Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Introduction

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
A Pragmatist Orientation for the Social Sciences in Climate Policy

Part of the book series: Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science ((BSPS,volume 323))

  • 458 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter provides an overview of the book, with its essential relevance and approach (Sect. 1.1). The novelty and timeliness of this study are also highlighted (Sect. 1.2). Scientific assessments are valuable as tools to inform the public on complex policy issues such as climate change where so much is at stake for so many people. However, guidance is still lacking at the science-policy interface where there are perils lurking. These include the treatment of disputed normative implications in much of the social-science evaluation of policy options. Currently, taking account of this and other challenges, a central open question for many large-scale scientific assessments is whether and how to strengthen and extend social-science policy evaluation to appropriately inform public policy. This book develops a novel philosophical framework for the appropriate role of social-science expertise, particularly economics, in climate policy. The focus is on the integrated economic assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The work mainly adds to the existing body of literature by refining John Dewey’s pragmatist philosophy of scientific expertise in public policy, and systematically applying this philosophy to integrated economic assessments.

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
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
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

Notes

  1. 1.

    Examples include Schellnhuber (2008), Ramanathan and Feng (2008), Smith et al. (2009), Bernauer and Schaffer (2010).

  2. 2.

    In line with much of the science-policy literature, I use the attribute ‘normative’ in a rather broad and inclusive sense: providing guidance for our choices (e.g., in public policy or in scientific knowledge production) in terms of what we should do or want to do – in contrast to a descriptive approach to what is actually the case. In this sense, ‘normative assumption’ is used synonymously with ‘value judgement’, a widespread but often misleading notion; normative assumptions are necessarily (yet sometimes only indirectly) related to ‘values’, i.e. to those aspects that we find particularly important and that we appreciate as guidance (in various fields of human life). Besides directly occurring as values, however, normative assumptions can be based on, or be identical with, for instance, virtues, principles, criteria, societal norms and (individual or group) interests (Biewald et al. 2015). More specifically, normative-ethical assumptions as the most discussed value judgements claim to provide well-reflected action guidance in terms of the good or the right that can be generalised (in contrast to, e.g., particular sectional interests in politics); as a discipline, philosophical ethics is identical with moral philosophy. ‘Epistemic’ or ‘cognitive value judgements’ (see Chap. 5) provide guidance for the particular field of knowledge production. Moreover, expertise is ‘policy-prescriptive’ if it, roughly spoken, provides or implies normative guidance (i.e., a preference) on disputable policy choices (see also Sect. 2.1.3). Chapter 5 provides a more detailed explanation and discussion of normative concepts; it also discusses the epistemological entanglement of normative and descriptive aspects.

  3. 3.

    In this work, I will usually use the plural form, i.e. “sciences” instead of “science,” to emphasise the existing variety and diversity of scientific questions, paradigms and methods. For the sake of simplicity, I mostly use the terms “sciences,” “scientific,” etc. as pars pro toto abbreviations for the entirety of the natural sciences, the social sciences, the humanities, philosophy and technology, such as, for instance, the term “scientific assessment” (which can include, e.g., contributions from the humanities). Moreover, in this work, the singular term “science” is usually used synonymously with “scientific knowledge,” for instance when I employ the terms “science-policy interface,” “sound science” or “value-laden science.” This terminology may sometimes cause problems, but so does the English language with its unwieldy distinction of the most respected (natural) science from other (social) sciences and the humanities, including philosophy.

  4. 4.

    See Kowarsch (2014) and Mitchell et al. (2006) for a more detailed explanation of scientific assessments.

  5. 5.

    For an overview of interesting philosophical questions regarding social sciences and climate change, see also Parker (2014).

  6. 6.

    This book does not investigate whether the WG III ARs sufficiently assessed all the available relevant literature and in an unbiased manner, nor whether there are errors in the economic details of the ARs. Instead, it focuses on some key philosophical aspects of the economics of climate change and how they were dealt with by the WG III.

  7. 7.

