Integrating uncertainties through participatory approaches: On the burden of cognitive exclusion and infodemic in a post-normal pandemic

Explaining and critiquing the postnormal: A warning against ideologies in the field of futures and foresight

“…In contrast, the proponents of the post‐normal science framework repeatedly talk of policy “solutions.” This puts into question how solutions are actually found. More recently, even if the framework has inspired several scholars to build up on the concept of extended peer review by making explicit some of its guiding principles (Meisch et al, 2022) or by drawing commonalities with participatory action research (Giatti, 2022), some key details of how to conduct an extended peer review are still missing (see footnote 6 for some examples). Lack of clarity on the dimensions of the framework : Some authors have underlined that the dimensions of the post‐normal science framework are unclearly conceptualized (Turnpenny et al, 2011). Specifically, some conditions of scientific research cannot be easily categorized in the framework.…”

“…In contrast, the proponents of the post‐normal science framework repeatedly talk of policy “solutions.” This puts into question how solutions are actually found. More recently, even if the framework has inspired several scholars to build up on the concept of extended peer review by making explicit some of its guiding principles (Meisch et al, 2022) or by drawing commonalities with participatory action research (Giatti, 2022), some key details of how to conduct an extended peer review are still missing (see footnote 6 for some examples).…”

More than participatory? From ‘compensatory’ towards ‘expressive’ remote practices using digital technologies

“…As ( Nguyen et al, 2021 : 2) observed, ‘vulnerable groups are likely to be least prepared to manage shifts necessary during the pandemic and digital inequalities are one way that the crisis might disproportionately impact those groups’. The digital exclusion of marginalised groups under COVID-19 has exacerbated emerging ‘epistemic injustice’ ( Liegghio and Caragata, 2021 :150), also referred to as ‘epistemic violence’ ( Liegghio, 2016 ; in Liegghio and Caragata, 2021 : 150), as well as ‘cognitive exclusion’ ( Giatti, 2022 : 2). These terms can also be understood as ‘the dehumanization of marginalized groups and peoples through the exclusion of their knowledges and ways of knowing’ ( Liegghio and Caragata, 2021 : 150).…”

“…Meanwhile, even during the pandemic, researchers held onto the potential of PAR research to mitigate inequities ‘through transforming the conventional unilateral relationship between science and society into a [fairer] and more symmetrical process’ ( Giatti, 2022 : 1). Hence, it is not surprising that much of the recent academic literature on PAR research practices during COVID-19 has focused on how researchers have aimed to compensate for their physical absence from the field while attempting to maintain ‘participatory’ and ‘inclusive’ research practices ( Auerbach et al, 2022 ; Hall et al, 2021 ).…”