Advertisement

Sustainability Science

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 369–375 | Cite as

Interactions between scientific and social rationality: recommendation of intermediate layer for transdisciplinary sustainable science

  • Yuko Fujigaki
Special Feature: Case Report Integrated Climate Assessment: Risks, Uncertainties, and Society (ICA-RUS)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Special Feature: Integrated Climate Assessment: Risks, Uncertainties, and Society (ICA-RUS)

Abstract

This study analyzes how two different kinds of rationality—scientific and social—interact with each other with respect to the management of global climate change (GCC) risks. Interactions between scientific and social rationalities have two meanings: one is interaction between researchers and citizens (science and society), and the other is interaction between natural scientists and social scientists (among disciplines). As for former meaning, the present study conducted several attempts of “talking about climate” with citizens as transdisciplinary research practice in sustainable science. As for the latter meaning, the present study conducted transdisciplinary research among social scientists and natural scientists. The results show that there are three types of understanding on GCC: (A) understanding of the mechanism of GCC, (B) understanding of the effect of GCC, and (C) understanding of the countermeasures. The results also show the gaps between the understanding of experts and that of citizens: whereas experts want to show a Type A understanding first and then Type B followed by Type C, citizens tend to focus on Types B and C first. In addition, natural scientists tend to divide value-free statements and value-laden statements, whereas social scientists tend to consider that every statement includes value judgements. Here, natural scientists think of themselves as being neutral, because they divide technical issues and ethical issues, while citizens think that experts are not neutral, because they see natural scientists as putting more value on GCC risks than other risks. It is easy in scientific papers to criticize dichotomy between facts and value and linear model in which the interaction between science and policy is conceived of as unidimensional, linear, and one way: from science to policy. However, in actual interaction in transdisciplinary practice, these kinds of dichotomy and linear model still underlie in the base of experts’ thinking. To overcome these kinds of gaps between experts and citizen as well as between natural scientists and social scientists, we recommended a discussion space as an intermediate layer between government, experts, and public.

Keywords

Social rationality Public understanding of GCC risk Gaps between experts and public Criticism to linear model Intermediate layer 

References

  1. Asuka J (2015) Kuraimeito Jyasutelisu (Climate Justice). Nihon-Hyoron-Sya, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  2. Beck U (1986) Risikogesellschaft auf dem weg in eine andere moderne. Suhrkamp, Frank-furt am MainGoogle Scholar
  3. Beck U (1992) Risk society: towards a new modernity. Sage, London (English version) Google Scholar
  4. Beck S (2011) Moving beyond the linear model of expertise? IPCC and the test of adaptation. Reg Environ Change 11(2):297–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bickerstaff K, Simmons P, Pidgeon N (2008) Constructing responsibilities for risk: negotiating citizen-state relationships. Environ Plan A 40(6):1312–1330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Corner A, Clarke J (2017) Talking climate: from research to practice in public engagement. Palgrave Macmillan, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dobson A (2003) Citizenship and the Environment, Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Emori S (2010) Commemnts to WWViews from the point of views of experts of GCC Risk (in Japanese). Sci Technol Commun 7:49–55Google Scholar
  9. Fiorino DJ (1990) Citizen participation and environmental risk: a survey of institutional mechanisms. Sci Technol Hum Values 15(2):226–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fujigaki Y (2015) (eds) Lessons from Fukushima: Japanese case studies on science, technology and society. Springer, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  11. Gardiner SM (2004) Ethics and global climate change. Ethics 114(3):555–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Guston D (2001) Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: an introduction. Sci Technol Hum Values 26(4):399–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Howe JP (2014) Behind the curve: science and the politics of global warming. University of Washington Press, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  14. Jahn T, Bergmann M, Keil F (2012) Transdisciplinarity: between mainstreaming and marginalization. Ecol Econ 79:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jasanoff S (2004) States of knowledge: the co-production of science and social order. Routledge, London and New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jones J (2010) In U.S., many environmental issues at 20-year-low concern: worry about all eight measures tested in down from last year, in Gallop Poll. Gallop, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  17. Kuwata M (2017) On ethics and politics on climate engineering (in Japanese), report on ICARUS project S-10-5, pp 27–52Google Scholar
  18. Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M, Martens P, Moll P, Thomas CJ (2012) Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustain Sci 7(Suppl. 1):25–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Matsuou M (2013) Role of citizens and scientists in GCC risk, (in Japanese). Sci Commun 14:55–66Google Scholar
  20. Miller TR (2013) Constructing sustainability science: emerging perspectives and research trajectories. Sustain Sci 8(2):279–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Moser S (2010) Communicating climate change: history, challenges, process and future directions. Wiley Interdisciplinary Rev Clim Change 1:1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Munakata S et al (2015) Survey on decision making pattern on trade-offs in GCC (in Japanese). In: Proceedings of annual meeting of JSSTS (Japanese society for studies of science and technology), pp 23–24Google Scholar
  23. Nisbet MC, Fahy D (2015) The need for knowledge-based journalism in politicized science debates. Ann Am Acad Polit Soc Sci 658(1):223–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pielke RA Jr (2007) The honest broker: making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Poortinga W, Pidgeon N (2003) Public perceptions of risk, science and governance. Center for Environmental Risk, University of East Anglia, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. Renn O (2008) Risk governance: coping with uncertainty in a complex world. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Rip A (1997) A cognitive approach to relevance of science. Soc Sci Inf 36(4):615–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Stoknes PE (2014) Rethinking climate communications and the “psychological climate paradox”. Energy Res Soc Sci 1:161–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sturgus P, Allum N (2004) Science in society: re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Underst Sci 13:55–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sugiyama M et al (2017) Transdisciplinary design of scientific research agendas: 40 research questions for socially relevant climate engineering research. Sustain Sci 12:31–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tanaka M (2015) Agenda building intervention of socio-scientific issues: a science media centre of Japan perspective. In Fujigaki (ed) Lessons from Fukushima: Japanese case studies on science, technology and society. Springer, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  32. Usami M (2013) Climate justice (in Japanese). Public Policy Res 13:7–19Google Scholar
  33. Van der Muelen BJR, Rip A (1994) Research institute in transition. Eburon, The Netherlands (ISBN:90-5166-409-5) Google Scholar
  34. Wolf J, Moser SC (2011) Individual understandings, perceptions, and engagement with climate change: insights from in-depth studies across the world. Wiley Interdisciplinary Rev Clim Change 2(4):547–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Yagi E (2017) GCC and risk communication, Risk communication in front: text book of The University of Air, Chap. 13. Nion-Houso-Syuppan-Kyokai, Tokyo, pp 236–254Google Scholar
  36. Yamanouchi Y, Yagi E (2014) Role of citizens in GCC risk management. In: Proceedings of annual meeting of JSSTS (Japanese society for studies of science and technology), pp 25–26Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan KK, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Interdisciplinary StudiesThe University of TokyoTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations