THE PUBLIC SPHERE OF (FOREST) SCIENCE

Defining science is a difficult task. John Ziman (2000) brings several concepts in to play: a set of procedures, a subset of a field of knowledge, an agent, and a component of society, amongst many others. There are commonly accepted definitions which coincide with all these concepts and go further on. There are as well different types of science; for example natural and human sciences. Ziman excludes from his term „Real Science‟ those disciplines belonging to the human sciences as they do not comply with common accepted norms (Mertonian norms, see table 2.1) of what science should be (p.307) and, additionally, they deal with belief systems, something that should not be a part of „Real Science‟.

What is common to many definitions of science is the creation or construction of

„knowledge‟. Entire fields of philosophy have as well been dedicated to the study of what is knowledge, how knowledge is constructed, what scientific methods should be applied to obtain the knowledge, etc.

Forest science is a field within natural science. It is a field dealing with observing nature, particularly forests, and translating it to the „humans in the cave‟ (following Latours‟

comment on the allegory of the Cave by Plato). They are embedded in a communicative context. Thus, in order for forest scientists to communicate with the public (or humans unlucky enough to still be chained within the cave) an arena must be found where the communication between these two representatives -scientists and public- can take place.

As previously mentioned, the universal public sphere is comprised of many sub-spheres that are differentiated according to different criteria (e.g. location and culture). One of these social forums where problems are identified and discussed is the scientific community or the scientific public sphere.

The scientific community cannot be seen as an isolated entity, but can be described through its social activities (Felt et al., 1995: p.57). Robert K. Merton has stated that as a social entity, science communities comply with certain values and norms that are binding for scientists and as such comprise the ethos⁸ of science (Merton, 1973: p.270-78). These values and norms have constantly come under attack as changing visions of what is science have presented themselves. Table 2.1 summarizes Merton‟s norms for science (commonly known as CUDOs):

8 Merton understands the ethos of science as “that affectively tones complex of values and norms which is held to be binding on the man of science” (Merton, 1973: p.270).

16

Table 2.1. Merton‟s norms for science (Source: Merton, 1973: p.270-278)

Norm Definition

Communism

(communalism) All scientists are able to access the scientific results of all other scientists. Scientific results are a product of social collaboration and are assigned to the community.

Universalism Claims to truth are evaluated in terms of universal or pre-established impersonal criteria, and not on the basis of race, class, gender, religion, nationality, or personal qualities.

Disinterestedness Scientists are rewarded for action in ways that outwardly appear to be selfless.

Passion for knowledge, altruism concerning the benefit of humanity.

Organized skepticism All ideas must be tested, and are subject to rigorous, structured community scrutiny.

The norms advanced by Merton have striking similarities with Habermas‟ ideas concerning communicative action. Table 2.2 displays this comparison.

Table 2.2. Merton‟s scientific norms mirrored in Habermas‟ theory of communicative action (Source: own construction)

Merton‟s Norm Habermas‟ validity claim/principle Communism Principle of egalitarian reciprocity

Universalism Principle of universal moral respect and non-coercion Disinterestedness Speakers act selfless in pursuit of a common purpose/good Organized Skepticism Principle of egalitarian reciprocity

If these norms are taken as valid for the scientific community, and considering that a particular ideal goal of science is to reach consensus –subordinated to that of finding truth- on what is considered scientific knowledge, then to consider this community as a public sphere is valid.

In Habermas‟ ideal situation, scientists are the participants in this sphere who, when sharing lifeworlds and interacting communicatively, reach agreement regarding what is considered valid scientific knowledge. As the knowledge that arises in this sphere is fundamental for the identification of societal problems and their solutions –helping along the way civil society in the identification of problems-, it is important to pay attention to the discourses that develop through communication. The knowledge that arises from scientific discussions serves as input for the universal public sphere, where all actors which are affected by the problems can deliberate on the solutions that science might present through the institutionalized knowledge (knowledge recognized by the scientific community). As Baber (2004) has put it: “the use of knowledge is vitally important because the goal of public deliberation is to solve a problem together with others who have distinct perspectives and interests” (Baber, 2004: p.334). Baber notes that the beginning of deliberation in the universal public sphere deepens with the process of arriving at a share definition of problems which is dependent on facts.

