This paper attempts to advance the notion of reflexivity as a key element of improving current understanding of the public understanding of science problem, and for improving the relations between science and its public more generally. By reflexivity here I mean more systematic processes of exploration of the prior commitments framing knowledge, in the way it has been introduced in sociological debates on modernity, rather than the more methodological-epistemological principle of consistency as it has been developed in sociology of science. The dominant framing of the public understanding of science issue corresponds with wider assumptions about the relationship between science and laypeople. Laypeople are assumed to be essentially defensive, risk- and uncertainty-averse, and unreflexive. Science on the other hand is assumed to be the epitome of reflexive self-criticism. This paper draws upon research in PUS to show that laypeople display considerable reflexive negotiation of their identity in relationships to science and scientific institutions. The latter, on the other hand, show considerable deep resistance to recognizing and reconsidering the unstated models of the public which structure their scientific discourses. This only makes the public understanding problem worse. Reflexive institutions would be needed to place science-public interactions on a more constructive footing.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Wynne, B. , 1991, Knowledges in context. Science, Technology & Human Values, 19, 1-17.
2.
Woolgar, S. , 1988, Knowledge and Reflexivity: New Frontiers in Sociology of Knowledge (London: Sage).
3.
See, for example, the case studies in Irwin, A., and Wynne, B., 1994, Misunderstanding Science (Cambridge University Press).
4.
Lyotard, J.-F. , 1984, The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge (Manchester University Press/University of Minnesota Press).
5.
Eyerman, R. , and Jamison, A., 1990, Social Movements: a Cognitive Approach (London: Polity).
6.
M. Featherstone , 1991, Consumer Culture and Postmodernism (London, New Delhi: Sage).
7.
Translation of the 1986 German edition, Risikogesellschaft: Auf dem Weges ein andere Moderne (Frankfurt: Suhrkampf).
8.
The deficit model was a name first given to the conventional approach by Wynne in a draft paper criticizing it, for a workshop in Lancaster in May 1988 of the Economic and Social Research Council-Science Policy Support Group research groups under the phase 1 Public Understanding of Science Research Initiative. John Durant has been among those who have quite legitimately asked critics to offer alternatives when engaging in what is now fairly conventional demolition of the deficit model.
9.
and Woolgar, S., 1991. Configuring the user: the case of usability trials. A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination, edited by J. Law (London, New York: Routledge), pp. 58-99.
10.
Callon, M. , 1987, Society in the making. The Social Construction of Technical Systems, edited by W. Bijkeret al. (Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press), pp. 48-67.
11.
See also the exchanges between Collins and Yearley, and Callon and Latour, in Pickering, A., 1992, Science as Practice and Culture (Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press), pp. 301-389.
12.
Woolgar, S. , 1988. Knowledge and Reflexivity: New Frontiers in Sociology of Knowledge (London: Sage).
13.
See also Withey, S. B., 1959, Public opinion about science and scientists. Public Opinion Quarterly, 23, 382-388.
14.
Bauer, M. , and Schoon, I., 1992, Mapping variety in public understanding of science. Public Understanding of Science. 2, 144.
15.
Handlin, O. , 1965, Science and technology in popular culture. Science and Culture, edited by G. Holton (Boston: Houghton Mifflin), p. 197.
16.
See, for example, several such expressions in the collection Gow., H., and Otway, H., 1990. Communicating Information about Major Industrial Hazards to the Public (London, New York: Elsevier).
17.
Kuhn, T. S. , 1962, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (University of Chicago Press).
18.
and remarks at a conference on `Detraditionalisation', held at Lancaster University, 8-10 July 1993, where science was described as organized scepticism. Much of Giddens' reference is to expert systems, the sociology of which needs more detailed examination.
19.
Holton, G. , 1992, How to think about the `anti-science' phenomenon. Public Understanding of Science, 1, 103-128.
20.
see also Rogoff, B., and Lave, J., 1984, Everyday Cognition (Cambridge Mass., London: Harvard University Press).
21.
Durant, J. , Evans, G., and Thomas, G., 1989, The public understanding of science. Nature, 340, 11-13.
22.
Durant, J. , Evans, G., and Thomas, G., 1992, Public understanding of science in Britain: the role of medicine in the popular representation of science. Public Understanding of Science, 1, 161-182.
23.
Jupp, A., 1987, Public information and major hazards, MSc thesis, University of Manchester.
24.
Dickens, P. , 1992, Society and Nature (London: Routledge).
25.
Martin, E. , 1989, The Woman in the Body (Milton Keynes: Open University Press).
26.
Michael, M. , 1992, Lay discourses of science: science-in-general, science-in-particular, and self. Science, Technology & Human Values, 17, 313-333.
27.
Wynne, B. , McKechnie, R., and Michael, M., 1990, Frameworks for understanding public interpretations of science and technology. Centre for Science Studies, Lancaster University, End-of-Award Research report to the UK ESRC, Project A09250008.
28.
Wynne, B. , 1987, Risk Management and Hazardous Wastes (London. New York: Springer), Chap. 10.
29.
Wynne, B. , 1992, Misunderstood misunderstanding: social identities and public uptake of science. Public Understanding of Science, 1, 281-304.
30.
J. D. Miller , 1991. The public understanding of science and technology in the United States. Public Opinion Laboratory, Northern Illinois University.
31.
and Yearley, S., 1992, Biotechnology—for or against? Report of a Meeting on public understanding of science and technology, October, Biotechnology Joint Advisory Board, UK ESRC.
32.
London Royal Society, Committee for the Public Understanding of Science (COPUS) , no date, COPUS Looks Forward: the Next Five years, p. 3.
33.
See, for example, Collins, H., 1985, Changing Order (London, New Delhi: Sage).
34.
Latour, B. , 1987, Science in Action (Milton Keynes: Open University Press).
35.
Latour, B., 1984, Microbes: Guerre et Paix (Paris, A M Metailie).
36.
Callon, M. , 1990, Elements of a sociology of translation: the domestication of the scallops and the fisherman of St Brieuc Bay. Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge?, edited by J. Law (London: Routledge).
37.
and Callon, M., 1990, Elements of a sociology of translation: the domestication of the scallops and the fisherman of St Brieuc Bay, Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge?, edited by J. Law (London: Routledge).
38.
Star, S. L. , 1991, Power, technology, and the phenomenology of conventions. A Sociology of Monsters, edited by J. Law (London: Routledge), pp. pp. 26-56.
39.
Singleton, V. , and Michael, M., 1993, Actor-networks and ambrvalence in cancer screening. Social Studies of Science, 23, 227-264.
40.
Harding, S. , 1986, The Science Question in Feminism (Milton Keynes: Open University Press).
41.
Collins, H. , 1988, Public experiments and displays of virtuosity: the core-set revisited. Social Studies of Science, 18, 725-748.
42.
and Collins, H., and Pinch. T., 1993, The Golem (Cambridge University Press).
43.
See, for example, Schaffer, S., and Shapin, S., 1985, Leviathan and the Air Pump: Hobbes, Boyle and the Experimental Life (Princeton University Press).
44.
Desmond, A. , 1987, Artisan resistance and evolution in Britain, 1819-1848. Osiris (2nd series), 3, 77-110.
45.
It is important to repudiate any implication that might be drawn from this analysis that the public is somehow innately more capable of reflexivity than science or scientists. This is not at all my point. It is the social-institutional position of different actors which influences their propensity to be reflexive. Against Giddens' notion that science is innately reflexive I would argue that no social actor is innately reflexive, and needs to be encouraged, which may be via political conflict or challenge. In general, it is tempting to propose the simple law of reflexivity—reflexivity is inversely proportional to power.
46.
For example in the risk field, see Wynne, B., 1992, risk and social learning: reification to engagement. Social Theories of Risk, edited by S. Krimsky and D. Golding (New York, London: Praeger), pp. 275-297.
47.
Bowker, G. , 1993, Some cybernetic universal strategies. Social Studies of Science, 23, 107-128.
48.
Jasanoff, S. , 1990, The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press).
