Analytical Paradigms: The Epistemological Distances between Scientists, Policy Makers, and the Public

Abstract

The effective use of evidence and its resultant knowledge is increasingly recognized as critical in risk analysis. This, in turn, has led to a growing concern over issues of epistemology in risk communication, and, in particular, interest in how knowledge is constructed and employed by the key players in risk--scientists, policy makers, and the public. This article uses a critical theoretical approach to explore how evidence is recognized and validated, and how limits are placed on knowledge by scientists, policy makers, and the public. It brings together developments in the sociology of science, policy and policy development, public understandings of science, and risk communication and analysis to explicate the differing forms of rationality employed by each group. The work concludes that each group employs different, although equally legitimate, forms of rationality when evaluating evidence and generating knowledge around risky environment and health issues. Scientists, policy makers, and the public employ scientific, political, and social rationality, respectively. These differing forms of rationality reflect underlying epistemological distances from which can develop considerable misunderstandings and misinterpretations.

Adolescentes y consumo nocivo de alcohol: Chile 2009: mirando a las políticas públicas

“…Trabajadas con métodos más "amigables" que colaboran en acortar brechas epistemológicas 24 , de bases profundas en nuestras formaciones y quehaceres profesionales y, por tanto, difíciles de suprimir, no debieran ser impedimento para trabajar más y mejor en un modo interdisciplinario y con probabilidades de éxito 25 . Como en todo estudio basado en datos secundarios, los resultados se encuentran supeditados a la calidad del registro y al sesgo de deseabilidad social relativo al consumo de sustancias.…”

Deliberating science in Italian high school. The case of the Scienza Attiva project

“…This result seems encouraging. All too often, interaction with scientists results in misconceptions and misunderstandings, due to conflicting epistemological frameworks, which consequently makes the public less likely to believe that involvement in participatory activities is effective and useful [Fischer, 2000;Garvin, 2001].…”

Decision-Making under Uncertainty for Water Sustainability and Urban Climate Change Adaptation

“…In other words, "Uncertainty reflects our incomplete and imperfect characterization of current conditions relevant to an environmental problem, and our incomplete and imperfect knowledge of the future consequences of these conditions" [17]. Many scientists have become frustrated by the way uncertainty is treated in policy-making processes and consider political decision-making irrational [27]. From the perspective of decision-making, however, uncertainty is defined not only in scientific but also in political terms and is created from divergent understandings of systems and their dynamics, different values and priorities, and relationships between diverse actors and perceptions.…”