Post-normal science

Post-normal science (PNS) was developed in the 1990s by Silvio Funtowicz and Jerome R. Ravetz.[1][2][3] It is a problem-solving strategy appropriate when "facts [are] uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent", conditions often present in policy-relevant research. In those situations, PNS recommends suspending temporarily the traditional scientific ideal of truth, concentrating on quality as assessed by internal and extended peer communities.[1][4]

Post-normal science diagram
Jerome Ravetz and Silvio Funtowicz, circa 1988, at Sheffield

PNS can be considered as complementing the styles of analysis based on risk and cost-benefit analysis prevailing at that time and integrating concepts of a new critical science developed in previous works by the same authors.[5][6]

PNS is not a new scientific method following Aristotle and Bacon, a new paradigm in the Kuhnian sense, or an attempt to reach a new ‘normal’. It is instead, a set of insights to guide actionable and robust knowledge production for policy decision making and action in challenges like pandemics, ecosystems collapse, biodiversity loss and, in general, sustainability transitions.[7][8]

Context

According to its proponents[3] Silvio Funtowicz and Jerome R. Ravetz, the name "post-normal science" echoes the seminal work on modern science by Thomas Kuhn.[9] For Carrozza[10] PNS can be "framed in terms of a call for the ‘democratization of expertise’", and as a "reaction against long-term trends of ‘scientization’ of politics—the tendency towards assigning to experts a critical role in policymaking while marginalizing laypeople". For Mike Hulme (2007), writing on The Guardian, climate change seems to fall into the category of issues which are best dealt with in the context of PNS and notes that “Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science - who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy - as on the facts of science”.[11]

From the ecological perspective post-normal science can be situated in the context of 'crisis disciplines' – a term coined by the conservation biologist Michael E. Soulé to indicate approaches addressing fears, emerging in the seventies, that the world was on the verge of ecological collapse. In this respect Michael Egan[12] defines PNS as a 'survival science'. More recently PNS has been defined as a movement of ‘informed critical resistance, reform and the making of futures’.[13]

Moving from PNS Ziauddin Sardar developed the concept of Postnormal Times (PNT). Sardar was the editor of FUTURES when it published the article ‘Science for the post-normal age’[3] presently the most cited paper of the journal. A recent review of academic literature conducted on the Web of Science and encompassing the topics of Futures studies, Foresight, Forecasting and Anticipation Practice[14] identifies the same paper as "the all-time publication that received the highest number of citations".

Content

"At birth Post-normal science was conceived as an inclusive set of robust insights more than as an exclusive fully structured theory or field of practice".[15] Some of the ideas underpinning PNS can already be found in a work published in 1983 and entitled "Three types of risk assessment: a methodological analysis" [16] This and subsequent works [1][2][3][5] show that PNS concentrates on few aspects of the complex relation between science and policy: the communication of uncertainty, the assessment of quality, and the justification and practice of the extended peer communities.

Coming to the PNS diagram (figure above) the horizontal axis represents ‘Systems Uncertainties’ and the vertical one ‘Decision Stakes’. The three quadrants identify Applied Science, Professional Consultancy, and Post-Normal Science. Different standards of quality and styles of analysis are appropriate to different regions in the diagram, i.e. post-normal science does not claim relevance and cogency on all of science's application but only on those defined by the PNS's mantram with a fourfold challenge: ‘facts uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent’. For applied research science's own peer quality control system will suffice (or so was assumed at the moment PNS was formulated in the early nineties), while professional consultancy was considered appropriate for these settings which cannot be ‘peer-reviewed’, and where the skills and the tacit knowledge of a practitioner are needed at the forefront, e.g. in a surgery room, or in a house on fire. Here a surgeon or a firefighter takes a difficult technical decision based on her or his training and appreciation of the situation (the Greek concept of ‘Metis’ as discussed by J. C. Scott.[17])

Complexity

There are important linkages between PNS and complexity science,[18] e.g. system ecology (C. S. Holling) and hierarchy theory (Arthur Koestler). In PNS, complexity is respected through its recognition of a multiplicity of legitimate perspectives on any issue; this is close to the meaning espoused by Robert Rosen (theoretical biologist).[19] Reflexivity is realised through the extension of accepted ‘facts’ beyond the supposedly objective productions of traditional research. Also, the new participants in the process are not treated as passive learners at the feet of the experts, being coercively convinced through scientific demonstration. Rather, they will form an ‘extended peer community’, sharing the work of quality assurance of the scientific inputs to the process, and arriving at a resolution of issues through debate and dialogue.[20] The necessity to embrace complexity in a post-normal perspective to understand and face zoonoses is argumented by David Waltner-Toews.[21]

Extended peer community

In PNS extended peer communities are spaces where perspectives, values, styles of knowing and power differentials are expressed in a context of inequalities and conflict. Resolutions, compromises and knowledge co-production are contingent and not necessarily achievable.[1][4][22][23]

Applications

Beside its dominating influence in the literature on 'futures',[14] PNS is considered to have influenced the ecological ‘conservation versus preservation debate’, especially via its reading by American pragmatist Bryan G. Norton. According to Jozef Keulartz [24] the PNS concept of "extended peer community" influenced how Norton's developed his 'convergence hypothesis'. The hypothesis posits that ecologists of different orientation will converge once they start thinking 'as a mountain', or as a planet. For Norton this will be achieved via deliberative democracy, which will pragmatically overcome the black and white divide between conservationists and preservationists. More recently it has been argued that conservation science, embedded as it is in a multi-layered governance structures of policy-makers, practitioners, and stakeholders, is itself an 'extended peer community', and as a result conservation has always been ‘post-normal’.[25]

Other authors attribute to PNS the role of having stimulated the take up of transdisciplinary methodological frameworks, reliant on the social constructivist perspective embedded in PNS.[26][27]

As summarized in a recent work "the ideas and concepts of post normal science bring about the emergence of new problem solving strategies in which the role of science is appreciated in its full context of the complexity and the uncertainty of natural systems and the relevance of human commitments and values."[28]

For Peter Gluckman (2014), chief science advisor to the Prime Minister of New Zealand, post-normal science approaches are today appropriate for a host of problems including "eradication of exogenous pests […], offshore oil prospecting, legalization of recreational psychotropic drugs, water quality, family violence, obesity, teenage morbidity and suicide, the ageing population, the prioritization of early-childhood education, reduction of agricultural greenhouse gases, and balancing economic growth and environmental sustainability".[29]

Recent reviews of the history and evolution of PNS, its definitions, conceptualizations, and uses can be found in Turnpenny et al., 2010,[30] and in The Routledge Handbook of Ecological Economics (Nature and Society).[31] There has been recently an increased reference to post-normal science, e.g. in Nature[29][32][33][34][35] and related journals.[36][37]

Criticism

A criticism of post-normal science is offered by Weingart (1997)[38] for whom post-normal science does not introduce a new epistemology but retraces earlier debates linked to the so-called "finalization thesis". For Jörg Friedrichs [39] – comparing the issues of climate change and peak energy – an extension of the peer community has taken place in the climate science community, transforming climate scientists into ‘stealth advocates’,[40] while scientists working on energy security – without PNS, would still maintain their credentials of neutrality and objectivity. Another criticism is that the extended peer community's use undermines the scientific method's use of empiricism and that its goal would be better addressed by providing greater science education.

The crisis of science

It has been argued [41] that post-normal science scholars have been prescient in anticipating the present crisis in science's quality control and reproducibility. A group of scholars of post-normal science orientation has published in 2016 a volume on the topic,[42] discussing inter alia what this community perceive as the root causes of the present science's crisis.[43][41][44][45]

Quantitative approaches

Among the quantitative styles of analysis which make reference to post-normal science one can mention NUSAP for numerical information, sensitivity auditing for indicators and mathematical modelling, Quantitative storytelling for exploring multiple frames in a quantitative analysis, and MUSIASEM in the field of social metabolism. A work where these approaches are suggested for sustainability is in.[46]

Mathematical modelling

In relation to mathematical modelling post-normal science suggests a participatory approach, whereby ‘models to predict and control the future’ are replaced by ‘models to map our ignorance about the future’, in the process exploring and revealing the metaphors embedded in the model.[47] PNS is also known for its definition of garbage in, garbage out (GIGO): in modelling GIGO occurs when the uncertainties in the inputs must be suppressed, lest the outputs become completely indeterminate.[48] In a comment published in Nature 22 scholars take COVID-19 as the occasion for suggesting five ways to make models serve society better. The piece notes "how the operation of science changes when questions of urgency, stakes, values and uncertainty collide — in the ‘post-normal’ regime".[49]

COVID-19

On 25 March 2020, in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, a group of scholars of post-normal orientation published on the blog section of the STEPS Centre (for Social, Technological and Environmental Pathways to Sustainability) at the University of Sussex. The piece [50] argues that the COVID-19 emergency has all the elements of a post-normal science context, and notes that "this pandemic offers society an occasion to open a fresh discussion on whether we now need to learn how to do science in a different way".

Special issues

The journal FUTURES devoted several specials issues to post-normal science.

  • The third special issue on post-normal science was in 2017.[52] This special issue contains a selection of papers discussed at the University of Bergen's Centre for the Study of the Sciences and the Humanities between 2014 and 2016. The issue includes also two extended commentaries on the present crisis in science and the post-fact/post-truth discourse, one from Europe[41] and one from Japan.[53]

Another special issue on post-normal science was published on the journal Science, Technology, & Human Values in May 2011.

References
  1. Funtowicz, S. O. and Ravetz, J. R., 1991. "A New Scientific Methodology for Global Environmental Issues", in Costanza, R. (ed.), Ecological Economics: The Science and Management of Sustainability: 137–152. New York: Columbia University Press.
  2. Funtowicz, S. O. and Ravetz, J. R., 1992. "Three types of risk assessment and the emergence of postnormal science", in Krimsky, S. and Golding, D. (eds.), Social theories of risk: 251–273. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood.
  3. Funtowicz, Silvio O.; Ravetz, Jerome R. (September 1993). "Science for the post-normal age". Futures. 25 (7): 739–755. doi:10.1016/0016-3287(93)90022-L. S2CID 204321566.
  4. EJOLT. (2023). EJAtlas | Mapping Environmental Justice. Environmental Justice Atlas. https://ejatlas.org/
  5. Funtowicz, S. and Ravetz, J., 1990. Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  6. Ravetz, J. R., 1971. Scientific Knowledge and its Social Problems. Oxford University Press.
  7. Funtowicz, S. and Ravetz, J., "Post-normal science", in Companion to Environmental Studies, Edited ByNoel Castree, Mike Hulme, James D. Proctor, 2018, Routledge.
  8. Strand, R., "Post-Normal Science", in Routledge Handbook of Ecological Economics, Edited By Clive L. Spash, 2017, Routledge.
  9. T. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press, 1962.
  10. Carrozza, Chiara (January 2015). "Democratizing Expertise and Environmental Governance: Different Approaches to the Politics of Science and their Relevance for Policy Analysis". Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning. 17 (1): 108–126. doi:10.1080/1523908X.2014.914894. S2CID 144368996.
  11. Hulme, Mike (14 March 2007). "The appliance of science". The Guardian.
  12. Egan, Michael (February 2017). "Survival Science: Crisis Disciplines and the Shock of the Environment in the 1970s1: Survival science". Centaurus. 59 (1–2): 26–39. doi:10.1111/1600-0498.12149.
  13. J. R. Ravetz, "Post-Normal Science Symposium: Address by Jerome Ravetz Reflections on ‘informed critical resistance, reform and the making of futures,’" University of Oxford, Institute for Science, Innovation and Society, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.insis.ox.ac.uk/article/post-normal-science-symposium-address-jerome-ravetz
  14. Thomas Gauthier, Sylvaine Mercuri Chapuis, 2018, An Investigation of Futures Studies Scholarly Literature, In: Poli R. (eds) Handbook of Anticipation. Springer, Cham
  15. Funtowicz, S., 2016, personal correspondence.
  16. Funtowicz, S. O. and Ravetz, J. R. (1985), Three types of risk assessment: a methodological analysis, in C. Whipple and V. T. Covello (Eds), Risk Analysis in the Private Sector, pp 217-232 (Plenum, New York).
  17. Scott, J. C. (1999). Seeing like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed (0 edition). Yale University Press.
  18. Rees, M., 2017, Black holes are simpler than forests and science has its limits, AEON, 1 December.
  19. ROSEN, ROBERT. 1977. ‘Complexity as a System Property†’. International Journal of General Systems 3 (4): 227–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/03081077708934768.
  20. Funtowicz, Silvio O; Ravetz, Jerome R (November 1997). "The poetry of thermodynamics". Futures. 29 (9): 791–810. doi:10.1016/S0016-3287(97)00059-1.
