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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Asuka J (2015) Kuraimeito Jyasutelisu (Climate Justice). Nihon-Hyoron-Sya, Tokyo
Beck U (1986) Risikogesellschaft auf dem weg in eine andere moderne. Suhrkamp, Frank-furt am Main
Beck U (1992) Risk society: towards a new modernity. Sage, London (English version)
Beck S (2011) Moving beyond the linear model of expertise? IPCC and the test of adaptation. Reg Environ Change 11(2):297–306
Bickerstaff K, Simmons P, Pidgeon N (2008) Constructing responsibilities for risk: negotiating citizen-state relationships. Environ Plan A 40(6):1312–1330
Corner A, Clarke J (2017) Talking climate: from research to practice in public engagement. Palgrave Macmillan, London
Dobson A (2003) Citizenship and the Environment, Oxford University Press, Oxford
Emori S (2010) Commemnts to WWViews from the point of views of experts of GCC Risk (in Japanese). Sci Technol Commun 7:49–55
Fiorino DJ (1990) Citizen participation and environmental risk: a survey of institutional mechanisms. Sci Technol Hum Values 15(2):226–243
Fujigaki Y (2015) (eds) Lessons from Fukushima: Japanese case studies on science, technology and society. Springer, Switzerland
Gardiner SM (2004) Ethics and global climate change. Ethics 114(3):555–600
Guston D (2001) Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: an introduction. Sci Technol Hum Values 26(4):399–408
Howe JP (2014) Behind the curve: science and the politics of global warming. University of Washington Press, Seattle
Jahn T, Bergmann M, Keil F (2012) Transdisciplinarity: between mainstreaming and marginalization. Ecol Econ 79:1–10
Jasanoff S (2004) States of knowledge: the co-production of science and social order. Routledge, London and New York
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, Princeton
Kuwata M (2017) On ethics and politics on climate engineering (in Japanese), report on ICARUS project S-10-5, pp 27–52
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):25–43
Matsuou M (2013) Role of citizens and scientists in GCC risk, (in Japanese). Sci Commun 14:55–66
Miller TR (2013) Constructing sustainability science: emerging perspectives and research trajectories. Sustain Sci 8(2):279–293
Moser S (2010) Communicating climate change: history, challenges, process and future directions. Wiley Interdisciplinary Rev Clim Change 1:1–27
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 23–24
Nisbet MC, Fahy D (2015) The need for knowledge-based journalism in politicized science debates. Ann Am Acad Polit Soc Sci 658(1):223–234
Pielke RA Jr (2007) The honest broker: making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Poortinga W, Pidgeon N (2003) Public perceptions of risk, science and governance. Center for Environmental Risk, University of East Anglia, London
Renn O (2008) Risk governance: coping with uncertainty in a complex world. Earthscan, London
Rip A (1997) A cognitive approach to relevance of science. Soc Sci Inf 36(4):615–640
Stoknes PE (2014) Rethinking climate communications and the “psychological climate paradox”. Energy Res Soc Sci 1:161–170
Sturgus P, Allum N (2004) Science in society: re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Underst Sci 13:55–74
Sugiyama M et al (2017) Transdisciplinary design of scientific research agendas: 40 research questions for socially relevant climate engineering research. Sustain Sci 12:31–44
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, Switzerland
Usami M (2013) Climate justice (in Japanese). Public Policy Res 13:7–19
Van der Muelen BJR, Rip A (1994) Research institute in transition. Eburon, The Netherlands (ISBN:90-5166-409-5)
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):547–569
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 236–254
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 25–26
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Handled by Dr. Kiyoshi Takahashi, National Institute for Environmental Studies, Japan.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fujigaki, Y. Interactions between scientific and social rationality: recommendation of intermediate layer for transdisciplinary sustainable science. Sustain Sci 13, 369–375 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0529-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0529-6