Samenvatting
Samenvatting lectures + articels Post-Normal Science, Development and Publics
Samenvatting van de lectures en artikelen over Post-Normal Science, Development en Publics. Deel 2 van de cursus STS
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 3 van de 26 pagina's
Voorbeeld 3 van de 26 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
2 beoordelingen
Door: maeganboosten1 • 3 jaar geleden
Door: Jobbaa • 3 jaar geleden
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
Science, Technology and SocietyGEO2-2274
Part 2: themes in science, technology, and society
Theme 1: Post-normal science
Funtowicz, S.O. & Ravetz, J.R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age.
In response to the challenges of policy issues of risk and the environment, a new type of
science-‘post-normal’-is emerging. This is analysed in contrast to traditional problem-solving
strategies, including core science, applied science, and professional consultancy.
‘Post-modern’ is widely used as a term for describing contemporary cultural phenomena; it refers to
an approach of unrestrained criticism of the assumptions underlying our dominant culture, and it
flirts with nihilism and despair. In contrast to this, here we introduce the term ‘post-normal’. This has
an echo of the seminal work on modern science by Kuhn. For him, ‘normal science’ referred to the
unexciting, indeed anti-intellectual routine puzzle solving by which science advances steadily
between its conceptual revolutions. In this ‘normal’ state of science, uncertainties are managed
automatically, values are unspoken, and foundational problems unheard of. The post-modern
phenomenon can be seen in one sense as a response to the collapse of such ‘normality’ as the norm
for science and culture. As an alternative to post-modernity, we show that a new, enriched
awareness of the functions and methods of science is being developed. In this sense, the appropriate
science for this epoch is ‘post-normal’.
Conclusion:
The post-modern phenomenon is one of a deepening disillusion and a consequent fragmentation at
all levels including the ideological and the societal. One reaction, as among some leading exponents
of postmodernity, is despair. Another reaction is to reassert ‘normality’; thus some leading scientists
claim that the solution of our ecological problems lies through funding their large programme of
relevant basic research, in which uncertainty is never mentioned.L1 Indeed, the suppression of
uncertainty in ‘normal’ science makes it compatible with quite extreme reactions to the
contemporary condition; thus it has been noticed that some religious fundamentalists find no
difficulty in practising scientific expertise of various sorts, as the two dogmatisms can, with
appropriate boundary drawing, coexist comfortably. 22 Finally, the post-normal response is to
recognize the challenge, with all its dangers and promise; and then to start towards a reintegration,
through the acceptance of uncertainty and the welcoming of diversity. In a later article we will
discuss these various trends.
,Sismondo, S. (2010). The Kuhnian Revolution. The public understanding of
science. In: Sismondo, S. (Ed.). An Introduction to Science and Technology
Studies.
Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions challenged the dominant popular and
philosophical pictures of the history of science. Rejecting the formalist view with its normative
stance, Kuhn focused on the activities of and around scientific research: in his work science is merely
what scientists do. Rejecting steady progress, he argued that there have been periods of normal
science punctuated by revolutions. Kuhn’s innovations were in part an ingenious reworking of
portions of the standard pictures of science, informed by rationalist emphases on the power of ideas,
by positivist views on the nature and meaning of theories, and by Ludwig Wittgenstein’s ideas about
forms of life and about perception. The result was novel, and had an enormous impact.
According to Kuhn, normal science is the science done when members of a field share a recognition
of key past achievements in their field, beliefs about which theories are right, an understanding of
the important problems of the field, and methods for solving those problems.
Foundationalism is the thesis that knowledge can be traced back to firm foundations. Typically those
foundations are seen as a combination of sensory impressions and rational principles, which then
support an edifice of higher-order beliefs.
Instead, observation comes interpreted: we do not see dots and lines in our visual fields, but instead
see more or less recognizable objects and patterns. Thus observation is guided by concepts and
ideas. This claim has become known as the theory-dependence of observation. The
theorydependence of observation is easily linked to Kuhn’s historical picture, because during
revolutions people stop seeing one way, and start seeing another way, guided by the new paradigm.
Conclusion; some impacts
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions had an immediate impact. The word “paradigm,” referring to a
way things are done or seen, came into common usage largely because of Kuhn.
Against the views of science with which we started, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions argues
that scientific communities are importantly organized around ideas and practices, not around ideals
of behavior. And, they are organized from the bottom up, not, as functionalism would have it, to
serve an overarching goal. Against positivism, Kuhn argued that changes in theories are not driven by
data but by changes of vision. In fact, if worldviews are essentially theories then data is subordinate
to theory, rather than the other way around. Against falsificationism, Kuhn argued that anomalies are
typically set aside, that only during revolutions are they used as a justification to reject a theory. And
against all of these he argued that on the largest scales the history of science should not be told as a
story of uninterrupted progress, but only change.
Because Kuhn’s version of science violated almost everybody’s ideas of the rationality and progress
of science, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions was sometimes read as claiming that science is
fundamentally irrational, or describing science as “mob rule.” In retrospect it is difficult to find much
irrationalism there, and possible to see the book as somewhat conservative – perhaps not only
intellectually conservative but politically conservative. More important, perhaps, is the widespread
perception that by examining history Kuhn firmly refuted the standard view of science. Whether or
not that is true, Kuhn started people thinking about science in very different terms. The success of
the book created a space for thinking about the practices of science in local terms, rather than in
terms of their contribution to progress, or their exemplification of ideals. Though few of Kuhn’s
specific ideas have survived fully intact, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions has profoundly
affected subsequent thinking in the study of science and technology.
Head, B.W. & Alford, J. (2015). Wicked problems: implications for public
policy and management.
The concept of “wicked problems” has attracted increasing focus in policy research, but the
implications for public organizations have received less attention.
, wicked problems = “wicked problems”—those that are complex, unpredictable, open ended, or
intractable.
Rittel and Webber identified 10 primary characteristics of wicked problems:
1. There is no definitive formulation of a wicked problem.
2. Wicked problems have no “stopping rule” (i.e., no definitive solution).
3. Solutions to wicked problems are not true or false, but good or bad.
4. There is no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem.
5. Every (attempted) solution to a wicked problem is a “one-shot operation”; the results cannot be
readily undone, and there is no opportunity to learn by trial and error.
6. Wicked problems do not have an enumerable (or an exhaustively describable) set of potential
solutions, nor is there a well-described set of permissible operations that may be incorporated into
the plan.
7. Every wicked problem is essentially unique.
8. Every wicked problem can be considered to be a symptom of another problem.
9. The existence of a discrepancy representing a wicked problem can be explained in numerous ways.
10. The planner has no “right to be wrong” (i.e., there is no public tolerance of experiments that fail).
Key words: wicked problems, complex problems, new public management, problem solving,
collaboration, risk and uncertainty
Conclusion:
Followed to its logical conclusion, the intractability of wicked problems, generic terms, could be
taken to mean that grappling with them is a futile endeavor. After all, if they are virtually impossible
to comprehend and any solution throws up more problems, then why bother?
But we have put forward a more calibrated understanding of their seriousness and a realistic sense of
possible responses to them, founded in the practical circumstances within which public-sector
managers and organizations grapple with them. We have sought to demonstrate that efforts to deal
with wicked problems are impeded by the working mechanisms of the public sector— its
characteristic ways of making decisions, organizing, financing, staffing, and controlling. At the same
time, we have proposed some strategies for dealing with wicked problems under these
governmental and administrative constraints—such as going beyond technical/rational thinking,
collaborative working, new modes of leadership, and reforming the managerial infrastructure of
government. These strategies can enable partial and provisional responses to problems, amounting
to shared understandings about their nature and about ways of dealing with them. They inform
courses of action that make sense even if they do not conclusively solve the problem. Publicsector
organizations that adopt them are more likely to at least cope with complex and/or turbulent
situations. But these strategies and processes typically must coexist with those underpinning the
organization’s “business as usual” obligations. Moreover, they call for broad managerial capabilities,
which take time and resources to develop.
Lecture 6: Post Normal Science
Thomas Kuhn
Is sociology of science important?
- An historian of science who thought that ignoring history gives a naive picture of the
scientific enterprise
- Interested in ‘scientific revolutions’ – when scientific ideas are replaced by radically new
ones
E.g. Einsteinian revolution in physics, Darwinism in biology, plate tectonics in geology
Paradigms
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper anna_r_1999. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €5,39. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 50843 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen