Scholars developing the concept of post-normal science have focused on high stakes and uncertainty to illustrate scientific inquiry and decision-making under post-normal conditions. While uncertainty and decision stakes are often challenges in any decision-making process, we argue that they are not the key factors that warrant the use of a post-normal approach, in which facts are ambiguous, values are in dispute, and stakes are high. In this paper, we center the role of time in the definition of post-normal science and offer a model of decision-making that incorporates uncertainty and high stakes within an overarching context of urgency. We then present three cases of decision-making with varying time horizons to illustrate the significance of time: The period leading up to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, the U.S. development of the atomic bomb during the Manhattan Project, and U.S. space exploration in the 1960s, culminating in the Apollo 11 Moon landing. Elaborating on the role of time in post-normal science is crucial to public administration because our field routinely involves decision making amidst ambiguous facts, disputed values, high stakes, and urgency. As the three illustrative cases further show, administrators on the ground during the lead-up to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Manhattan Project, and space exploration also included extended peer communities.
AinscoughJ.WilsonM.KenterJ. O. (2018). Ecosystem services as a post-normal field of science. Ecosystem Services, 31, 93–101.
3.
BelléN.CantarelliP.BelardinelliP. (2018). Prospect theory goes public: Experimental evidence on cognitive biases in public policy and management decisions. Public Administration Review, 78, 828–840.
Castro e SilvaM.TeixeiraA. A. C. (2011). A bibliometric account of the evolution of ecological economics in the last two decades. Ecological Economics, 70, 849–862.
7.
DankelD. J.VaageN. S.van der SluijsJ. P. (2017). Post-normal science in practice. Futures, 91, 1–4.
8.
FergnaniA. (2019). Mapping futures studies scholarship from 1968 to present: A bibliometric review of thematic clusters, research trends, and research gaps. Futures, 105, 104–123.
9.
FuntowiczS. O.RavetzJ. R. (1993a). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25, 739–755.
10.
FuntowiczS. O.RavetzJ. R. (1993b). The emergence of post-normal science. In SchombergR. Von (Eds.), Science, politics and morality (pp. 85–123). Springer.
11.
FuntowiczS. O.RavetzJ. R. (1994). Uncertainty, complexity, and post-normal science. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 13, 1881–1885.
12.
FuntowiczS. O.RavetzJ. R. (2003). Post-normal science. In International society of ecological economics, internet encyclopaedia of ecological economics. https://www.isecoeco.org/pdf/pstnormsc.pdf
13.
FuntowiczS. O.RavetzJ. R. (2020). Post-normal science: How does it resonate with the world of today. In Science for policy handbook. Elsevier.
14.
KahnemanD. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. American Economic Review, 93(5), 1449–1475.
KonigN.BorsenT.EmmecheC. (2017). The ethos of post-normal science. Futures, 91, 12–24.
17.
KuhnT. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
18.
KuhnT. S. (1970). Logic of discovery or psychology of research. In LakatosI.MusgraveA. (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (p. 22). Cambridge University Press.
19.
LauniusR. D. (2006). Interpreting the moon landings: Project Apollo and the historians. History and Technology, 22, 225–255.
20.
LauniusR. D.McCurdyH. E. (Eds.). (2018). NASA spaceflight: A history of innovation. Spring International Publishing AG.
21.
MastracciS. H. (2022). Dirty work and emotional labor in public service: Why government employers should adopt an ethic of care. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 42, 537–552.
22.
McCurdyH. E. (1991). Organizational decline: NASA and the life cycle of bureaus. Public Administration Review, 51(4), 308–315.
23.
MeischS. P.BremerS.YoungM. T.FuntowiczS. O. (2022). Extended peer communities: Appraising the contributions of tacit knowledges in climate change decision making. Futures, 135, 1–9.
24.
National Science Foundation. (2022). Master government list of federally funded R&D Centers. Retrieved November 29, 2022, from https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/ffrdclist/
25.
PereiraA. G.SaltelliA. (2017). Post-normal institutional identities: Quality assurance, reflexivity, and ethos of care. Futures, 91, 53–61.
26.
PetersenA. C.CathA.HageM.KunselerE.van der SluijsJ. P. (2011). Post-normal science in practice at the Netherlands environmental assessment agency. Science, Technology & Human Values, 36(3), 362–388.
27.
RavetzJ. R. (1999). What is post-normal science?Futures, 31, 647–653.
28.
RiccucciN. M. (2010). Public administration: Logics of inquiry and philosophies of knowledge. Georgetown University Press.
29.
RobertsP. S.WernstedtK. (2018). Herbert Simon’s forgotten legacy for improving decision processes. International Public Management Journal, 22, 591–616.
30.
SaltelliA. (2020). Ethics of quantification or quantification of ethics?Futures, 116, 1–11.
31.
SaltelliA.BeniniL.FuntowiczS. O.GiampietroM.KaiserM.ReinertE.van der SluijsJ. P. (2020). The technique is never neutral. How methodological choices condition the generation of narratives for sustainability. Environmental Science and Policy, 106, 87–98.
32.
SaltelliA.FuntowiczS. O. (2017). What is science’s crisis really about?Futures, 91, 5–11.
33.
SardarZ. (2015). Postnormal times revisited. Futures, 67, 26–39.
34.
SardarZ. (2010). Welcome to postnormal times. Futures, 42, 435–444.
35.
SimonH. A. (1972). Theories of bounded rationality. In McGuireC. B.RadnerR. (Eds.), Decision and organization (pp. 161–176). North Holland Publishing Co.
36.
SimonH. A. (1987). Making management decisions: The role of intuition and emotion. Academy of Management Executive, 1, 57–64.
37.
SimonH. A. (1990). Bounded rationality. In EatwellJ.MilgateM.NewmanP. (Eds.), Utility and probability (pp. 15–18). Palgrave MacMillan.
38.
StanovichK. E.WestR. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate?Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 645–726.
39.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.
40.
WeinbergA. M. (1972a). Science and trans-science. Minerva, 10, 209–222.
41.
WeinbergA. M. (1972b). Science and trans-science. Science, 177, 211.
42.
ZhongC.-B. (2011). The ethical dangers of deliberative decision making. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56, 1–25.
