Expertise, Public Engagement, Democracy
BACK: Diversity in Computing
Traditional, “diffusionist” Model of Science Communication
Science -> Media -> Public
This treats science as a top-down approach. Science is at the top and creates knowledge for the public to eventually passively receive. Knowledge isn’t tied to context, this assumes “pure science.”
Seeing this model assumes that “this is all there is.” The media also acts as a middleman, who summarizes what actually happens based on how they perceive it. The media is like the “dirty mirror” of science–it focuses on the findings, rather than the processes, they select themes, experts, and portray scientific activity as progressive. There is a professional mission of the media to “educate the public.”
There is a deficit of public understanding of science–a gap of information between the experts and the public. We assume that scientific literacy is equivalent to more support for science. But public understanding is made up of trust, value judgments, personal experience, pre-existing interests, concerns, …
ie: GMO’s. People more well versed in biology were less opposed to GMOs in food.
The Continuity Model of Science Communication
What the public gets is a subset/mini version of the expert spaces and understanding of sciences. What’s interesting is that it goes back–the public has some say in how scientists research and what they want to communicate.
Not everything is so reliable by the time it gets to the public. “The more removed the context of research is from the context of reception in terms of language, intellectual prestige and skill levels, the easier it is to present their work as certain, decontextualized from the conditions of its production, and authoritative.”
There are two basic modes of public communication of science:
- Routine: Consensual, non-problematic. Scientific notions are placed in “media frames.” Science is popularized in this way.
- Deviation: Scientists try to gain recognition outside the scientific community–redefinition of scientific facts in the public area. Outcomes are uncertain and social groups can weigh in.
Expertise and Democracy
How can we rethink “scientific governance” once we realize that power and expertise are not two completely separate entities? “Expertise” is essential to liberal democracies.
Having enough knowledge to have a conversation with policymakers, the public, people in general. ie GMO food, nuclear waste, stem cell research.
How can we bring public participation into technical decisions? How can we bring deliberative democracy to technical decisions? These decisions always contain social and normative assumptions–the public should have relevant knowledge and insights.
Harry Collins on interactional expertise: “Between formal propositional knowledge and embodied skill lies ‘interactional expertise’–the ability to converse expertly about a practical skill or expertise, but without being able to practice it, learned through linguistic socialization among the practitioners.”
Climate change? Is it even a scientific debate? What is it?