  21. Waltner-Toews, David (19 July 2017). "Zoonoses, One Health and complexity: wicked problems and constructive conflict". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 372 (1725): 20160171. doi:10.1098/rstb.2016.0171. PMC 5468696. PMID 28584179.
  22. Alier, J. M. (2020). A global environmental justice movement: Mapping ecological distribution conflicts. Disjuntiva. Crítica de Les Ciències Socials, 1(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.14198/DISJUNTIVA2020.1.2.6
  23. Croix, J. F. de la. (2023). Collaboration. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Anthropology. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190854584.013.174
  24. Keulartz, Jozef (2018). "Does Deliberation Promote Ecological Citizenship? The Convergence Hypothesis and the Reality of Polarization". A Sustainable Philosophy—The Work of Bryan Norton. The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics. Vol. 26. pp. 189–212. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-92597-4_12. ISBN 978-3-319-92596-7.
  25. Rose, David Christian (2018). "Avoiding a Post-truth World: Embracing Post-normal Conservation". Conservation and Society. 16 (4): 518–524. doi:10.4103/cs.cs_17_131. JSTOR 26500664. Gale A556008584 ProQuest 2113043321.
  26. Heaslip, Eimear; Fahy, Frances (November 2018). "Developing transdisciplinary approaches to community energy transitions: An island case study". Energy Research & Social Science. 45: 153–163. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2018.07.013. S2CID 115526804.
  27. Strand, R. (2017). Post-Normal Science. In Routledge Handbook of Ecological Economics. Routledge.
  28. Lister, Andee Rose (2018). The bioaccumulation of uranium in sheep heart and kidney: the impact of contaminated traditional food sources on the Navajo Reservation (Thesis).
  29. Gluckman, Peter (March 2014). "Policy: The art of science advice to government". Nature. 507 (7491): 163–165. doi:10.1038/507163a. PMID 24627919.
  30. Turnpenny, John; Jones, Mavis; Lorenzoni, Irene (May 2011). "Where Now for Post-Normal Science?: A Critical Review of its Development, Definitions, and Uses". Science, Technology, & Human Values. 36 (3): 287–306. doi:10.1177/0162243910385789. S2CID 145154965.
  31. Strand, R., 2017, Post normal Science, The Routledge Handbook of Ecological Economics (Nature and Society) Edited by Clive L. Spash, p. 288-297.
  32. Grinnell, Frederick (June 2015). "Rethink our approach to assessing risk". Nature. 522 (7556): 257. Bibcode:2015Natur.522..257G. doi:10.1038/522257a. PMID 26085235. S2CID 4390715.
  33. "Future present". Nature. 531 (7592): 7–8. March 2016. Bibcode:2016Natur.531R...7.. doi:10.1038/531007b. PMID 26935658. S2CID 4458816.
  34. Dietl, Gregory P. (January 2016). "Different worlds". Nature. 529 (7584): 29–30. doi:10.1038/nature16329. PMID 26675725. S2CID 205246974.
  35. Ravetz, Jerry (21 November 2019). "Stop the science training that demands 'don't ask'". Nature. 575 (7783): 417. Bibcode:2019Natur.575..417R. doi:10.1038/d41586-019-03527-y. PMID 31745366. S2CID 208171725. Gale A642124287.
  36. Saltelli, Andrea (27 August 2019). "A short comment on statistical versus mathematical modelling". Nature Communications. 10 (1): 3870. Bibcode:2019NatCo..10.3870S. doi:10.1038/s41467-019-11865-8. PMC 6712000. PMID 31455789.
  37. Norström, Albert V.; Cvitanovic, Christopher; Löf, Marie F.; West, Simon; Wyborn, Carina; Balvanera, Patricia; Bednarek, Angela T.; Bennett, Elena M.; Biggs, Reinette; de Bremond, Ariane; Campbell, Bruce M.; Canadell, Josep G.; Carpenter, Stephen R.; Folke, Carl; Fulton, Elizabeth A.; Gaffney, Owen; Gelcich, Stefan; Jouffray, Jean-Baptiste; Leach, Melissa; Le Tissier, Martin; Martín-López, Berta; Louder, Elena; Loutre, Marie-France; Meadow, Alison M.; Nagendra, Harini; Payne, Davnah; Peterson, Garry D.; Reyers, Belinda; Scholes, Robert; Speranza, Chinwe Ifejika; Spierenburg, Marja; Stafford-Smith, Mark; Tengö, Maria; van der Hel, Sandra; van Putten, Ingrid; Österblom, Henrik (March 2020). "Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research". Nature Sustainability. 3 (3): 182–190. doi:10.1038/s41893-019-0448-2. hdl:1874/410045. S2CID 210833452.
  38. Weingart, Peter (December 1997). "From 'Finalization' to 'Mode 2': old wine in new bottles?". Social Science Information. 36 (4): 591–613. doi:10.1177/053901897036004002. S2CID 143045529.
  39. Friedrichs, Jörg (May 2011). "Peak energy and climate change: The double bind of post-normal science". Futures. 43 (4): 469–477. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2010.12.004.
  40. R. A. Pielke, Jr, The Honest Broker. Cambridge University Press, 2007.
  41. Saltelli, Andrea; Funtowicz, Silvio (August 2017). "What is science's crisis really about?". Futures. 91: 5–11. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2017.05.010.
  42. Benessia, A., Funtowicz, S., Giampietro, M., Guimarães Pereira, A., Ravetz, J., Saltelli, A., Strand, R., van der Sluijs, J., 2016. The Rightful Place of Science: Science on the Verge. The Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes at Arizona State University.
  43. Ravetz, J., 2016, How should we treat science's growing pains? The Guardian, 8 June 2016.
  44. Andrea, Saltelli (December 2018). "Why science's crisis should not become a political battling ground". Futures. 104: 85–90. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2018.07.006. S2CID 150287970.
  45. Ravetz, Jerry (19 November 2019). "Stop the science training that demands 'don't ask'". Nature. 575 (7783): 417. Bibcode:2019Natur.575..417R. doi:10.1038/d41586-019-03527-y. PMID 31745366. S2CID 208171725.
  46. Saltelli, Andrea; Benini, Lorenzo; Funtowicz, Silvio; Giampietro, Mario; Kaiser, Matthias; Reinert, Erik; van der Sluijs, Jeroen P. (April 2020). "The technique is never neutral. How methodological choices condition the generation of narratives for sustainability". Environmental Science & Policy. 106: 87–98. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2020.01.008. S2CID 212711505.
  47. Ravetz, Jerry (2003). "Models as metaphors". In Kasemir, Bernd; Jäger, Jill; Jaeger, Carlo C.; Gardner, Matthew T. (eds.). Public Participation in Sustainability Science: A Handbook. Cambridge University Press. pp. 62–77. ISBN 978-0-521-52144-4.
  48. Funtowicz, Silvio; Ravetz, Jerry (October 1990). "Post-normal science: A new science for new times". Scientific European. pp. 20–22.
  49. Saltelli, Andrea; Bammer, Gabriele; Bruno, Isabelle; Charters, Erica; Di Fiore, Monica; Didier, Emmanuel; Nelson Espeland, Wendy; Kay, John; Lo Piano, Samuele; Mayo, Deborah; Pielke Jr, Roger; Portaluri, Tommaso; Porter, Theodore M.; Puy, Arnald; Rafols, Ismael; Ravetz, Jerome R.; Reinert, Erik; Sarewitz, Daniel; Stark, Philip B.; Stirling, Andrew; van der Sluijs, Jeroen; Vineis, Paolo (June 2020). "Five ways to ensure that models serve society: a manifesto". Nature. 582 (7813): 482–484. Bibcode:2020Natur.582..482S. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-01812-9. hdl:1885/219031. PMID 32581374. S2CID 219988296.
  50. "Post-normal pandemics: Why COVID-19 requires a new approach to science". STEPS Centre. 25 March 2020.
  51. Davies, M.W., Editor, 2011, Special Issue: Postnormal Times Futures, Volume 43, Issue 2, Pages 135-228 (March 2011). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00163287/43/2
  52. Dankel, Dorothy J.; Vaage, Nora S.; van der Sluijs, Jeroen P. (August 2017). "Post-normal science in practice". Futures. 91: 1–4. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2017.05.009. S2CID 148748060.
  53. Tsukahara, Togo (1 August 2017). "Commentary: New Currents in Science: The Challenge of Quality, examining the discrepancies and incongruities between Japanese techno-scientific policy and the citizens' science movement in post-3/11 Japan". Futures. 91: 84–89. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2017.04.008. S2CID 149017703.

Bibliography
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.