Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Theory of Public Health Reasoning

  • Chapter
Reasoning and Public Health: New Ways of Coping with Uncertainty

  • 829 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter has two aims: first, to draw together in a unified theory of public health reasoning the various theoretical components examined separately in earlier chapters; and second, to examine the implications of this unified theory for the practice of public health. At the heart of the theory proposed in this book are two main modes of reasoning – systematic reasoning and heuristic reasoning. These modes differ in their level of internal complexity, and each marks a unique achievement in human cognitive evolution. Systematic and heuristic reasoning operate under specific practical and epistemic conditions. They also embody different logical mechanisms and achieve different goals for the cognitive agents who use them. These additional features of these modes of reasoning are made explicit in the theory through contextual, cognitive and logical specifiers. As a test of the plausibility of this theory, it is used to explain features of a significant event in the public health of the UK, the emergence of BSE in cattle. Of course, to be of value to the field of public health, this theory must be more than an exercise in abstract, theoretical reflection. It must serve to influence or change how aspects of public health are conducted. The chapter discusses the implications of the theory for public health communication and for the use of expert reasoning during the deliberations of scientific committees. In both areas, the theory can be used to challenge assumptions that underlie these practices and to motivate new ways of thinking about these practices.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abt, E., Rodricks, J. V., Levy, J. I., Zeise, L., & Burke, T. A. (2010). Science and decisions: Advancing risk assessment. Risk Analysis, 30(7), 1028–1036.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • American Public Health Association. (1990). Public health policy-making in the presence of incomplete evidence. American Journal of Public Health, 80(6), 746–750.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Australian Academy of Science. (2013). Science literacy in Australia. Acton: Australian Academy of Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aven, T. (2012). Foundational issues in risk assessment and risk management. Risk Analysis, 32(10), 1647–1656.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, J. H. (2003). What should the citizen know about ‘science’? Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 96(10), 509–511.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Besley, J. C., & Nisbet, M. (2013). How scientists view the public, the media and the political process. Public Understanding of Science, 22(6), 644–659.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Besley, J. C., Oh, S. H., & Nisbet, M. (2013). Predicting scientists’ participation in public life. Public Understanding of Science, 22(8), 971–987.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Britt, M. A., Richter, T., & Rouet, J.-F. (2014). Scientific literacy: The role of goal-directed reading and evaluation in understanding scientific information. Educational Psychologist, 49(2), 104–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bromme, R., & Goldman, S. R. (2014). The public’s bounded understanding of science. Educational Psychologist, 49(2), 59–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bromme, R., Thomm, E., & Wolf, V. (2015). From understanding to deference: Laypersons’ and medical students’ views on conflicts within medicine. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 5(1), 68–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T. (2004). Peer review and the acceptance of new scientific ideas. London: Sense About Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, G., Pieri, E., & Robbins, P. T. (2004). The scientists think and the public feels: Expert perceptions of the discourse of GM food. Discourse & Society, 15(4), 433–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, L. (2010). Rethinking the BSE crisis: A study of scientific reasoning under uncertainty. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, L. (2013c). Clinical pragmatics and theory of mind. In A. Capone, F. Lo Piparo, & M. Carapezza (Eds.), Perspectives on linguistic pragmatics (Perspectives in pragmatics, philosophy & psychology, Vol. 2, pp. 23–56). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, L. (2014f). Pragmatic disorders and theory of mind. In L. Cummings (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of communication disorders (pp. 559–577). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, S. R. (2008). Constructing communication: Talking to scientists about talking to the public. Science Communication, 29(4), 413–434.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • De Boer, M., McCarthy, M., Brennan, M., Kelly, A. L., & Ritson, C. (2005). Public understanding of food risk issues and food risk messages on the island of Ireland: The views of food safety experts. Journal of Food Safety, 25(4), 241–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietz, S., & Morton, A. (2011). Strategic appraisal of environmental risks: A contrast between the United Kingdom’s Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change and its Committee on Radioactive Waste Management. Risk Analysis, 31(1), 129–142.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Doble, J. (1995). Public opinion about issues characterized by technological complexity and scientific uncertainty. Public Understanding of Science, 4(2), 95–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2009). Rules of procedure of the scientific committees on consumer safety, health and environmental risks and emerging and newly identified health risks. Brussels: Directorate-General for Health & Consumers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, J. S. B. T. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255–278.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Faculty of Public Health. (2010). Public health specialty training curriculum. London: Faculty of Public Health.

    Google Scholar 

  • Government Office for Science. (2011). Code of practice for scientific advisory committees. London: Government Office for Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grist, E. P. M. (2005). Transmissible spongiform encephalopathy risk assessment: The UK experience. Risk Analysis, 25(3), 519–532.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hurd, H. S., Doores, S., Hayes, D., Mathew, A., Maurer, J., Silley, P., Singer, R. S., & Jones, R. N. (2004). Public health consequences of macrolide use in food animals: A deterministic risk assessment. Journal of Food Protection, 67(5), 980–992.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Impey, C. (2013). Scientific literacy of undergraduates in the United States. In A. Heck (Ed.), Organizations, people and strategies in astronomy 2. Duttlenheim: Venngeist.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahlor, L., Dunwoody, S., Griffin, R. J., Neuwirth, K., & Giese, J. (2003). Studying heuristic-systematic processing of risk communication. Risk Analysis, 23(2), 355–368.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J., Yeo, S. K., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., & Xenos, M. A. (2014). Disentangling the influence of value predispositions and risk/benefit perceptions on support for nanotechnology among the American public. Risk Analysis, 34(5), 965–980.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lester, R. R., Green, L. C., & Linkov, I. (2007). Site-specific applications of probabilistic health risk assessment: Review of the literature since 2000. Risk Analysis, 27(3), 635–658.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Maier, M., Rothmund, T., Retzbach, A., Otto, L., & Besley, J. C. (2014). Informal learning through science media usage. Educational Psychologist, 49(2), 86–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McComas, K. A., Tuite, L. S., & Sherman, L. A. (2005). Conflicted scientists: The “shared pool” dilemma of scientific advisory committees. Public Understanding of Science, 14(3), 285–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. D. (2004). Public understanding of, and attitudes toward, scientific research: What we know and what we need to know. Public Understanding of Science, 13(3), 273–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morton, A., Airoldi, M., & Phillips, L. D. (2009). Nuclear risk management on stage: A decision analysis perspective on the UK’s Committee on Radioactive Waste Management. Risk Analysis, 29(5), 764–779.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Perko, T., van Gorp, B., Turcanu, C., Thijssen, P., & Carle, B. (2013). Communication in nuclear emergency preparedness: A closer look at information reception. Risk Analysis, 33(11), 1987–2001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Renn, O. (1999). A model for an analytic-deliberative process in risk management. Environmental Science and Technology, 33(18), 3049–3055.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A., Sodian, B., Koerber, S., & Wong, J. (2014). Developing children’s early competencies to engage with science. Educational Psychologist, 49(2), 139–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwan, S., Grajal, A., & Lewalter, D. (2014). Understanding and engagement in places of science experience: Science museums, science centers, zoos, and aquariums. Educational Psychologist, 49(2), 70–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherwood, C. C., Subiaul, F., & Zawidzki, T. W. (2008). A natural history of the human mind: Tracing evolutionary changes in brain and cognition. Journal of Anatomy, 212(4), 426–454.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sinatra, G. M., Kienhues, D., & Hofer, B. K. (2014). Addressing challenges to public understanding of science: Epistemic cognition, motivated reasoning, and conceptual change. Educational Psychologist, 49(2), 123–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spruijt, P., Knol, A. B., Torenvlied, R., & Lebret, E. (2013). Different roles and viewpoints of scientific experts in advising on environmental health risks. Risk Analysis, 33(10), 1844–1857.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stocklmayer, S. (2013). Engagement with science: Models of science communication. In J. K. Gilbert & S. Stocklmayer (Eds.), Communication and engagement with science and technology: Issues and dilemmas (pp. 19–38). London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trumbo, C. W., & McComas, K. A. (2003). The function of credibility in information processing for risk perception. Risk Analysis, 23(2), 343–353.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, R. (2002). Risk assessment of ochratoxin: Current views of the European Scientific Committee on Food, the JECFA and the Codex Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, 504, 249–255.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Young, N., & Matthews, R. (2007). Experts’ understanding of the public: Knowledge control in a risk controversy. Public Understanding of Science, 16(2), 123–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Z., & Zhang, J. (1993). A survey of public scientific literacy in China. Public Understanding of Science, 2(1), 21–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BSE Inquiry Report. (2000). Volume 1: Findings and conclusions. London: The Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Arts and Humanities, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK

    Louise Cummings

Authors
  1. Louise Cummings
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Cummings, L. (2015). Theory of Public Health Reasoning. In: Reasoning and Public Health: New Ways of Coping with Uncertainty. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15013-0_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15013-0_8

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-15012-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-15013-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation