Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Human Affairs

Postdisciplinary Humanities & Social Sciences Quarterly

Editor-in-Chief: Višnovský, Emil

Ed. by Bianchi, Gabriel / Hrubec, Marek / Tartaglia, James


CiteScore 2018: 0.26

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.288
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.221

Online
ISSN
1337-401X
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 17, Issue 2

Issues

Participation of the Public in Science: Towards a New Kind of Scientific Practice

Isabelle Peschard
Published Online: 2007-12-17 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/v10023-007-0013-x

Participation of the Public in Science: Towards a New Kind of Scientific Practice

Participation of the public in science has been the object of an increasing number of social and political philosophical studies, but there is still hardly any epistemological study of the topic. While it has been objected that involvement of the public is a threat to the integrity of science, the apparent indifference of philosophers of science seems to testify to its lack of relevance to conceptions of scientific activity. I argue both that it is not a threat to science and that it is relevant to philosophy of science by showing that it constitutes a new kind of epistemic practice. Two main objections to the idea that the involvement of non-scientists, with their situated perspective and contextual values, can form an epistemic practice will be addressed: the first bears on the epistemic potentialities of the cooperation between scientist and non-scientists; the second on the possibility that this cooperation takes the form of a practice.

Keywords: participatory research; values in science; practice; normative accountability

  • Bailor-Jones, D. When Scientific Models Represent. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 17, 59-74, 2003.Google Scholar

  • Barad, K.Meeting the Universe Halfway. Durham & London: Duke University Press, 2007.Google Scholar

  • Barnes, B. Practice as collective action. In T. Schatzki, K. K. Cetina, E. von Savigny (Eds.). The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. New York: Routledge, 2001.Google Scholar

  • Campbell, L. Science Impact Collaborative Decision Analysis and Joint Fact Finding, LMITUSGS, 2006.Google Scholar

  • Cartwright, N.The Dappled World: A Study of the Boundaries of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.Google Scholar

  • Cooper, R. P., Franks, B. How Hybrid should a Hybrid Model Be? In Proceedings of the Workshop on Combining Symbolic and Connectionist Processing. 11th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Amsterdam, August, 59-67, 1994.Google Scholar

  • Cummins, R., Schwarz, G. Connectionism, Computation and Cognition. In T. Horgan, J. Tienson (Eds.). Connectionism and the Philosophy of Mind. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1991.Google Scholar

  • Depraz, N. Francisco Varela's Neurophenomenology of Radical Embodiment. Phenomeno-logy and the Cognitive Sciences, 1, 83-95, 2002.Google Scholar

  • Depraz, N., Varela, F.J., Vermersch, P.On Becoming Aware. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2003.Google Scholar

  • Douglas, H. Inserting the Public into Science. In S. Maassen and P. Weingart (Eds.). Democratization of Expertise? Exploring Novel Forms of Scientific Advice in Political Decision-Making. Sociology of Sciences, 24, 153-169, 2004.Google Scholar

  • Epstein, S.Impure Science: Aids, Activism and the Politics of Knowledge. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996.Google Scholar

  • Ezrahi, Y.The Descent of Icarus. Science and the Transformation of Modern Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990.Google Scholar

  • Flicker, S., Savan, B., Kolenda, B., Mildenberger, M. A Snapshot of Community-Based Research in Canada: Who? What? Why? How? Health Education Research, 2007.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Gallagher, S., Varela, F.J. Redrawing the Map and Resetting the Time. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 29, 93-127, 2003.Google Scholar

  • Hisschemoller, M. Knowledge Production and the Limits of Democracy. In S. Maassen and P. Weingart (Eds.). Democratization of Expertise? Exploring Novel Forms of Scientific Advice in Political Decision-Making. Sociology of Sciences, 24,189-207, 2004.Google Scholar

  • Hughes, R.I.G. Models and Representation. Philosophy of Science, 64, S325-S336, 1997.Google Scholar

  • Johnson, M. Metaphor-Based Values in Scientific Models. In L. Magnani and N.J. Nersessian (Eds.). Model-Based Reasoning: Science, Technology, Values. Kluwer Academic Publishers: New York, 2-19, 2002.Google Scholar

  • Jurgens, I. Science-Stakeholder Dialogue and Climate Change. Towards a Participatory Notion of Communication. In F. Bierman, S. Campe, K. Jacob (Eds.). Proceedings of the 2002 Berlin Conference on the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change. Amsterdam, Berlin, Postdam and Oldenburg: Global Governance Project, 87-101, 2004.Google Scholar

  • Lacey, H.Is Science Value Free? Values and Scientific Understanding. London and New York: Routledge, 1999.Google Scholar

  • Laudan, L.Science and Values. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984.Google Scholar

  • Law, J., Mol, A.M. The Actor-Enacted: Cumbrian sheep in 2001. In L. Malafouris, C. Knappett (Eds.). Material Agency: Towards A Non-Anthropocentric Approach. Springer, forthcoming.Google Scholar

  • Leach, M. MMR Mobilisaton: Citizens and Sciences in a British Vaccine Controversy. Working Paper 247, Sussex: Institute of Development Studies, 2005.Google Scholar

  • Leach, M., Scoones, I. Mobilising Citizens: Social Movements and the Politics of Knowledge. Working Paper 276, Sussex: Institute of Development Studies, 2007.Google Scholar

  • Morgan, M., Morrisson, M.Models as Mediators. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.Google Scholar

  • Noë, A., Thompson, E. Are there Neural Correlates of Consciousness? Journal of Consciousness Studies, 11, no 1, 3-28, 2004.Google Scholar

  • Pickering, A.The Mangle of Practice: Time, Agency, and Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995.Google Scholar

  • Potter, E.Feminism and Philosophy of Science. An Introduction. Routledge: New York, 2006.Google Scholar

  • Risjord, M. Who are "We"? Dissolving the Problem of Cultural Boundaries. The Modern Schoolman, forthcoming 2007.Google Scholar

  • Robertson, H. McGee, T. Applying Local Knowledge: the Contribution of Oral History to Wetland Rehabilitation at Kanyapella Basin, Australia. Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 69, 275-287, 2003.Google Scholar

  • Rouse, J.How Scientific Practice Matter. Reclaiming Philosophical Naturalism. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2002.Google Scholar

  • Rouse, J. Social Practices and Normativity. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 37, 46-56, 2007.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Rowe, G., Marsh, R., Frewer, L.J. Evaluation of a Deliberative Conference. Science, Technology and Human Values, vol. 29, no 1, 88-121, 2004.Google Scholar

  • Turner, S. Throwing out the Tacit Rule Book: Learning and Practices. In T.R. Schatzki, K. Knorr Cetina, E. von Savigny (Eds.). The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. London: Routledge, 120-130, 2001.Google Scholar

  • Turner, S. The Social Theory of Practices: Tradition, Tacit Knowledge, and Presuppositions. Cambridge: Polity Press; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.Google Scholar

  • Suárez, M. Theories, Models and Representation. In L. Magnani and N.J. Nersessian (Eds.) Model-Based Reasoning in Scientific Discovery. Kluwer Academic Publishers: New York, 75-83, 1999.Google Scholar

  • van Fraassen, B. C.Scientific Representation: Paradoxes of Perspective. Oxford University Press. forthcoming.Google Scholar

  • Varela, F.J., Thompson, E., Rosch, E.The Embodied Mind. Cognitive Science and Human Experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1991.Google Scholar

  • Varela, F.J. The Naturalization of Phenomenology as the Transcendence of Nature. Alter, 5, 1997.Google Scholar

  • Wittgenstein, L.Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 3rd ed, 2001.Google Scholar

  • Wynne, B. Sheep Farming after Chernobyl. A Case Study in Communicating Scientific Information. Environment, 31, 2, 11-39, 1989.Google Scholar

  • Wynne, B. May Sheep Safely Graze? A Reflexive View of The Expert-Lay Knowledge Divide. In S. Kash, B. Szerszynski and B. Wynne (Eds.). Risk, Environment and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 44-83, 1996.Google Scholar

About the article


Published Online: 2007-12-17

Published in Print: 2007-12-01


Citation Information: Human Affairs, Volume 17, Issue 2, Pages 138–153, ISSN (Online) 1337-401X, ISSN (Print) 1210-3055, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/v10023-007-0013-x.

Export Citation

This content is open access.

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Jaana Eigi
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 2019, Volume 75, Page 51
[2]
Gert Goeminne
Ethics, Place & Environment, 2010, Volume 13, Number 2, Page 207
[4]
Gert Goeminne
Foundations of Science, 2011, Volume 16, Number 2-3, Page 173

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in