Abstract
Knowledge democracy serves as an inspiring new vision for the relationship between knowledge production and use, to replace the old and discarded speaking truth to power and information deficit models. However, a closer look at what is envisioned makes it clear that knowledge democracy has a problematic Utopian character. Knowledge democracy is based on technocratic and scientific Utopian ideals complemented with Utopian governance and participation ideals. It refers to a society with empowered, competent citizens and public actors who: (1) have unrestricted access to scientific information; (2) contribute to its production and/or assessment and (3) utilise it to make informed and rational decisions. This chapter uses two examples in environmental governance (the Water Framework Directive and sustainability certification) to argue that – as has been demonstrated for many other Utopia – putting knowledge democracy into practice may have undesirable technocratic and anti-democratic implications.
This chapter was written with financial support from the NWO Contested Democracy programme. It has benefitted from discussions with Sonja van der Arend, Jelle Behagel and several participants of the 2009 knowledge democracy conference during which an earlier version of this chapter was presented.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Meffe, G.K. (1998). Conservation scientists and the policy process. Conservation Biology, 12, 741–742.
Bradshaw, G.G. and Borchers, J.G. (2000). Uncertainty as information: narrowing the science-policy gap. Conservation Ecology, 4(1), http://www.consecol.org/vol4/iss1/art7/
Lawton, J.H. (2007). Ecology, politics and policy. Journal of Applied Ecology, 44, 465–474.
Pohl, C. (2008). From science to policy through transdisciplinary research. Environmental Science and Policy, 11, 46–53.
Bulkeley, H. and Mol, A.P.J. (2003). Participation and environmental governance: consensus, ambivalence and debate. Environmental Values, 12, 143–154.
Wynne, B. (2006). Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science – hitting the notes, but missing the music? Community Genetics, 9, 211–220.
Shapin, S. and Schaffer, S. (1985). Leviathan and the Air-pump: Hobbes, Boyle and the Experimental Life. Princeton, Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Collins, H. and Pinch, T. (1993). The Golem: What Everyone Should Know About Science. Cambridge (UK), New York: Cambridge University Press.
Jasanoff, S. (Ed.) (2004). States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order. London, New York: Routledge.
Wynne, B. (1996). May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. In: Lash, S., Szerszynski, B., Wynne, B. (Eds.), Risk, Environment and Modernity, Towards a New Ecology. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage.
Vaes, G. , Willems, P. , Swartenbroekx, P. , Kramer, K. , De Lange, W. et al. (2009). Science-policy interfacing in support of the Water Framework Directive implementation. Water Science and Technology, 60, 47–54.
Huitema, D. and Turnhout, E. (2009). Working at the science-policy interface: a discursive analysis of boundary work at the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. Environmental Politics, 18, 576–594.
Turnhout, E. (2009). The effectiveness of boundary objects: the case of ecological indicators. Science and Public Policy, 36, 403–412.
Weingart, P. (1999). Scientific expertise and political accountability: paradoxes of science in politics. Science and Public Policy, 26, 151–161.
Zeiss, R. and Groenewegen, P. (2009). Engaging boundary objects in OMS and STS? Exploring the subtleties of layered engagement. Organisation, 16, 81–100.
Sarewitz, D. and Pielke Jr, R.A. (2007). The neglected heart of science policy: reconciling supply of and demand for science. Environmental Science and Policy, 10, 5–16.
Gieryn , T.F. (1983). Boundary work and the demarcation of science from non-science, strains and interests in professional interests of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48, 781–795.
Gieryn, T. (1995). Boundaries of Science. In: Jasanoff, S. , Markle, G.E. , Petersen, J.C. and Pinch, T. (eds). Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage, 393–443.
Gieryn, T. (1999). Cultural Boundaries of Science, Credibility on the Line. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.
Cash , D.W., Clark , W.C., Alcock , A., Dickson , N.M., Eckley, N. et al. (2003). Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100, 8086–8091.
Funtowicz, S. and Ravetz, J. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25, 739–755.
Gibbons, M. , Limoges, C. , Nowotny, H. , Schwartzman, S. , Scott, P. et al. (1994). The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage.
