The concept of expertise is quite complex. What makes and expert? Education and credentials? Experience? Knowledge? Answering this question is significant because, in the world that we live in, we look to experts to point us in the right direction. Who is steering us toward the future, and what course are they taking? Several STS scholars have taken up the issue to determine how and at what rate the public, institutions, and government should be involved in this process. Moreover, should finding political legitimacy in science be a democratic process, or one that is left to the “experts.” Both papers this week (Collins & Evans and Whatmore) conclude that the public is capable of becoming more involved in the making of scientific issues, and that the time is now.
These articles help us realize that the political sphere rotates at a much more rapid pace than science and society. Yet issues within these two realms are constantly pulled into politics and filed through quickly and often without thorough investigation. For this reason, Whatmore encourages a slowing-down of reasoning, discouraging science from becoming caught up in the galloping pace of politics. She maps three forms of public involvement in scientific controversy: partisanship, demoscience, and competency groups. The first, partisanship, arms the public with enough knowledge to determine if the controversy is fair or weighted. Demoscience encourages the tracing of the web of involvement to investigate the living and non-living players causing and effected by a controversy. Finally, she refers to competency groups which are beginning to take shape in some democracies, in which panels are arranged between “experts” and the public to fold societal issues into science before science takes and institutional form.
Whatmore’s mapping of knowledge controversies appears to be akin to Collins’ three waves of science. His First Wave, characterized by the experts’ concern with remaining unbiased compliments Whatmore’s “partisanship.” When it becomes apparent that science cannot be partisan, Wave Two, or social constructivism, allows for Whatmore’s “demoscience” to take form, wherein the public has the resources to trace the form of controversy. Collins & Evans claim that Wave Three does not replace, but augments, Wave Two by granting public access to science before a consensus has been made. This certainly compliments the competency groups which Whatmore has mapped.
Early in their paper, Collins and Evans seem to establish that it is experience, the doing of some thing, which makes a person an expert. But they also imply that there is a myth that the doers have “special access to the truth” (236). Here they are recognizing that knowledge is mobilized through circulating reference (literature, lecture, media, maps, photos, etc), and the truth can be pieced together by non-experts...were they granted access to sufficient data. This addresses their “Problem of Legitimacy,” and ultimately the authors suggest that the answer to the “Problem of Extension” involves a relationship between a broad, interdisciplinary scientific community and the public in “all but specialist areas.” This concept is certainly akin to that of Whatmore’s.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Monday, May 17, 2010
Science Communication Reconsidered - Michelle Sumovich
In recent history, science has taken a new role which would claim to have roots in social servitude (ie. medicine). Science is privately contracted to address the concerns of institutions which, in turn, are concerned with social concerns. Nonetheless, the public is often skeptical or untrusting of the motives and results of these privately funded projects. This evolution has created much chaos in the way that science is communicated among scientists, institutions, and the public. This week’s article was written by a large panel of scientists who are concerned with the way that science is communicated today, though the various disciplines and levels of expertise among the panel likely determine their personal stake in this article (perhaps concerns about society, institution, or bureaucracy). The authors note that the emergence of technology in recent decades enables the public to become involved in scientific discourse. However, these advances are not merely scientific in nature; technology has also created a void wherein the public can easily escape communication about science (and intellect) entirely.
A challenge clearly exists in the modern world involving the ability to engage the public in scientific discussion. The authors do not see this as a scientific challenge, however, but a social and journalistic one. Currently science communication initiatives are focused on educating the public about scientific controversy and “filling the deficit in knowledge,” but the authors argue that ideology, social identity, and trust are equally important factors to the public. They also note that public involvement in scientific controversy is currently downstream from institutionalized policy, and they encourage an upstream mobilization of public involvement while science is still “in-the-making.”
This mobilization of information would, of course, take place via the relationship between scientific journalism and the public. The public does not learn about science in the lab, so we rely on journalism to explain to us what is happening there. Likewise, journalism is reliant upon the public to read/watch their reports on such subjects. Therefore, framing is an inevitable occurrence which satisfies both parties. It gives the institution a bigger and broader audience, and it gives the public greater trust in the issue. This is one aspect of framing that I am convinced about. But I am still unsure about the purity and thoroughness of this approach. This article states that “communication is both an art and a science.” I am still a bit uneasy about the artistic license which some science journalists may choose to employ, and the confusion that is carelessly created through metaphor. In contrast, the authors also mention the fragility of arguments associated with authors who personally or artistically employ a negative mode of communication compared to those whose personal preference leads them to write in a positive tone of voice. It’s a tough world out there.
This article promotes a blurring of the line between the public and science in journalism in an attempt to make neither social nor scientific concerns exclusive of one another. The authors also promote the growth of active public involvement through blogs, forums, and conferences. I believe that this “active” involvement would allow the public to frame the issues for themselves. This is what all of us students do every day that we attend lecture. We listen to what the professor is saying about X and all the while we’re thinking about what X tells us about our research paper due next week which is about Y and Z. I am very comfortable with this idea, in contrast to my persistent hesitancy about journalistic framing.
A challenge clearly exists in the modern world involving the ability to engage the public in scientific discussion. The authors do not see this as a scientific challenge, however, but a social and journalistic one. Currently science communication initiatives are focused on educating the public about scientific controversy and “filling the deficit in knowledge,” but the authors argue that ideology, social identity, and trust are equally important factors to the public. They also note that public involvement in scientific controversy is currently downstream from institutionalized policy, and they encourage an upstream mobilization of public involvement while science is still “in-the-making.”
This mobilization of information would, of course, take place via the relationship between scientific journalism and the public. The public does not learn about science in the lab, so we rely on journalism to explain to us what is happening there. Likewise, journalism is reliant upon the public to read/watch their reports on such subjects. Therefore, framing is an inevitable occurrence which satisfies both parties. It gives the institution a bigger and broader audience, and it gives the public greater trust in the issue. This is one aspect of framing that I am convinced about. But I am still unsure about the purity and thoroughness of this approach. This article states that “communication is both an art and a science.” I am still a bit uneasy about the artistic license which some science journalists may choose to employ, and the confusion that is carelessly created through metaphor. In contrast, the authors also mention the fragility of arguments associated with authors who personally or artistically employ a negative mode of communication compared to those whose personal preference leads them to write in a positive tone of voice. It’s a tough world out there.
This article promotes a blurring of the line between the public and science in journalism in an attempt to make neither social nor scientific concerns exclusive of one another. The authors also promote the growth of active public involvement through blogs, forums, and conferences. I believe that this “active” involvement would allow the public to frame the issues for themselves. This is what all of us students do every day that we attend lecture. We listen to what the professor is saying about X and all the while we’re thinking about what X tells us about our research paper due next week which is about Y and Z. I am very comfortable with this idea, in contrast to my persistent hesitancy about journalistic framing.
Friday, May 7, 2010
Issue Oriented Public Involvement - Michelle Sumovich
Noortje Marres’s article on public involvement in controversy is a challenging one. She uses several literary examples from works which are likely equally challenging, so this article becomes a bit soupy to the layman. However, there are several points of clarity wherein Marres brings it all together and, I must admit, hashing this article out in the classroom was extremely valuable.
Her paper argues for increased public awareness and involvement in controversial issues which currently tend to be formed and framed by institutions before the public becomes interested. Her feeling is that when institutions act alone in defining what the issues are, they set the foundation, the limits, and the boundaries for public discourse. An important point is that institutions such as government and commerce have no real incentive to listen to public opinion. It is much easier for them to form their platform and allow public supporters and opponents to fall in line. This concept is intriguing to me, and I think that it can be evidenced by looking at many of the large-scale modern controversies that are argued today. Generally there are two opposing sides to many controversies, such as pro- and anti- or liberal and conservative. The public is large and varied, and I assume that the institutional framing of issues supports this simple model of X vs. Y. If issue formation were to increase within the public sphere, I think that we would begin seeing more variability within discourse.
To address this goal, Marres would like to see STS studies become increasingly focused on “issue-oriented” rather than “object-oriented” controversy. Her feeling is that researchers are currently too focused on objects of controversy; for example oil, pharmaceutical drugs, and national borders. Focusing on these objects, however, sometimes results in the dismissal of the fact that there are people behind them, effected by them, and producing them. This course has encouraged us to appreciate a recognition of the players or actants that are involved in a controversy, and I think that is what Marres is arguing for as well. Moreover, if her plea resulted in a trend of increased disclosure about the players and actors, the public and laymen would be less dependent on the expertise of the institution to put the pieces together for them. My point being, that the public does not typically have the time to become expert on the spectrum of players in controversy, but a movement to educate readers about people would 1. provoke interest in issues and 2. make bringing the public up to speed seemingly easier. Also, if this were the standard, the public may effectively become more comfortable with “the upstream” by critically judging expertise by what issues, people, and concerns are addressed or more importantly not addressed within scientific literature.
I have a personal example to share about the power of non-institutionalized public involvement, specifically through blogging. About five years ago, a friend of mine with no formal college education, whom I worked with at a retail store decided that she would like to educate herself about politics. She began researching government policy and blogging about her observations, gaining a following among colleagues. After several years of building a foundation in the blogoshpere, Sarah began volunteering for local campaigns. Now this self-educated woman who made political involvement her personal goal only five years ago, is in Washington working as Jeff Merkley’s deputy press secretary. Her story is personally inspirational to me, but Marres’s article has augmented my perception of the importance of such communication.
Her paper argues for increased public awareness and involvement in controversial issues which currently tend to be formed and framed by institutions before the public becomes interested. Her feeling is that when institutions act alone in defining what the issues are, they set the foundation, the limits, and the boundaries for public discourse. An important point is that institutions such as government and commerce have no real incentive to listen to public opinion. It is much easier for them to form their platform and allow public supporters and opponents to fall in line. This concept is intriguing to me, and I think that it can be evidenced by looking at many of the large-scale modern controversies that are argued today. Generally there are two opposing sides to many controversies, such as pro- and anti- or liberal and conservative. The public is large and varied, and I assume that the institutional framing of issues supports this simple model of X vs. Y. If issue formation were to increase within the public sphere, I think that we would begin seeing more variability within discourse.
To address this goal, Marres would like to see STS studies become increasingly focused on “issue-oriented” rather than “object-oriented” controversy. Her feeling is that researchers are currently too focused on objects of controversy; for example oil, pharmaceutical drugs, and national borders. Focusing on these objects, however, sometimes results in the dismissal of the fact that there are people behind them, effected by them, and producing them. This course has encouraged us to appreciate a recognition of the players or actants that are involved in a controversy, and I think that is what Marres is arguing for as well. Moreover, if her plea resulted in a trend of increased disclosure about the players and actors, the public and laymen would be less dependent on the expertise of the institution to put the pieces together for them. My point being, that the public does not typically have the time to become expert on the spectrum of players in controversy, but a movement to educate readers about people would 1. provoke interest in issues and 2. make bringing the public up to speed seemingly easier. Also, if this were the standard, the public may effectively become more comfortable with “the upstream” by critically judging expertise by what issues, people, and concerns are addressed or more importantly not addressed within scientific literature.
I have a personal example to share about the power of non-institutionalized public involvement, specifically through blogging. About five years ago, a friend of mine with no formal college education, whom I worked with at a retail store decided that she would like to educate herself about politics. She began researching government policy and blogging about her observations, gaining a following among colleagues. After several years of building a foundation in the blogoshpere, Sarah began volunteering for local campaigns. Now this self-educated woman who made political involvement her personal goal only five years ago, is in Washington working as Jeff Merkley’s deputy press secretary. Her story is personally inspirational to me, but Marres’s article has augmented my perception of the importance of such communication.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
The Assemblage - Michelle Sumovich
This week’s readings unite many seemingly unrelated concepts into the coherency of the “assemblage.” Latour and Bennett are both concerned with the interconnectedness that exists among the scientific, social, human, and non-human realms. The authors show us the shaping of matter into scientific form through the mobilization of not only the most obvious scientific actants, but also through the influence of the social, public, political, bureaucratic, and peripheral. To use Latour’s chapter for example, the functions of uranium and heavy water would be irrelevant to Joliot were it not for their necessity in the making of his atomic reactor. Were it not for the production of uranium and the discovery of the isotope used to make heavy water, Joliot may have never worked for Raoul Dautry nor the French military. Each of these actants is causally responsible in some way for the production of Joliot’s atomic reactor, and they continue to act as his achievement affects other elements of the world. However, as Bennett points out, this causality is nonlinear. X does not affect Y. There are many (infinite?) Xs which influence many Ys. Bennett refers to this as “emergent causality” in which “effects and cause alternate position and rebound back upon each other” (459). In other words, all humans, non-humans, and concepts have influence upon “the others” and are influenced by “the others”. This is the shapeless blob known (or unknown) as the assemblage.
Bennett makes reference to a traditional Chinese concept known as Shi which is impressed upon me as a state of knowing, seeing, and sensing the many actants which make up an assemblage. Shi is not simply the essence of the world as expressed through human causality, but an illumination of the shifting dispositions of the world. The author attempts to bring the reader into a sort of state of Shi through her analogy of the electric power grid which Bennett describes as a flow of electrons whose mobility is not entirely predictable, as evidenced by the 2003 direction reversal between Pennsylvania and New York following an outage (451). The unforseeable occurred when this electron flow changed course, behaving as an “entity with uncertain boundaries,” or directionality without reason. I think this example shows us that by making science (building electric grids and atomic reactors) we are sometimes harnessing, taming, or shaping nature to reach a goal BUT when we shape reason into structures, contexts, settings, climates, and conditions, and likewise when we inappropriately assign human agency to causality, we can easily rob ourselves of an understanding of the Shi operating among the assemblage. I believe that Latour and Bennett would agree that how we perceive cause and agency can affect the ways in which we put the world into words.
Bennett makes reference to a traditional Chinese concept known as Shi which is impressed upon me as a state of knowing, seeing, and sensing the many actants which make up an assemblage. Shi is not simply the essence of the world as expressed through human causality, but an illumination of the shifting dispositions of the world. The author attempts to bring the reader into a sort of state of Shi through her analogy of the electric power grid which Bennett describes as a flow of electrons whose mobility is not entirely predictable, as evidenced by the 2003 direction reversal between Pennsylvania and New York following an outage (451). The unforseeable occurred when this electron flow changed course, behaving as an “entity with uncertain boundaries,” or directionality without reason. I think this example shows us that by making science (building electric grids and atomic reactors) we are sometimes harnessing, taming, or shaping nature to reach a goal BUT when we shape reason into structures, contexts, settings, climates, and conditions, and likewise when we inappropriately assign human agency to causality, we can easily rob ourselves of an understanding of the Shi operating among the assemblage. I believe that Latour and Bennett would agree that how we perceive cause and agency can affect the ways in which we put the world into words.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)