Amid increasing interest in participatory forms of environmental appraisal and decision making, the actors shaping these new governance spaces remain understudied. This paper seeks to refocus accounts of public engagement in science onto these participatory appraisal experts, or ‘experts of community’, through drawing on in-depth empirical research that followed them through networks building up around participatory appraisal practice in the UK environmental-risk domain. A mapping of the general nature and character of this emerging epistemic community provides the context within which to analyse how it has evolved and has begun to influence policy processes in the area of radioactive waste. Prospects for studying networks of public engagement experts at the science–policy interface and wider implications for deliberative democracy under uncertainty are explored.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdlerEHaasP M, 1992, “Conclusion: epistemic communities, world order, and the creation of a reflective research program”International Organization46(1) 367–390
2.
BurgessJ, 2000, “Situating knowledges, sharing values and reaching collective decisions: the cultural turn in environmental decision-making”, in Cultural Turns/Geographical Turns Eds CookICrouchDNaylorSRyanJ (Prentice Hall, London) pp 273–287
3.
BurgessJChilversJ, 2006, “Upping the ante: a conceptual framework for designing and evaluating participatory technology assessments”Science and Public Policy33713–728
4.
CallonM, 1986, “Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay”, in Power, Action and Belief Ed. LawJ (Routledge, London) pp 196–233
5.
CambrosioAKeatingPMogoutovA, 2004, “Mapping collaborative work and innovation in biomedicine: a computer-assisted analysis of antibody reagent workshops”Social Studies of Science34325–364
6.
ChilversJ, 2005, “Democratising science in the UK: the case of radioactive waste management”, in Science and Citizens Eds LeachMScoonesIWynneB (Zed Press, London) pp 237–243
7.
ChilversJ, 2007, “Towards analytic-deliberative forms of risk governance in the UK? Reflections on learning in radioactive waste”Journal of Risk Research10197–222
8.
ChilversJ, 2008, “Deliberating competence: theoretical and practitioner perspectives on effective participatory appraisal practice”Science, Technology and Human Values33421–451
9.
CookeBKothariU (Eds), 2001Participation: The New Tyranny? (Zed Books, London)
10.
CornwallAPrattG, 2003Pathways to Participation: Reflections on PRA (ITDG Publishing, London)
11.
CoRWM, 2006, “Managing our radioactive waste safety: CoRWM's recommendations to Government”, July 2006, Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, http://www.corwm.org.uk/pdf/FullReport.pdf
12.
DaviesG, 2006, “Mapping deliberation: calculation, articulation and intervention in the politics of organ transplantation”Economy and Society35232–258
13.
DaviesGBurgessJ, 2004, “Challenging the ‘view from nowhere’: citizen reflections on specialist expertise in a deliberative process”Health and Place10349–361
14.
Defra, 2001Managing Radioactive Waste Safely: Proposals for Developing a Policy for Managing Radioactive Waste in the UK (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London)
15.
EllisRWatertonC, 2005, “Caught between the cartographic and the ethnographic imagination: the whereabouts of amateurs, professionals, and nature in knowing biodiversity”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space23673–693
16.
European Commission, 2001European Governance: A White Paper COM (2001), 428 (Commission of the European Communities, Brussels)
17.
FiorinoD, 1990, “Citizen participation and environmental risk: a survey of institutional mechanisms”Science, Technology and Human Values15226–243
18.
FuntowiczS ORavetzJ R, 1993, “Science for the post-normal age”Futures25739–755
19.
GoughCShackleyS, 2001, “The respectable politics of climate change: the epistemic communities and NGOs”International Affairs77329–345
20.
HaasP M, 1992, “Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination”International Organization461–35
21.
HaasP M, 2004, “When does power listen to truth? A constructivist approach to the policy process”Journal of European Public Policy11569–592
22.
HealyS, 2003, “Public participation as the performance of nature”, in Nature Performed Eds SzerszynskiBHeimWWatertonC (Blackwell, Oxford) pp 94–108
23.
HinchliffeS, 2001, “Indeterminacy in-decisions—science, policy and politics in the BSE (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy) crisis”Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series26182–204
24.
House of Lords, 1999Management of Nuclear Waste Report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology (The Stationery Office, London)
25.
House of Lords, 2000Science and Society (The Stationery Office, London)
26.
HuntJWynneB, 2000Forums for Dialogue: Developing Legitimate Authority through Communication and Consultation Report to UK Nirex Ltd (Centre for the Study of Environmental Change, Lancaster)
27.
involve, 2005People and Participation (Involve, London)
28.
IrwinA, 2001, “Constructing the scientific citizen: science and democracy in the biosciences”Public Understanding of Science101–18
29.
IrwinA, 2006, “The politics of talk: coming to terms with the ‘new’ scientific governance”Social Studies of Science36299–320
30.
IrwinAMichaelM, 2003Science, Social Theory and Public Knowledge (Open University Press, Milton Keynes, Bucks)
31.
JasanoffS, 2005Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ)
32.
JossSBellucciS, 2002, Participatory Technology Assessment: European Perspectives (Centre for the Study of Democracy, London)
33.
JossSDurantJ (Eds), 1995Public Participation in Science: The Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe (Science Museum, London)
34.
KasemirBJagerJJaegerC CGardnerM T, 2003Public Participation in Sustainability Science (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
35.
Knorr-CetinaK, 1999Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA)
36.
KothariU, 2005, “Authority and expertise: the professionalisation of international development and the ordering of dissent”Antipode37425–446
37.
LeachMScoonesIWynneB (Eds), 2005Science and Citizens: Globalization and the Challenge of Engagement (Zed Books, London)
38.
LewisJ, 2001Constructing Public Opinion (Columbia University Press, New York)
39.
LimogesC, 1993, “Expert knowledge and decision-making in controversy contexts”Public Understanding of Science2417–426
40.
MaynardDSchaefferN, 2000, “Toward a sociology of social scientific knowledge: survey research and ethnomethodology's asymmetric alternates”Social Studies of Science30323–370
41.
MuntonR, 2003, “Deliberative democracy and environmental decision-making”, in Negotiating Environmental Change Eds BerkhoutFLeachMScoonesI (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, Glos) pp 109–136
42.
NiemeyerSSpashC, 2001, “Environmental valuation analysis, public deliberation, and their pragmatic syntheses: a critical appraisal”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy19561–585
43.
O'RiordanTBurgessJSzerszynskiB, 1999, “Deliberative and inclusionary processes: a report from two seminars”, WP PA 99–06, CSERGE, Norwich
44.
OsbornTRoseN, 1999, “Do the social sciences create phenomena: the case of public opinion research”British Journal of Sociology50367–396
45.
OwensSRaynerTBinaO, 2004, “New agendas for appraisal: reflections on theory, practice and research”Environment and Planning A361943–1959
46.
PellizzoniL, 2003, “Uncertainty and participatory democracy”Environmental Values12195–224
47.
PenningtonMRydinY, 2000, “Researching social capital in local environmental policy contexts”Policy and Politics28233–249
48.
PettsJHomanJPollardS, 2003, “Participatory risk assessment: involving lay audiences in environmental decisions on risk”, R&D Technical Report E2-043/TR/01, Environment Agency, Bristol
49.
RCEP, 1998Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution 21st Report: Setting Environmental Standards (The Stationery Office, London)
50.
RennOWeblerTWiedemannP (Eds), 1995Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse (Kluwer, Dordrecht)
51.
RoseN, 1999Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
52.
RosenerJ, 1978, “Citizen participation: can we measure its effectiveness?”Public Administration Review38457–463
53.
RoweGFrewerL, 2000, “Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation”Science Technology and Human Values253–29
54.
RoweGFrewerL, 2004, “Evaluating public-participation exercises: a research agenda”Science, Techology and Human Values29512–557
55.
ScottJ, 2000Social Network Analysis: A Handbook (Sage, London)
56.
SinghK, 2001, “Handing over the stick: the global spread of participatory approaches to development”, in Global Citizen Action Eds EdwardsMGaventaJ (Lynne Reiner, Boulder, CO) pp 175–187
57.
SternP CFinebergH V, 1996Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society (National Research Council, Washington, DC)
58.
StirlingA, 2005, “Opening up or closing down: analysis, participation and power in the social appraisal of technology”, in Science and Citizens Eds LeachMScoonesIWynneB (Zed Books, London) pp 218–231
59.
UKCEED1999Citizens' Panel Report on the UK National Consensus Conference on Radioactive Waste Management, 21–24 MayThe UK Centre for Economic and Environmental Development, Peterborough, Northamptonshire
60.
WeblerT, 1995, “Right discourse in citizen participation: an evaluative yardstick”, in Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation Eds RennOWeblerTWiedemannP (Kluwer, Dordrecht) pp 35–86
61.
WilsdonJWillisR, 2004See-through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream (Demos, London)
62.
WynneB, 1982Rationality and Ritual: The Windscale Inquiry and Nuclear Decisions in Britain (The British Society for the History of Science, Chalfont St Giles, Bucks)
63.
WynneB, 2005, “Risk as globalising ‘democratic’ discourse: framing subjects and citizens”, in Science and Citizens Eds LeachMScoonesIWynneB (Zed Books, London) pp 66–82