    According to Maasen and Weingart (2005), there were two waves of interdisciplinary publications on scientific policy advice. After the first wave in the 1960s, which focused on technocracy and the critique of it, there has been a second wave in recent years with a focus on democratic participation in scientific policy advice. Examples of seminal philosophical works on the role of science in policy include Habermas (1968), Brown (2009), Douglas (2009) and Kitcher (2001, 2011). Although there is a lot of literature on science-policy interactions, there is not much reflecting on scientific assessment-making in particular. Exceptions include, inter alia, Boehmer-Christiansen (1994a, b), Pinter (2002), Cash et al. (2003), Rayner (2003), Watson (2005), Mitchell et al. (2006), Farrell and Jäger (2006), NRC (2007), PBL (2008), UNEP and UNESCO (2009), Beck (2009), Rothman et al. (2009).

  8. 8.

    The high impact of such models and especially the need for a new model are explained, for example, by Beck (2009, p. 19; 2011), Pielke (2007), Brown (2009), Hulme (2009, pp. 102–10), Kitcher (2011, pp. 25f), Grunwald (2008, p. 285) and Jasanoff (e.g., 1990), but also by some bureaucrats and stakeholders.

  9. 9.

    There are a few works on the philosophy of the social sciences that also address some of the major aspects of social-science expertise in policy. See, e.g., Cartwright and Montuschi (2014) as well as Risjord (2014).

  10. 10.

    Among the exceptions is Brown (2012) who brings together Dewey’s philosophy of enquiry and current debates in philosophy of science. See also Chap. 6 for more discussion of the available literature.

  11. 11.

    The existing literature on the science-policy interface lacks a compelling justification and explanation of why and how alternative policy pathways can be explored. Most of the science-policy literature in the last two decades is about the sociology and history of scientific expertise in policy. These are undoubtedly valuable studies, but cannot replace the critical reflection on the philosophical issues.

  12. 12.

    See the literature discussed in Chaps. 7, 8 and 9.

  13. 13.

    “In response to some sustained criticism and a heightened level of public scrutiny of the Fourth Assessment Report, the United Nations and IPCC asked the InterAcademy Council (IAC) to assemble a committee to review the processes and procedures of the IPCC and make recommendations for change that would enhance the authoritative nature of the IPCC reports” (IAC 2010, p. v).

  14. 14.

    See particularly the different discussions in Nature 463 (Opinion, February 2010), pp. 730–32, and a couple of other articles in Nature 463 and 464. See also publications such as Skodvin (2000), Beck (2009, 2011), Hulme and Mahony (2010), Tol (2011), Pielke (2010), Watson (2010), Grundmann and Stehr (2011, Chap. 4), and the discussions, for instance, on the blogs http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/, http://wattsupwiththat.com and http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/06/ipcc-discussion-thread/. The governments’ discussions about IPCC reform can be found here: http://www.ipcc.ch/apps/future/ (all accessed 7 Jan 2015).

  15. 15.

    E.g., Victor (2015) mainly from the perspective of political sciences, and Carraro et al. (2015) mainly from an economics perspective.

  16. 16.

    See IPCC (2014, Preface).

  17. 17.

    Upcoming large-scale scientific assessment projects include, for instance, the envisaged assessments by the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services that explicitly follows the role model of the IPCC; the Sixth Global Environment Outlook by the United Nations Environment Programme; and the next UN Global Sustainable Development Report.

References

  • Beck, Silke. 2009. Das Klimaexperiment und der IPCC. Schnittstellen zwischen Wissenschaft und Politik in den internationalen Beziehungen. Marburg: Metropolis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, Silke. 2011. Moving beyond the linear model of expertise? IPCC and the test of adaptation. Regional Environmental Change 11(2): 297–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernauer, Thomas, and Lena Schaffer. 2010. Climate change governance. CIS Working Paper 60. http://www.cis.ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/gess/cis/cis-dam/Research/Working_Papers/WP_2010/2010_WP60_Bernauer_Schaffer.pdf. Accessed 13 Mar 2015.

  • Biewald, Anne, and Martin Kowarsch (equal contributions), Hermann Lotze-Campen, and Dieter Gerten. 2015. Ethical aspects in the economic modeling of water policy options. Global Environmental Change 30: 80–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boehmer-Christiansen, Sonja. 1994a. Global climate protection policy: The limits of scientific advice. Part 1. Global Environmental Change 4(2): 140–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boehmer-Christiansen, Sonja. 1994b. Global climate protection policy: The limits of scientific advice. Part 2. Global Environmental Change 4(3): 185–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, Mark B. 2009. Science in democracy: Expertise, institutions, and representation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, Matthew J. 2012. John Dewey’s logic of science. HOPOS 2(2): 258–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carraro, Carlo, Charles Kolstad, and Robert Stavins. 2015. Assessment and communication of the social science of climate change: Bridging research and policy. Memorandum from Workshop conducted 18–20 February 2015 in Berlin. http://www.mcc-berlin.net/fileadmin/data/pdf/climate_assessment_memorandum-1.pdf. Accessed 10 Apr 2015.

  • Cartwright, Nancy, and Eleonora Montuschi (eds.). 2014. Philosophy of social science: A new introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cash, David W., William C. Clark, Frank Alcock, Nancy M. Dickson, Noelle Eckley, David H. Guston, Jill Jäger, and Ronald B. Mitchell. 2003. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. PNAS 100(14): 8086–8091.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, Heather E. 2009. Science, policy, and the value-free ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, Alexander E., and Jill Jäger (eds.). 2006. Assessments of regional and global environmental risks: Designing processes for the effective use of science in decisionmaking. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grundmann, Reiner, and Nico Stehr. 2011. Die Macht der Erkenntnis. Berlin: Suhrkamp. English edition: Stehr, Nico, and Reiner Grundmann. 2011. Experts: The knowledge and power of expertise. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grunwald, Armin. 2008. Technik und Politikberatung. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, Jürgen. 1968. Technik und Wissenschaft als Ideologie. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. English edition: Habermas, Jürgen. 1971. Toward a rational society. Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, Fiona. 2011. Worst ever carbon emissions leave climate on the brink. The Guardian, May 29. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/29/carbon-emissions-nuclearpower. Accessed 13 Aug 2013.

  • Hulme, Mike. 2009. Why we disagree about climate change: Understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hulme, Mike, and Martin Mahony. 2010. Climate change: What do we know about the IPCC? Progress in Physical Geography 34(5): 705–718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IAC. 2010. Climate change assessments: Review of the process and procedures of the IPCC. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/IAC_report/IAC%20Report.pdf. Accessed 13 Mar 2015.

  • IPCC. Eds. Ottmar Edenhofer, Ramón Pichs- Madruga, Youba Sokona, Ellie Farahani, Susanne Kadner, Kristin Seyboth, and Anna Adler, et al. 2014. Climate change 2014 – Mitigation of climate change: Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, Sheila. 1990. The fifth branch: Science advisers as policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher, Philip. 2001. Science, truth, and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher, Philip. 2011. Science in a democratic society. New York: Prometheus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kowarsch, Martin. 2014. What are scientific assessments? MCC Working Paper. http://www.mcc-berlin.net/fileadmin/data/Publikationen_old/2-What_are_assessments_v20141124.pdf. Accessed 13 Mar 2015.

  • Kowarsch, Martin. 2016. Policy assessments to enhance EU scientific advice. Nature Climate Change 6(1): 15–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Hoesung. 2015. Turning the focus to solutions. Science 350(6264): 1007.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Maasen, Sabine, and Peter Weingart. 2005. What’s new in scientific advice to policy? In Democratization of expertise? Exploring novel forms of scientific advice in political decision-making, ed. Sabine Maasen and Peter Weingart, 1–19. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, Ronald B., William C. Clark, David W. Cash, and Nancy M. Dickson (eds.). 2006. Global environmental assessments: Information and influence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • NRC (Committee on Analysis of Global Change Assessments, National Research Council). 2007. Analysis of global change assessments: Lessons learned. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, Wendy. 2014. Climate change. In Philosophy of social science: A new introduction, ed. Nancy Cartwright and Eleonora Montuschi, 31–37. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • PBL. 2008. Lessons from global environmental assessments. http://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/2008/Lessons-from-global-environmental-assessments. Accessed 13 Mar 2015.

