Technical problem (science)
5.5 GUIDELINES FOR INTEGRATING DIFFERENT TYPES OF KNOWLEDGE INTO THE POLICY PROCESS
As the EU white paper on governance noted:
❝ ‘Knowledge used for policy-making and public debate should not only be excellent from a scientific point of view; it also needs to be ‘socially robust’, responding to policy, social, economic needs or concerns. This involves expertise beyond traditional and professional ‘peer’ community to include those with practical or other knowledge about the issue at hand.’
(Liberatore, 2001).
In Section 3.4, we discussed the plurality of relevant knowledge beyond scientific information and evidence. It is now widely acknowledged that in democratic decision-making, relevant wisdom is not limited to scientific specialists and public officials (Kloprogge & van der Sluijs, 2006; P. C. Stern & Fineberg, 1996). The political decision-maker should thus not only consider the technological and scientific data, specifying as clearly as possible what is known, what is uncertain and what is unknown. In addition, a plurality of perspectives from across diverse knowledge systems, such as traditional knowledge, craft skills and know-how, institutional knowledge and tacit knowledge should be mobilised through dialogue and included where relevant (Bremer, 2013; Renn, 2010). (See also Section 3.4).
Local knowledge can include knowledge of local conditions, which may determine which data are strong and relevant. It can also be anecdotal or it can be official information published by unofficial means (through, for example, whistleblowing or investigative journalism) (Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1996). Warren (1992) described local or indigenous knowledge as knowledge that is unique to a given culture or society.
It often contrasts with the scientific knowledge system generated by universities, research institutions and private firms. It is the basis for local-level — decision-making in agriculture, health care, food preparation, education, natural-resource management and a host of other activities in rural communities (Warren, 1992).
Indigenous knowledge is used synonymously with ‘traditional’ and ‘local’ knowledge to differentiate the knowledge developed by a community from the global knowledge systems generated through universities, government research centres and private industry. Indigenous knowledge refers to the knowledge of indigenous peoples, as well as any other defined community (Warren, 1992).
This societal aspect of science advice implies that it is not based on individual expertise but on collective expertise, often involving experts and expertise also from outside of academia. However, the opinions of experts often diverge. Collective expertise therefore has to deal with the problem of conflicting and minority opinions in order to be trustworthy and useful (European Food Safety Authority, 2006; Science Advice for Policy by European Academies, 2017). A prior outreach presentation is needed to convey the different facets of the problem to a politician who does not have the
appropriate background. This presentation must make it clear that different opinions are possible and why they have emerged (see also Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2015).
In this respect, two strategies could be useful. The first is to involve two types of participants: experts with different, even opposite views, and ‘devil’s advocates’ whose role is to challenge the experts, to reveal contradictions and to distinguish between opinions relating to a conflict of emotional or financial interest from opinions based on facts. The challenge is to present these controversies in a form usable by a political decision-maker (Martin & Richards, 1995).
The second strategy is to use a grid of analysis called ‘ethical questioning’ that helps to address all a new process or technology’s impacts on the different facets of human life, both positive and risky, of a new process or technology (e.g. Kaiser, Millar, Thorstensen, & Tomkins, 2007; Stilgoe et al., 2013). The reference values are, on the one hand, the concepts of freedom, equality and solidarity and, on the other hand, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations General Assembly, 1948).
The credibility of the experts is crucial. The declaration of conflicts of interest of the individual is necessary but insufficient (E. A. Boyd & Bero, 2006). It seems important to take into account also emotional or ideological conflicts of interest. It may be difficult for experts not to have a very positive bias for a technology they have been developing in the hope of contributing to a better life for humanity. The fact that an expert cannot be completely objective underlines the need of the contribution of ‘devil’s advocates’ in the construction of science advice for decision-makers (e.g.
Schwenk & Cosier, 1980).
The credibility of science advice is not related solely to its scientific merits but also to the ethical and societal acceptability of the technology in question by the general public, citizens and society at large (Cash et al., 2003). O’Connor (1999) distinguishes two notions of ‘integrating knowledge’ for governance, based on contrasting notions of reconciliation: Cartesian vs dialogical.
The Cartesian perspective of integration is based on Laplacian reconciliation: all knowledge is integrated within an internally-consistent conceptual framework;
Cartesian epistemology privileges ‘objective’ description and explanation based on axiomatic categories for system description. This notion of integration is characterised by a domination ethic: knowledge is used instrumentally to govern a cause-effect relationship; calculation, prediction and contractual certainty are privileged (O’Connor, 1999).
Alternatively, the dialogical perspective acknowledges the plurality of perspectives in co-existence and collective understanding. It accepts that the multiple perspectives in society are often irreducible to one single vision, or immeasurable according to one measure of validity, and allows them to exist side-by-side. Integration is then based on dialogical reconciliation of the diversity of perspectives and modes of understanding in an irreducible plurality. The corresponding complexity epistemology fosters an
irreducible plurality of pertinent analytical perspectives. This notion of integration is characterised by a hospitality ethic: knowledge pursued and exploited based on norms of courtesy and dialogue; tolerance of tensions, and admission of antagonisms (O’Connor, 1999).
Depending on the function of scientific advice to policymaking (see Section 4.2), the instrumental version of science advice is more adequate if policymakers search for strategies to reach a pre-defined goal, while the dialogical perspective is more adequate if the goal of advice is to co-create new knowledge or to provide better orientation to policymakers (Bremer, 2013). The enlightenment function may be served by both perspectives, depending on the issue in question.
As Bremer (2013) has argued, amongst others, wicked problems (see Sections 2.1 and 5.2) best fit with the dialogical perspective on integration. Many policy issues and problems seem to fit the description of wicked problems and require input from a plurality of sources and types of knowledge (see also Section 3.4). This fits well with the function of co-creation or co-generation (Mauser et al., 2013). It involves three fundamental steps throughout which both scientists and stakeholders are involved to varying degrees: co-design, co-production and co-dissemination (Mauser et al., 2013). During these consecutive steps, three dimensions of integration (scientific, international and sectoral) are of varying importance to the overall knowledge creation process.
In the field of technology assessment, similar insights have emerged. The impact of technologies on different aspects of human life must be made clear, and the appropriate use of the Precautionary Principle must be taken in account (Von Schomberg, 2012). The decision-maker must understand the values involved in order to be able to act in full awareness and knowledge (Lucivero, Swierstra, & Boenink, 2011). Such impacts of the decisions to be taken on the different aspects of human life, directly or through the environment, can be addressed by ethical questioning (Kaiser et al., 2007; Stilgoe et al., 2013). Possible impacts of new technologies and processes on human life can be identified as follows (e.g. Stilgoe et al., 2013):
• During the stages of design, construction and use, was the technology submitted to assessment of its risks and benefits?
• Does the development and diffusion of the technology modify the private sphere, and in what way; for instance inter-individual relations, the fundamental structures of social life or the environment?
• Does the development and diffusion of the technology modify, and in what way, the major areas of human activity, such as food, education, health, employment or the economy? Or social, cultural and political life, defence? Are there spiritual or philosophical aspects to be considered?
• What level is considered to be appropriate for controlling the appropriate use of the technology? The citizen, public or private organisations or state levels?
Does it affect international relations?
The following sections include some major insights from studies that link process design factors with quality assurance of the advice.