There was a time when the mobilization of experts was a taken-for-granted, unproblematic aspect of decision-making processes. That confidence has vanished. Ascertaining the significance of expertise now requires a reconsideration of the dynamics of controversies. The current view still assimilates controversy to the medieval exercise of the disputatio in which two parties argue one against the other. A non-reductionist view is needed to take fully into account the diversity of worlds of relevance involved in the dynamics of any public controversy. Only then is it possible to understand how decision making is predicated upon associations of worlds of relevance, and how expertise is actually a collective learning process which sets the boundary conditions for the efficacy of individual experts.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Limoges, C., 1987, De la technologie comme objet problématique à l'évaluation sociale des technologies. Diffusion des nouvelles technologies. Stratégies d'entreprises et évaluation sociale, edited by D. Tremblay (Montréal: Editions Saint-Martin), pp. 169-184.
2.
Nelkin, D. , 1975, The political impact of technical expertise. Social Studies of Science, 5, 33-54.
3.
Jasanoff, S. , 1987, Contested boundaries in policy-relevant science. Social Studies of Science, 17, 195-230.
4.
Huber, P. W. , 1991, Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom (New York: Basic Books).
5.
Handler, P. , 1980, Public doubts about science. Science, 208, Editorial page.
6.
Limoges, C., and Roy, L., 1993, Evaluation du processus de consultation sur le plan de développement d'Hydro-Québec. Report prepared for Hydro-Québec; 2 vols.
7.
Wilkinson, C. F. , 1990, The scientist's perspective on risk. Increasing Understanding of Public Problems and Policies—1990 (Oak Brook, Ill.: Farm Foundation), pp. 66-73.
8.
A variant is the notion of `social amplification of risk'. See: Kasperson, R. E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H. S., Emel, J., Goble, R., Kasperson, J. K., and Ratick, S., 1988, The social amplification of risk: a conceptual framework. Risk Analysis, 8, 177-187.
9.
Cambrosio, A. , Limoges, C., and Hoffman, E., 1992, Expertise as network: a case study of the controversies over the environmental release of genetically engineered organisms. The Culture and Power of Knowledge: Inquiries into Contemporary Societies, edited by N. Stehr and R. V. Ericson (Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter), pp. 341-361.
10.
Cambrosio, A. , and Limoges, C., 1991, Controversies as governing processes in technology assessment. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 3, 377-396.
11.
See for instance: Jasanoff, S., 1986, Risk Management and Political Culture (New York: Russell Sage Foundation).
12.
Though even scientific controversies are not that simple. It also happens that the scientific content is as much the occasion as the cause for a controversy, and that scientists will shift the point of contention to perpetuate the controversy. See for instance: Holmes, F. L., 1974, Claude Bernard and Animal Chemistry (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press), Chap. 5.
13.
The case is used here only as an illustration, and the worlds of relevance will be sketched in a very general way. Those interested in the details, and in the mapping approach we have developed, will find them in two papers now being prepared for publication: Cambrosio, A., Limoges, C., and Davignon, L., Plurality of worlds, plurality of risks; Limoges, C., Cambrosio, A., and Davignon, L., La gestion d'une controverse technologique publique comme mise en relation des univers de pertinence de ses acteurs.
14.
On these cases, see the appendices in: Limoges, C., Doray, P., Henrichon, P., Cimon, M., Veilleux, D., Charron, D., and Davignon, L., 1993, La réglation publique en contexte d'environnementalisation: l'Etat et les préoccupations des citoyens relatives aux incidences des changements technologiques (Québec, Conseil de la Science et de la Technologie).
15.
Limoges et al., research in progress.
16.
Cambrosio, A. , Limoges, C., and Mitchell, L.1993, Plrality of worlds, plurality of risks (in preparation).
17.
Rip, A. , 1985, Experts in public arena. Regulating Industrial Risks, edited by H. Otway and M. Peltu (London: Butterworths), pp. 94-110, p. 108.
18.
See also: Rip, A., 1987, Controversies as informal technology assessment. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 8, 349-371.
19.
Rip, A. , 1987, Controversies as governing processes in technology assessment. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 8, 358.
20.
Cambrosio, A. , and Limoges, C., 1991, Controversies as governing processes in technology assessment. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 3, 377-396.
21.
Wynne, B. , 1992, Misunderstood misunderstanding; social identities and public uptake of science. Public Understanding of Science, 1, 281.
22.
Limoges, C., Cambrosio, A., and Davignon, L., La gestion d'une controverse technologique publique comme mise en relation des univers de pertinence de ses acteurs (in preparation).
23.
Such mechanisms have been experimented with for a decade now in the domain of environmental impact assessment. Two interesting examples, in Canada, are Quebec's Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement [BAPE], and, at the federal level, the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office [FEARO].
24.
Artefacts play a central role in articulating and associating worlds of relevance; this point is developed in articles which are currently being prepared for publication: Cambrosio, A., Limoges, C., and Davignon, L., Plurality of worlds, plurality of risks; Limoges, C., Cambrosio, A., and Davignon, L., La gestion d'une controverse technologique publique comme mise en relation des univers de pertinence de ses acteurs.
