Quantitative information is one of the means used to interface science with policy. As a consequence, much effort is invested in producing quantitative information for policy and much criticism is directed toward the use of numbers in policy. In this paper, I analyze five approaches drawn from such criticisms and propose alternative uses of quantitative information for governance: (i) valuation of ecosystem services, (ii) social multicriteria evaluation, (iii) quantification of uncertainty through the Numeral, Unit, Spread, Assessment, Pedigree approach, (iv) Quantitative Story-Telling, and (v) the heuristic use of statistics. The analysis shows the varied ways that numbers are conceptualized and how different conceptualizations matter for the science–policy interface. Alternative conceptualizations of numbers are used to challenge the model of science-speaking truth to power. Uncertainty, complexity, pluralism, malpractice, and values are mobilized to redefine the relations between science and policy. Alternative quantification may produce alternative facts, but reflexive approaches that use numbers to discuss the relevance of equity, positionality, and quality in science for policy may offer a remedy.
AlbrechtDanielSuchaVladimirRavetzJeromevan der SluijsJeroenGiampietroMarioDankelDorothyStarkPhilipKovacicZoraSaltelliAndreaKayJohn. 2015. “Significant Digits: Responsible Use of Quantitative Information,” edited by AngelaGuimaraes PereiraJeromeRavetzAndreaSaltelli, 1–29. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. doi:10.2760/565958
2.
AsdalKristin. 2008. “Enacting Things through Numbers: Taking Nature into Account/ing.” Geoforum39 (1): 123–32. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2006.11.004
3.
AsdalKristin. 2011. “The Office: The Weakness of Numbers and the Production of Non-authority.” Accounting, Organizations and Society36 (1): 1–9. doi:10.1016/j.aos.2011.01.001
BakerMonya. 2016. “Statisticians Issue Warning on P Values.” Nature531 (10): 151.
6.
BorgesJorge Luis. 1975. A Universal History of Infamy. London, UK: Penguin Books.
7.
CallonMichelLawJohn. 2005. “On Qualculation, Agency, and Otherness.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space23 (5): 717–33. doi:10.1068/d343t
8.
ChuDominique. 2013. The Science Myth. London, UK: Iff Books.
9.
CollinsHarryEvansRobertWeinelMartin. 2017. “STS as Science or Politics?” Social Studies of Science47 (4): 1–7. doi:10.1177/0306312717710131
10.
de GrootRudolf S.WilsonMatthew A.BoumansRoelof M. J.. 2002. “A Typology for the Classification, Description and Valuation of Ecosystem Functions, Goods and Services.” Ecological Economics41 (3): 393–408. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00089-7
11.
De MarchiBrunaFuntowiczSilvio OscarLo CascioSilvestroMundaGiuseppe. 2000. “Combining Participative and Institutional Approaches with Multicriteria Evaluation. An Empirical Study for Water Issues in Troina, Sicily.” Ecological Economics34 (2): 267–82.
12.
FineBenMilonakisDimitris. 2011. “‘Useless but True’: Economic Crisis and the Peculiarities of Economic Science.” Historical Materialism19 (2): 3–31. doi:10.1163/156920611X573770
13.
FullerTed. 2016. “Anxious Relationships: The Unmarked Futures for Post-Normal Scenarios in Anticipatory Systems.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change124 (Nov 2017): 41–50. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2016.07.045
14.
FuntowiczSilvio O.RavetzJerome R.. 1990. Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy. Ecological Economics, vol. 6. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
FuntowiczSilvio O.StrandRoger. 2007. “Models of Science and Policy.” In Biosafety First-Holistic Approaches to Risk and Uncertainty in Genetic Engineering and Genetically Modified Organisms, edited by TraavikTerje, 263–78. Trondheim, Norway: Tapir Academic Press.
17.
Gomez-BaggethunErikRuiz-PerezManuel. 2011. “Economic Valuation and the Commodification of Ecosystem Services.” Progress in Physical Geography35 (5): 613–28. doi:10.1177/0309133311421708
18.
HackingIan. 2006. The Emergence of Probability, 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
19.
HardingSandra. 1993. “Rethinking Standpoint Epistemology: What is ‘Strong Objectivity’?” In Feminist Epistemologies, edited by AlcoffLindaPotterElizabeth, 49–82. New York: Routledge.
20.
HelgessonClaes-FredrikMuniesaFabian. 2013. “For What It’s Worth: An Introduction to Valuation Studies.” Valuation Studies1 (1): 51–81. doi:10.3384/vs.2001-5992.1311
21.
JasanoffSheila. 1996. “Beyond Epistemology: Relativism and Engagement in the Politics of Science.” Social Studies of Science26 (2): 393–418.
22.
JasanoffSheila. 2004. States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and the Social Order, edited byJasanoffSheila. New York: Routledge.
23.
JasanoffSheilaSimmetHilton R.. 2017. “No Funeral Bells: Public Reason in a ‘post-Truth’ Age.” Social Studies of Science47 (1): 751–70. doi:10.1177/0306312717731936
24.
KahnemanDaniel. 2011. Thinking Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
25.
KosoyNicolásCorberaEsteve. 2010. “Payments for Ecosystem Services as Commodity Fetishism.” Ecological Economics69 (6): 1228–36. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.002
26.
LakoffGeorge. 2010. “Why It Matters How We Frame the Environment.” Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture4 (1): 70–81. doi:10.1080/17524030903529749
27.
LubchencoJane. 1998. “Entering the Century of the Environment: A New Social Contract for Science.” Science279 (January): 491–97. doi:10.1126/science.279.5350.491.
28.
MitchellSandra D.2009. Unsimple Truths: Science, Complexity and Policy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
29.
MolAnnemarie. 2008. The Logic of Care: Health and the Problem of Patient Choice. New York: Routledge.
30.
MundaGiuseppe. 2004a. “Multi-Criteria Evaluation.” In Modelling in Ecological Economics, edited byProopsJohnSafonovPaul, 130–54. Northampton, UK: Edward Elgar.
31.
MundaGiuseppe. 2004b. “Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation: Methodological Foundations and Operational Consequences.” European Journal of Operational Research158 (3): 662–77. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00369-2
32.
MundaGiuseppe. 2005. “Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis and Sustainable Development.” In Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, edited by GrecoSalvatore, 953–86. New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/0-387-23081-5_23
33.
Open Science Collaboration. 2015. “Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science.” Science349 (6251): aac4716.
34.
PereiraAngela G.FuntowiczSilvio O.. 2009. Science for Policy, edited byPereiraAngela G.FuntowiczSilvio O.. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
35.
PielkeRoger A.2004. “When Scientists Politicize Science: Making Sense of Controversy over the Skeptical Environmentalist.” Environmental Science and Policy7 (5): 405–17. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2004.06.004
36.
PilkeyOrrin H.Pilkey-JarvisLinda. 2007. Useless Arithmetic: Why Environmental Scientists Can’t Predict the Future. New York: Columbia University Press.
37.
PirardRomain. 2012. “Market-based Instruments for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: A Lexicon.” Environmental Science and Policy19-20 (May-June 2009): 59–68. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2012.02.001.
38.
PorterTheodore M.1995. Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
39.
Puig de la BellacasaMaria. 2010. “Matters of Care in Technoscience: Assembling Neglected Things.” Social Studies of Science41 (1): 85–106.
RefsgaardJens Christianvan der SluijsJeroen P.BrownJamesvan der KeurPeter. 2006. “A Framework for Dealing with Uncertainty due to Model Structure Error.” Advances in Water Resources29 (11): 1586–97. doi:10.1016/j.advwatres.2005.11.013
42.
ReinertErik S.2007. How Rich Countries Got Rich…and Why Poor Countries Stay Poor. New York: Public Affairs Press.
43.
ReinertErik S.2009. “The Terrible Simplifers: Common Origins of Financial Crises and Persistent Poverty in Economic Theory and the New ‘1848 Moment.’” In Poor Poverty: The Impoverishment of Analysis, Measurement and Policies, edited by SundaramJomo KwameChowdhuryAnis. London, UK: Bloomsbury Academic.
44.
SaltelliAndreaFuntowiczSilvio O.. 2014. “When All Models Are Wrong.” Issues in Science and Technology30 (2): 79–85.
45.
SaltelliAndreaGiampietroMario. 2017. “What Is Wrong with Evidence Based Policy, and How Can It Be Improved?” Futures91 (Aug 2017): 62–71.
46.
SaltelliAndreaPereiraAngela G.van der SluijsJeroen P.FuntowiczSilvio Oscar. 2013. “What Do I Make of Your Latinorum? Sensitivity Auditing of Mathematical Modelling.” International Journal of Innovation Policy9 (2/3/4): 213–34. doi:10.1504/IJFIP.2013.058610
47.
SavageSam. 2009. The Flaw of Averages. Harvard Business Review. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01326.x
48.
SerranoEduardoMaría RomeroJosé. 2014. El Derecho a Habitar Y Cómo Hacerlo Realidad. Málaga, Spain: Rizoma Fundación.
49.
Serrano-TovarTarikBenalcazarJuan CadilloDiaz-MaurinFrançoisKovacicZoraMadrid-LopezCristinaGiampietroMarioAspinallRichard J.Ramos-MartínJesúsBukkensSandra G. F.. 2014. “The Republic of Mauritius.” In Resource Accounting for Sustainability Assessment: The Nexus between Energy, Food, Water and Land Use, edited by GiampietroMarioAspinallRichard J.JesusRamos-MartinBukkensSandra G.F, 163–80. New York: Routledge.
50.
SismondoSergio. 2017. “Post-Truth?” Social Studies of Science47 (1): 3–6. doi:10.1177/0306312717692076
51.
StarkPhillip B. 2012. “Constraints versus Priors.” Journal on Uncertainty Quantification3 (1): 586–98.
SteinSethSteinJerome L.. 2013. “Shallow Versus Deep Uncertainties in Natural Hazard Assessments.” Eos94 (14): 133–34. doi:10.1002/2013EO140001
54.
TalebNicholas Nassim. 2007. The Black Swan. New York: Random House.
55.
TalebNicholas Nassim. 2012. Antifragile. New York: Random House.
56.
TurnhoutEstherHisschemollerMatthijsEijsackersHerman. 2007. “Ecological Indicators: Between the Two Fires of Science and Policy.” Ecological Indicators7 (2): 215–28.
57.
van der SluijsJeroen P.CrayeMatthieuFuntowiczSilvioKloproggePennyRavetzJerryRisbeyJames. 2005. “Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Measures of Uncertainty in Model-based Environmental Assessment: The NUSAP System.” Risk Analysis: An Official Publication of the Society for Risk Analysis25 (2): 481–92. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00604.x
VölkerThomasPereiraÂngela G.WannerMaximilianBlackstockKirstyWaylenKerryStrandRogerKovacicZoraSerrano-TovarTarikRipoll-BoschRaimon. 2017. “Formation of policy teams and exploratory interviews in WP2.” MAGIC (H2020-GA 689669) Project Milestone 6. Accessed July 13, 2017. http://magic-nexus.eu
60.
WachelderJoseph. 2003. “Democratizing Science: Various Routes and Visions of Dutch Science Shops.” Science, Technology, & Human Values28 (2): 244–73. doi:10.1177/0162243902250906
61.
WardekkerJ. Arjanvan der SluijsJeroen P.JanssenPeter H. M.KloproggePennyPetersenArthur C.. 2008. “Uncertainty Communication in Environmental Assessments: Views from the Dutch Science-Policy Interface.” Environmental Science and Policy11 (7): 627–41. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2008.05.005
62.
WildavskyAaron B.1989. Speaking Truth to Power. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction.
63.
WynneBrian. 1992. “Uncertainty and Environmental Learning: Reconceiving Science and Policy in the Preventive Paradigm.” Global Environmental Change2 (2): 111–27. doi:10.1016/0959-3780(92)90017-2
