CRITICIZING HABERMAS

If Habermas theory of communication is applied to forest science and the examination of its discourses, then many points arise that make it difficult to explain reality in terms of Habermas‟ theory.

The ideal speech situation is something that is recognized by Habermas as being elusive:

“we are quite unable to realise the ideal speech situation; we can only anticipate it”

(Habermas, 1970: p.372).

However, even if it is elusive and difficult to achieve, it is not illegitimate to aspire to it.

As Hiller says: “the ideal speech situation can serve normatively as a guide for the process of communication and as a critical standard against which actually achieved agreements and (policy) decisions can be measured” (2002: p.35).

Gross (2002) considers the distortions of communication that exist in the peer review process. He explains, for example, the inability of authors (after submitting the article) to initiate speech acts. Authors only respond to questions and comments made by referees and editors: they react. Table 2.3 summarizes his considerations.

Table 2.3. Distorted communication in peer review process as seen by Gross (2002)

Habermas‟ condition Distorted Communication

1.Equal opportunity to initiate speech acts - Authors not initiators but responders - Limited rounds of referee critique - No interactive clarification 2.All speakers reveal themselves, making their

discourses transparent Limitations on how communication takes place:

- Discourse must be free of emotion - Discourse must be polite

3.Freedom to use speech acts Prohibition of authors to issue commands

4.Equal control over exchange Authors are inhibited from asking critical questions

This table indicates an unequal distribution of power between authors who submit papers and editors and referees who evaluate them, which is a clear deviation from the ideal speech situation that promotes rational consensus.

However distorted the peer review process may seem there are structures built into the process which help correct these deviations (Gross, 1990: pp.199 ff.). For example, editors generally assume the role of power neutralizers between referees and authors by e.g. favoring authors when decisions amongst referees are split or by shielding authors from abuses on the part of referees. If abuses occur, it is likely that those who misuse their positions will not be considered further by editors as referees. Regarding the power of editors, the market of scientific journals takes care that they do not abuse their power, this because editors rely on authors to keep journals going and authors have the liberty to choose to which journal they submit their articles.

20

In the peer review process, to seek out the ideal situation is necessarily a limited task since this comes at the cost of professional time and costs regarding the creation and communication of new science. Or as Gross concludes (1990, p.203): “rational consensus is a good we can pursue without regard to its possibly undesirable effects on other, equally desire goods”. So it is not the fulfillment of the ideal speech situation that should be pursuit as the target of research regarding the scientific discourse on forest, but to examine how close or far the dominant discourse is from it. The ideal speech situation is not met in the peer review process, but the correction of the distortions built into the system allows arriving at a rational consensus regarding what is in the end publishable science.

For the peer review process, Gross (2002) has applied the ideal speech situation and has concluded that the communication that takes place is far from being ideal. However, he points out that seeking the fulfillment of the ideal speech situation requires a scarce good such is „professional time‟. If the ideal speech situation is followed, discussions between authors, peer reviewers, and editors would take as long as needed until a fully rational consensus is met. This comes to the cost of professional time (a point also made by Flyvbjerg, 2001: p.91): scientists must dedicate more time in the process of exchange with reviewers and editors and less time creating and timely communicating potentially valuable science (Gross, 1990: p.2003).

University and research institutes are evermore being assessed according to their scientific productivity, having consequences on the resources allocated to them. Productivity of science is being measured according to several indicators such as: number of scientific publications in peer-reviewed journals, number of patents created, and number of doctoral students amongst others (Weingart, 2005). In an era where “governments, business and trusts must decide scientific priorities and funding” (King, 2004: p.311) being included in the discourse of forest science sheds positive light on those actors who participate in it. These evaluation criteria act on the scientific institutions and their scientists as pressures to ensure a more productive activity. Those who publish, who create patents, who increase their number of doctoral students will be favored by allocation of more financial resources than those who do not (or not in the same amount). Seen through the lens of communicative action, this is coercion on actors and their action-freedom. In view of these evaluation criteria, actors may choose to stop acting communicatively –stop striving for the common goal of science to create true knowledge- and start acting strategically –orient their actions only in view of securing their own personal research support.

The communicative action view of the scientific communication process ignores as well many aspects of reality that can be attributed to power structures. On the level of scientific knowledge, power structures influence what is considered as sound knowledge by the members of the scientific community. The community and its members agree on how scientific results should arise so as to be valid. In a given time, a given agreement is established through which all new knowledge is considered and discussed. Deviations from this agreement may signify that the knowledge developed may not be considered as such by the members of the community. If however these rules are complied with, the next step is to capture the knowledge in the formal form (amongst others) of a written text.

Theoretical Background

21

To be able to reach the greater international scientific community, these texts must be written in a language understandable and admitted for and by all. In the present times, this language is English (Ammon 2001, Crystal 1997). Therefore, scientists who wish to internationally transmit their research results must do so in English. This is an entrance barrier to the world of scientific publishing. Surveys regarding problems scientists have when exposing their work to international communities have revealed that writing an acceptable English language article is not an easy task for those scientists whose native language is not English. It is here where, on an international level, Habermas‟ principles are not necessarily met: not every member of the community has equal access (the same chance) for presenting their information. On a national level this is different. Scientists within their local communities dominate their native language and do not have the same problems creating texts. Thus, on a national level this condition is met. If this hurdle is overcome and an article is written in English (for an international aimed communication), the next step is to submit it for consideration in an international (national) peer-reviewed journal.

The free accessibility to the public sphere is also a point widely criticized. When examining forestry issues that cross nation boarders, Kleinschmit et al. (2007, p.433) speak of asymmetrical communication in the public sphere that favors richer nations in disadvantage of poorer nations or behaviors between northern and southern countries.

Even though the authors apply this to the public sphere of the mass media, communication asymmetries in the scientific public sphere is also a realistic notion both on an international and national level. The amount of resources available to scientists can be seen as a limitation for participating in the scientific public sphere. Considering global science, countries that dedicate a greater share of their Gross National Product on research and development have a greater chance to develop research⁹, publish their research results and, consequently, include their interpretation patterns in the dominant discourses on science (King 2004). Regarding a national context of science, resources are as well scarce and unevenly distributed through those organizations and their scientists dedicated to research. Thus, within a country asymmetries in communication may also be found which distort the single country scientific communication process.

The resource limitations that scientists are subject to not only act on the possibility of carrying research per se, but also on the possibility of engaging in scientific discussion regarding research results put forward by other actors. The accessibility to produced knowledge finally depends on the resources available to scientists, their research institutions and their nations. If scientific consensus is formally measured only through the amount of citations a published article receives then, and for the process of consensus in science to be seen as legitimate, it is fundamental that all actors have access to these articles and have the possibility to cite them freely. This may not be possible for many nations, research organizations and individual scientists who have limited resources available to them.

To this point, aspects have been discussed that raise questions regarding the applicability of Habermas‟ theory of communicative action and public sphere to the analysis of science and its discourses. Summarizing these points:

9 Relating the expenditure of single countries to their scientific output in terms of scientific publications has been carried out by different authors and a direct relation existing between the two has been observed (King 2004, Wagner et al. 2001).

22

 Limitations exist regarding time available for scientists to embark in a deliberative process with other actors in the public sphere of science. Time is seen as a scare resource available to scientists.

 Pressures exist to which scientists are confronted with regarding their scientific productivity. Evaluation of science taking place in the face of scarce financial resources act as a pressure factor on science and scientists.

 Limitations exist regarding the overall (financial) resources available to scientists and to countries to carry out research and thus be able to contribute to the creation of knowledge and its‟ dissemination.

With this, it is clear that power structures are present in the peer review process. So a deep analysis of the scientific discourse must consider these power structures and their influences. Additionally, these criticisms make necessary the incorporation to Habermas‟

model theoretical considerations that may capture the limiting structures (or power structures) present in science which act distorting communication. Therefore Michel Foucault‟s work on discourse, power and knowledge will be briefly considered and discussed if and how it makes sense to link it with Habermas‟ views.