Many of the aspects of science which touch the public most deeply involve some degree of modelling (for example, the dispersion of pollutants, predicted climate change or the spread of flood waters), yet explicit analyses in the public understanding of science tradition (PUS) have seldom examined computerized scientific models. However, scientific models of all sorts are increasingly run on computers, often raising new obstacles to public understanding and participation. The availability of increasing computer power at declining cost makes the possibility of modelling all the greater; recently, UK local authorities and other regional executive bodies, as well as lobby groups, have been able to carry out their own modelling activities. Though the practicalities of modelling have received some attention from social scientists, it is clear that there are comparatively neglected questions about PUS in relation to public judgements of the accuracy and legitimacy of such models, and to their reception and use by the public. This paper examines the significance of these issues through a recent case study of a local authority-operated air-quality model in the British city of Sheffield.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Allen & Jones (1990) Robert Allen and Tara Jones, Guests of the Nation: The People of Ireland Versus the Multinationals (London: Earthscan).
2.
Arksey (1998) Hilary Arksey, RSI and the Experts: The Construction of Medical Knowledge (London: UCL Press).
3.
Bloomfield (1986) Brian Bloomfield, Modelling the World: The Social Construction of Systems Analysis (Oxford: Blackwell).
4.
Dahinden et al. (1999) Urs Dahinden, Cristina Querol, Jill Jäger and Mans Nilsson, `Using Computer Models in Participatory Integrated Assessment - Experiences Gathered in the ULYSSES Project and Recommendations for Further Steps', ULYSSES Working Paper WP-99-2 (Darmstadt University of Technology).
5.
Darier et al. (1999) Éric Darier, Simon Shackley and Brian Wynne, `Towards a “Folk Integrated Assessment” of Climate Change?', International Journal of Environment and Pollution11/3 (August): 351-372.
6.
Elleker (1995) Andrew D. Elleker, The Air Quality of Sheffield April 1994-March 1995 (Sheffield: Sheffield City Council).
7.
Entwistle et al. (1998) Vikki Entwistle, Mary Renfrew, Steven Yearley, John Forrester and Tara Lamont, `Lay Perspectives: Advantages for Health Research?', British Medical Journal316 (7 February): 463-466.
8.
Epstein (1995) Steven Epstein, `The Construction of Lay Expertise: AIDS Activism and the Forging of Credibility in the Reform of Clinical Trials', Science, Technology, & Human Values20/4 (Autumn): 408-437.
9.
Evans & Durant (1995) Geoffrey Evans and John Durant, `The Relationship Between Knowledge and Attitudes in the Public Understanding of Science in Britain', Public Understanding of Science4/1 (January): 57-74.
10.
Evans (1997) Robert J. Evans, What Happens Next: Can Economic Forecasters Foretell the Future? (Bath, Somerset: unpublished PhD thesis, Science Studies Centre, University of Bath).
11.
Finlayson (1994) Alan Finlayson, Fishing for Truth: A Sociological Analysis of Northern Cod Stock Assessments from 1977-1990 (St John's, Newfoundland: Memorial University of Newfoundland, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Social and Economic Studies, 52).
12.
Forrester (1999) John Forrester, `The Logistics of Public Participation in Environmental Assessment', International Journal of Environment and Pollution11/3 (August): 316-330.
13.
Funtowicz & Ravetz (1991) Silvio O. Funtowicz and Jerome R. Ravetz, `A New Scientific Methodology for Global Environmental Issues', in Robert Costanza (ed.), Ecological Economics (New York: Columbia University Press): 137-152.
14.
Garrett & hs (1996) Mark Garrett and Martin Wachs, Transportation Planning on Trial: The Clean Air Act and Travel Forecasting (London: Sage).
15.
Guimarães Pereira et al. (1999) Angela Guimarães Pereira, Clair Gough and Bruna De Marchi, `Computers, Citizens and Climate Change: The Art of Communicating Technical Issues', International Journal of Environment and Pollution11/3 (August): 266-289.
16.
Irwin (1989) Alan Irwin, `Deciding about Risk', in Jennifer Brown (ed.), Environmental Threats: Perception, Analysis and Management (London: Belhaven Press): 19-33.
17.
Irwin (1995) Alan Irwin, Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development (London: Routledge).
18.
Irwin et al. (1996) Alan Irwin, Alison Dale and Denis Smith, `Science and Hell's Kitchen: The Local Understanding of Hazard Issues', in Irwin & Wynne (1996a): 47-64.
19.
Irwin & Wynne (1996a) Alan Irwin and Brian Wynne (eds), Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
20.
Irwin & Wynne (1996b) Alan Irwin and Brian Wynne, `Introduction', in Irwin & Wynne (1996a): 1-17.
21.
Keepin & Wynne (1984) Bill Keepin and Brian Wynne, `Technical Analysis of IIASA Energy Scenarios', Nature312 (20 December): 691-695.
22.
Kempton et al. (1995) Willett Kempton, James Boster and Jennifer Hartley, Environmental Values in American Culture (Boston, MA: MIT Press).
23.
Krueger (1988) Richard A. Krueger, Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research (London: Sage).
24.
Laird (1993) Frank N. Laird, `Participatory Analysis, Democracy, and Technological Decision Making', Science, Technology, & Human Values18/3 (Summer): 341-361.
25.
Lambert & Rose (1996) Helen Lambert and Hilary Rose, `Disembodied Knowledge? Making Sense of Medical Science', in Irwin & Wynne (1996a): 65-83.
26.
Merton et al. (1956) Robert Merton, Marjorie Fiske and Patricia L. Kendall, The Focused Interview: A Manual of Problems and Procedures (Glencoe, IL: Free Press).
27.
Morgan (1993) David L. Morgan (ed.), Successful Focus Groups: Advancing the State of the Art (London: Sage).
28.
Murphy (1998) Michelle Murphy, Sick Buildings and Sick Bodies: The Materialization of an Occupational Illness in Late Capitalism (Cambridge, MA: unpublished PhD thesis, History of Science Department, Harvard University).
29.
Rose (1990) Hilary Rose, personal communication at ESRC/SPSG PUS Meeting (London, 14 September 1990).
30.
Sclove (1995) Richard E. Sclove, Democracy and Technology (New York: Guilford Press).
31.
Shackley (1997) Simon Shackley, `Trust in Models? The Mediating and Transformative Role of Computer Models in Environmental Discourse', in Michael Redclift and Graham Woodgate (eds), The International Handbook of Environmental Sociology (Cheltenham, Glos.: Edward Elgar): 237-260.
32.
Shackley & Wynne (1996) Simon Shackley and Brian Wynne, `Representing Uncertainty in Global Climate Change Science and Policy: Boundary-Ordering Devices and Authority', Science, Technology, & Human Values21/3 (Summer): 275-302.
33.
Shapin (1994) Steven Shapin, A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press).
34.
United Nations (1993) United Nations, The Global Partnership for Environment and Development: a Guide to Agenda 21 (New York: United Nations).
35.
Wynne (1992) Brian Wynne, `Misunderstood Misunderstanding: Social Identities and Public Uptake of Science', Public Understanding of Science1/3 (July): 281-304.
36.
Wynne (1994) Brian Wynne, `Scientific Knowledge and the Global Environment', in Michael Redclift and Ted Benton (eds), Social Theory and the Global Environment (London: Routledge): 169-189.
37.
Wynne (1995) Brian Wynne, `Public Understanding of Science', in Sheila Jasanoff, Gerald E. Markle, James C. Petersen and Trevor Pinch (eds), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (Thousand Oaks, CA & London: Sage/4S): 361-388.
38.
Yearley (1994) Steven Yearley, `Understanding Science from the Perspective of the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge: An Overview', Public Understanding of Science3/3 (July): 245-258.
39.
Yearley (1997) Steven Yearley, `Review of [Kempton, Boster & Hartley, 1995]', Public Understanding of Science6/2 (April): 213-214.
40.
Yearley (1999) Steven Yearley, `What Do We Mean by “Science” in the Public Understanding of Science?', in Meinolf Dierkes and Claudia von Gröte (eds), Between Understanding and Trust: The Public, Science and Technology (Reading, Berks.: Harwood Academic), in press.