  • Pielke Jr., Roger A. 2007. The honest broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pielke Jr., Roger A. 2010. Major change is needed if the IPCC hopes to survive. Yale Environment 360. http://www.odlt.org/dcd/docs/roger_pielke_harsh_critique_of_IPCC.pdf. Accessed 13 Mar 2015.

  • Pintér, László. 2002. Making global integrated environmental assessment and reporting matter. http://www.iisd.org/pdf/pinter_thesis.pdf. Accessed 13 Mar 2015.

  • Ramanathan, Veerabhadran, and Yuan Feng. 2008. On avoiding dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system: Formidable challenges ahead. PNAS 105(38): 14245–14250.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rayner, Steve. 2003. Democracy in the age of assessment: Reflections on the roles of expertise and democracy in public-sector decision making. Science and Public Policy 30(3): 163–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, Katherine, Will Steffen, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Joseph Alcamo, Terry Barker, Daniel M. Kammen, Rik Leemans, et al. 2009. Synthesis report. Climate change. Global risks, challenges & decisions. Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Risjord, Mark. 2014. Philosophy of social science: A contemporary introduction. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothman, Dale S., Caroline van Bers, Jan Bakkes, and Claudia Pahl-Wostl. 2009. How to make global assessments more effective: Lessons from the assessment community. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 1: 214–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarewitz, Daniel. 2011. Looking for quality in all the wrong places, or: The technological origins of quality in scientific policy advice. In The politics of scientific advice: Institutional design for quality assurance, ed. Justus Lentsch and Peter Weingart, 54–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schellnhuber, Hans Joachim. 2008. Global warming: Stop worrying, start panicking? Commentary. PNAS 105(38): 14239–14240.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Skodvin, Tora. 2000. Structure and agent in the scientific diplomacy of climate change: An empirical case study of science-policy interaction in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Joel, Stephen Schneider, Michael Oppenheimer, Gary Yohe, William Hare, Michael D. Mastrandrea, Anand Patwardhan, et al. 2009. Assessing dangerous climate change through an update of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “reasons for concern.”. PNAS 106(11): 4133–4137.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tol, Richard S.J. 2011. Regulating knowledge monopolies: The case of the IPCC. Climatic Change 108(4): 827–839.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UN. 1992. United nations framework convention on climate change. http://www.un-documents.net/unfccc.htm. Accessed 13 Mar 2015.

  • UNEP, and UNESCO (Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission). 2009. An assessment of assessments. Findings of the group of experts. http://www.unep.org/dewa/ProductsandServices/Publications/Publications-2009/AnAssessmentofAssessments/tabid/104486/Default.aspx. Accessed 13 Mar 2015.

  • UNFCCC. 2009. The Copenhagen Accord. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/cop15/eng/l07.pdf. Accessed 13 Mar 2015.

  • Victor, David. 2015. Climate change: Embed the social sciences in climate policy. Comment. Nature 520: 27–29.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, Robert T. 2005. Turning science into policy: Challenges and experiences from the science-policy interface. Philosophical Transaction Royal Society London Biological Science 360: 471–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, Robert T. 2010. The IPCC needs to change, but the science remains sound. Yale Environment 360. http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2245. Accessed 13 Mar 2015.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC), Berlin, Germany

    Martin Kowarsch

Authors
  1. Martin Kowarsch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kowarsch, M. (2016). Introduction. In: A Pragmatist Orientation for the Social Sciences in Climate Policy. Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science, vol 323. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43281-6_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation