postnormal science, lay know and plural rationalities - iaia 2006

8/14/2019 Postnormal science, lay know and plural rationalities - IAIA 2006

1/15

Post-normal science,

local lay knowledge and

plural rationalitiestheoretical foundations for integrating quantitative and qualitative

methodologies and community engagementwithin health impact assessment

Presented by Salim Vohra26th Annual International Association for Impact Assessment Conference, Stavanger, May 2006


2/15

science

affected stakeholder groups

Why these three understandings are

important for HIA

facts =decisions+ values


3/15

contd

Clarifies the ambiguity about whether HIA is ascience or not

Provide a scientific framework for understandingand fitting affected communities and individuals

Demonstrates the importance and use of values

both within science and in good science baseddecision-making


4/15

HIA not quite science? Is health impact assessment a science?

It is important to emphasise that HIA is not strictly a science. Having said this, it most certainly draws on a scientific knowledge

base.

Scientific evidence on health impacts of specific determinants forms

the backbone of this creative, interdisciplinary form of enquiry.

But each HIA is uniquely located in time, space and local conditionsthough its evidence base can be evaluated, and the rigour with

which procedures and methods were implemented can (and should)

be assessed.

Uncertainties encountered during the undertaking of HIAs will

frequently dictate the need to make assumptions, which may resultin challenges to the HIAs validity: such assumptions are acceptable

as long as they are stated explicitly, so that the reader is free to

agree or disagree.

Scott-Samuel, A., Birley, M., Ardern, K., (2001). The Merseyside Guidelines for Health Impact Assessment.

Second Edition, May 2001. 20 pages. ISBN 1 874038 56 2. Published by the International Health ImpactAssessment Consortium.


5/15

Is there a role for communities? So how can we combine participation and HIA?

.. But perhaps a more radical solution would be to suggest that in the

context of HIA, limiting involvement to a small group of experts

might be the most appropriate and efficient means to generate

sufficient information to influence the policy-making process.

Support for such an approach comes not from a rejection of thevalidity of community involvement but because if HIA is to get

beyond the field of purely academic interest and gain credibility with

policy-makers, it must fit policy-makers requirements.

..

HIA should explicitly acknowledge the tension between the timerequired to deliver on the policy agenda and the time required to

build true participatory partnerships with communities.

Parry J, Wright J; Editorials -Community Participation in health impact assessments: intuitively appealing

but practically difficult; Bulletin of the World Health Organisation; Vol 81, No 6, 2003, pg 388.


6/15

Hard values, soft science Health impact assessmentare most likely to inform decisions-making if the decision-makers own the assessment and areclosely involved in all stages of the HIA, from scoping (defining allthe elements) to report.

One might logically conclude from this that decision-makers should

make their own impact assessments.

While this solution has much to recommend it, it is difficult to

reconcile with the principle of openness, and presents the risk that

matters outside the narrow policy agenda will be neglected.

..

The need for policy-makers to have impartial advice may not fit with

the values of public health. ..

Public health practitioners value health, equity and participation, and

it may be difficult to switch to an impartial assessment.

Kemm J; Editorials - Perspectives on health impact assessment; Bulletin of the World Health Organisation;

Vol 81, No 6, 2003, pg 387.


7/15

Pos t- no rm al scie nce When normal science cannot predict

consequences with any degree of certainty and

societal decisions need to be made

Then using an extended peer community ofaffected stakeholders to review and quality

assure the facts and help develop a consensus

on the evidence and the way forward leads to

more accurate and robust science-based and

scientific decision-making


8/15

Pos t- no rm al scie nce

Low LEVEL OF UNCERTAINTY High

Expert-ProfessionalJudgement

(use of judgement andgood practice)

Post-NormalScience

(uncertain facts, disputedvalues,

high stakes, decisionsurgent)

High

DECISION

STAKES

ignorance

Technical uncertainty

(reduced by

the use of statistics)

Methodological uncertainty(reduced by the use of

professional consensus

and peer review)

Epistemological uncertainty

(reduced by the use of

societal and community consensus

and community review)

AppliedNormal Science(traditional notions of science)


9/15

Local la y knowl edg e Individuals and communities have localised experiential knowledgeabout their social and natural environment; the key individual,

organisational and institutional actors that work within them; and

how these interact with each other.

This knowledge, especially in situations where the science isuncertain, can be incorporated into scientific assessment to

particularise, specify and apply the more universal and general

findings that science provides.

It means that the experiential knowledge or knowledge notconstructed within an explicit scientific method should not be

dismissed as anecdotal but assessed and evaluated before being

accepted or rejected.


10/15

What do you see?

Margolis, H, Dealing with Risk: why the public and experts disagree on environmental

issues, Chicago, 1996.


11/15

Rig ht Scientific A nswer: pe rh aps?A series of black lines and markings

on a two dimensional white surface that- when viewed with a binocular vision system

and an arts culture context where three

dimensional objects are represented in twodimensions

gives the appearance of a duck or rabbits head

and produces a gestalt effect of seeing first aducks head and then a rabbits head

and vice versa.


12/15

Plural rationalities Individuals, groups and institutions develop a set of values

and ways of seeing, understanding and interacting with theworld around them.

These rationalities or worldviews are each legitimate andvalid ways of viewing and understanding the world. Most of

the time we tend to be unaware of them.

This means that in societal decision-making processes,especially those involving risk and uncertainty, dominantgroups and institutions frame and structure the process in

ways that fit their own values and understandings.

This is/can be at the expense of the alternative values andunderstandings of other affected stakeholders.


13/15

Impacts are like an elephant!

Spain, M. Kings Fund newsletter 1998. .


14/15

Conclusion: value for HIA

Science is a social process

All knowledge is conditional

Perceptions are part of reality

They enable the development of an approach to HIA

that combines quantitative and qualitative

methodologies and community participation in a way

that is scientific, credible, relevant and effectiveespecially when there is disagreement and conflict

between different stakeholder groups.


15/15

Thanks for listening

postnormal science, lay know and plural rationalities - iaia 2006

Documents