In science, the peer review process can be seen as a rational process based on communicative action (Gross, 1990) between the reviewers (peers) and the authors of the article. Alan G. Gross has described how this process is the first step towards public status for scientific claims, towards the transformation of these claims into scientific knowledge (Gross, 1990: p.195). Gross‟ states that linking Habermas‟ theory of communicative action -through the analysis of speech act theory- to the peer review process is justified because of the coinciding aims of the theory and the researched area namely, a rational agreement. Rational agreement is the explicit purpose of the theory of communicative action and is as well the self-declared purpose of peer review, or for that

Theoretical Background

17

matter of science (Merton‟s scientific ethos). Speech act theory calls for a request to be made, in this case the submission of the article to a scientific journal, which will finally be deemed successful (or not) depending on shared social norms (scientific norms regarding what is sound research). Gross sees the decision of the referees as an “assessment of the persuasiveness of a submitted paper” (p.195). The assessment of the reviewers contains questions or comments that serve the author for improving the article (raising validity claims) -in case of a positive decision (they are raising validity claims). This interaction between author, reviewers and editors is a communication network that can be analyzed in terms of the criteria of an ideal speech situation (mentioned earlier). Once the communication has come to an end, the resulting published knowledge (science) is a consensus agreed on by authors, reviewers, and editors.

Assuming that this process is a representation of a deliberative communication process is not without criticism. Particular criticism has to do with the destiny of those arguments that, because of negative decisions, are not heard by the scientific community or, the unequal distribution of power between authors on the one hand, and reviewers and editors on the other (these having more power). These critical points will be addressed in section 2.2.2 and onwards.

If the article is approved through this process it is published and becomes visible for all others in the scientific community to discuss. Once an article is published, a new process begins where communicative action is as well found. The publishing of the article allows the scientific community to share the insights of the scientists who publish. The article published, aside from conveying facts or opinions of the scientists regarding certain topics, allow the establishment of a social relationship between scientists in the community. This is what Habermas recognizes as the use language is given in social interactions (Edgar, 2006: p.164). Thus in science, writing a scientific article is seen as one way scientists have to interact with their community; to establish social relationships with other scientists. Here, the use of language is focused on engaging in scientific discussion triggered by the paper published. The use (or discussion) of the topics can be formally captured through indicators such as citations. Through citations other scientists are reacting to the utterances formulated by scientists and in doing so engaging in discussion.

A citation of an article may imply many things: agreements with the knowledge presented, critique of the knowledge presented, or input for further research. Citing an article implies that the scientific community has become aware of the knowledge within it and is discussing its relevance. Citations thus convey the importance of the article (knowledge presented) for the scientific community; no assumption can be made regarding whether citations means approval or disapproval on the part of the community regarding the knowledge claims it makes. What can be claimed is that the scientific community through citations, is recognizing the articles, they are reacting to it, and thus deliberating on the contents communicated through them.

Each step within the pyramid presented in figure 2.2 filters what is accepted within the community as true scientific knowledge. Thus, at the end of the communicative process, discourses of forest science are found. Throughout the scientific community claims of scientific knowledge are being made. These claims, in order to become a part of the discourse must be presented though specific channels of communication. In the case analyzed here, these claims must be presented in written form to scientific journals

18

recognized by the community (scientists are thus initiating a communication process with a request). Here already a barrier exists in the communication process: not all the knowledge claims made by the scientific community are presented and thus eventually have a chance to enter the discourse. Many are the scientists who do not take part in this specific form of scientific communication and therefore many are the claims of knowledge that are left out. Those claims that are „put down in paper‟ enter the peer review process of the scientific journals. Again here a barrier exists that filters even more those articles that will end up being given the chance to form part of the discourse namely, the specific requirements of the scientific journals of the publications to be submitted. However, if these conditions are fulfilled, the peer review process may begin.

If, as described in the previous paragraphs, the claims of scientific knowledge have successfully arisen from this power-charged process, they are published and achieve the visibility of the scientific community. Here once more claims are filtered as not all those articles put to the review process achieve publication. Many are rejected. Therefore more claims are lost in the pyramid of forming the communication process that ends up in the discourse on forest science. The integration in the discourse is not assured by the scientific article being published. Only after the articles are put up for scrutiny of the scientific community, is recognized by them, and reacted to it through citations, can the claims of scientific knowledge be seen as integrating the discourse on forest science:

becoming afterwards, a part of the scientific knowledge available –and accepted- on a specific issue. This discourse is thus not the result of „the better argument‟ but of the power structures that distort it from the ideal result of a deliberative process.

Discourses on forest science Scientific knowledge

Claims of scientific knowledge Peer review process

Visibility

Written text

Publication

COMMUNICATIVE ACTION

Request Success

Citations

Figure 2.2. Communicative action in the process of knowledge formation through peer-review processes

The communication processes depicted through figure 2.2 is however not free of power structures that influence its outcome for example dominance of English as the language of science (Ammon, 2001; Crystal 1997, amongst many others); deviations from what might be considered as valid claims of knowledge; and distortions within the

Theoretical Background

19

communication process initialized by the submission to a peer-reviewed publications. All these are points that will be addressed in the following section.