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