Thompson Klein, J. (Ed.), Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W. , Häberli, R. , Bill, A. , Scholz, R.W. et al. (2001). Transdisciplinarity: Joint Problem Solving among Science, Technology, and Society. An Effective Way for Managing Complexity. Basel: Birkhauser.
Regeer , B.J. and Bunders , J. (2009). Knowledge Co-creation: Interaction Between Science and Society. A transdisciplinary Approach to Complex Societal Issues. RMNO : The Hague.
Fernandez-Gimenez, M.E. , Ballard, H.L. and Sturtevant, V.E. (2008). Adaptive management and social learning in collaborative and community-based monitoring: a study of five community-based forestry organizations in the western USA. Ecology and Society, 13(2), http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art4/
Jasanoff, S. (2003). Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva, 41, 223–244.
Liberatore, A. and Funtowicz, S. (2003). ‘Democratising’ expertise, ‘expertising’ democracy: what does this mean, and why bother? Science and Public Policy, 30, 146–150.
Scott, J. (1998). Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven, London: Yale University Press.
De Wilde, R. (2000). De voorspellers, een kritiek op de toekomstindustrie. Amsterdam: De Balie.
Cooke, B. and Kothari, U. (Eds.) (2001). Participation: The New Tyranny? London: Zed Books.
Robertson, M.M. (2006). The nature that capital can see: science, state and market in the commodification of ecosystem services. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 24, 367–378.
De Bruijn , J.A. (2007). Managing Performance in the Public Sector (2nd edition). London, New York, Melbourne: Routledge.
Turnhout , E. , Broekhans, B. and Arts, B. (in prep. a). Data or deliberation, clean waters or involved citizens? A critical assessment of the EU Water Framework. Under review at Environmental Politics.
Van der Arend, S.H. (2007). Pleitbezorgers, procesmanagers en participanten: Interactief beleid en de rolverdeling tussen overheid en burgers in de Nederlandse democratie. Utrecht: Dissertation Utrecht University.
Duineveld, M. , Beunen, R. , Van Ark, R. , Van Assche, K. and During, R. (2007). The difference between knowing the path and walking the path. Over het terugkerend maakbaarheidsdenken in beleidsonderzoek. Wageningen: Wageningen University.
Hajer, M. (2005). Setting the stage, a dramaturgy of policy deliberation. Administration and Society, 36, 624–647.
Turnhout , E. , Van Bommel, S. and Aarts, N. (in prep. b). Creating citizens: performing citizenship in participatory environmental governance. Under review at Ecology and Society.
Commission of the European Communities (2003). Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC), Guidance Document No. 8: Public Participation in Relation to the Water Framework Directive. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
Cashore, B. , Auld, G. and Newson, D. (2004). Governance Through Markets – Forest Certification and the Emergence of Non-state Authority. New Haven: Yale University Press.
In ’t Veld, R.J. (2009). Towards Knowledge Democracy. Consequences for Science, Politics and the Media. Paper for the international conference Towards Knowledge Democracy, 25–27 August, Leiden.
Mouffe, C. (2005). On the Political. London, New York: Routledge.
Laclau , E. (2005). On Populist Reason . London, New York: Verso.
Maasen, S. and Lieven, O. (2006). Socially robust knowledge. Transdisciplinarity: a new mode of governing science? Science and Public Policy, 33(6), 399–410.
Ballard, H.L., Fernandez-Gimenez, M.E. and Sturtevant, V.E. (2008). Integration of local ecological knowledge and conventional science: a study of seven community-based forestry organizations in the USA. Ecology and Society, 13, 37, http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss32/art37/
Achterhuis, H.J. (1998). De erfenis van de utopie, Amsterdam.
Bouleau, G. (2008). The WFD dreams: between ecology and economics. Water and Environment Journal, 22, 235–240.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Turnhout, E. (2010). Heads in the clouds: knowledge democracy as a Utopian dream. In: in 't Veld, R. (eds) Knowledge Democracy. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-11381-9_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-11381-9_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-11380-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-11381-9
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsEconomics and Finance (R0)