, instrumental rationality, narrow framing and
fragmentation of issues are reinforced in existing power relations, repertoires and
almost theatrical exchanges between science and policy. Andersson’s contribution
not only extends this critique but formulates a framework for intervention.
Andersson presents a series of concise and insightful case studies that
demonstrate the challenges of putting ‘the awareness principle’ into practice. The
book has eighteen chapters, providing insights into scientific knowledge and science
V. Baker (&)
Institute of Environmental Science and Research (ESR) Ltd,
PO Box 50 348, Porirua 5240, New Zealand
e-mail: virginia.baker@esr.cri.nz
123
Metascience (2012) 21:427–429
DOI 10.1007/s11016-011-9594-5
funding, democratic theory, risk assessment and risk management, public partic-
ipation, media and journalism. Some are linking chapters, but most stand in their
own right as touchstone summaries of current topics and issues. Andersson uses
case studies of biotechnology, nanotechnology, global warming, EMF debate,
mobile phone health risks and nuclear waste management. Each example
demonstrates the interplay of different degrees of scientific uncertainty and
conflicting social values.
A key component of Andersson’s work is his RISCOM model, outlined in
chapter 11; it is a theoretical approach where practitioners are asked to consider
what procedural techniques they will use to address three principles (the RISCOM
triangle) of ‘truth’, ‘legitimacy’, and ‘authenticity’. Andersson presents the
RISCOM model as a tool to activate ‘the awareness principle’. This framework
supports practitioners to explore and strengthen the rules, measures and tools for
achieving greater transparency and ‘stretch’ in their framing of risk assessment,
management and communication work. Andersson’s ‘awareness principle’ is
dialogic, aimed at ‘stretching’ assumptions and institutional practices to increase
public insight and influence’ and establish new forms of institutional settings and
capacities in ‘transparency arenas’ (134). Acknowledging more work is still needed,
he proposes a preliminary mapping mechanism for determining what procedural
approaches (i.e., consensus conferences, science shops, simulation, focus groups
etc.) are best suited to be applied to what contexts and purposes) (152–153). In the
context of this discussion, I had one small criticism of the books format, perhaps
more directed at the publisher than the author: the core diagrams (152–153) that
extend RISCOM into a participation mapping tool are presented to immediately
follow each other. This material was a little dense, and it would have been better to
present these sequentially with the explanatory text.
The extent to which Andersson’s work extends across a number of academic
fields relevant to science policy means that at times it lacks alignment with some
important specific themes from these areas. I would have been interested for
example to see how Andersson would relate his work to studies which have
explored the symbolic politics involved in delimiting public participation in science
policy formation (see Richard Hindmarsh, Edging Towards BioUtopia (2008)) and
the broader public understanding of science (PUS) literature, particularly the
contribution of Harry Collins & Rob Evans ‘The Third Wave of Science Studies:
Studies of Expertise and Experience’, Social Studies of Science, 32, 235–296
(2002). There are also interesting connections to be made with Andersson’s work
and the Systems Thinking literature (see Gerald Midgley, Systemic Intervention:Philosophy, Methodology, and Practice (2000)). Both draw on Habermas’s theory
of communicative action and his ideals of participation to secure an ethical
standpoint for communication. There is a shared fundamental tenet that participa-
tion is good, along with a focus on process, methods and evaluation, and a concern
that sound decision making must uncover values in order to consider the
consequences of alternative directions. Both advocate learning by doing, and both
are concerned with disingenuous ‘participation as manipulation or therapy’ (171).
For many STS scholars and activists Andersson’s central premise that public
awareness, participation and transparency of values will improve policy making will
428 Metascience (2012) 21:427–429
123
come as nothing new. But will it convince science policy agencies and industry?
Some power brokers in bureaucracy and industry would not agree; a challenge
Andersson recognises. Whilst raising public awareness is crucial (133), this can be a
problem for democracy as most methods for improved public involvement in
decision making are ‘resource intensive’ (139). Andersson is also mindful of the
issue of information overload, where some members of the public may not wish to
engage.
Overall, the book extends a valuable framework for STS scholars, activists and
the wider science policy community, to reflect on their work and practice and offers
a structured and sophisticated model for improving public participation in science
and policy.
Metascience (2012) 21:427–429 429
123
top related