Beyond reason and hysteria: Towards a postmodern model of communication and control in science

This article takes the controversy over ‘Mad Cow Disease’ ('BSE') in Britain as the starting point to reflect on postmodern contexts for the production, circulation and control of scientific discourse. It looks at two competing models of scientific rationality, modernist and postmodernist, as they function in contexts we call ‘postmodern’. With BSE? the Government began with the modernist project of combating hysteria with calm reasonableness, thereby helping to produce the hysteria they feared. But science, far from being entirely rational or unitary, is a set of relatively independent discourses? including ‘entropie’ discourse: discursive black holes which are strictly policed but never fully contained—the unconscious of science? where scientific creativity and popular paranoia meet. Where modernist science defends against the crisis of unreason to prevent it from happening, postmodern science (chaos theory, fuzzy logic) accepts the normality of crisis? chaos and unpredictability, which are not coincidentally coming to characterise the postmodern world. The problems of modernist science are not purely epistemological. The postmodern alliance of modernist science and global agribusiness has meant unprecedented assaults on nature, producing a ‘return of the (biotic) repressed’ that, in turn, becomes the content of the discursive repressed of science itself. To contend with these processes, we need postmodern theories of science—including the anomalous? the improbable in the analysis—as was not done with BSE until too late? because current science refused to accept the possible existence of a phenomenon that was empirically unproven and did not fit in. Of equal importance is to include popular discourses among the full set of available sources of scientific ‘truth’. Films like Outbreak and popular science like The Hot Zone express a popular paranoia that discourses of science urgently need to attend to. The study of popular culture should become an integral part in a new postmodern sociology of science.     

‘We Need Our New OSS,Our New General Donovan,Now ...’: The Public Discourse over American Intelligence, 1944-53

The popular origins of the modern US intelligence bureaucracy have largely escaped the scrutiny of historians. This article examines the critical public discourse over American intelligence and the clear domestic support for a new type of national intelligence system following World War II. The organization of American intelligence was thoroughly examined in newspapers, polling data, popular magazines, public speeches and lectures, petitions to government officials, and for the first time — the medium of radio. This frank discussion, fostered to a large degree by William Donovan, undoubtedly influenced the tenor surrounding the establishment of the modern intelligence bureaucracy, but also resulted in an unwelcome public relations quandary for intelligence officials. This distinctly American postwar dialogue illustrates the great challenge of conducting intelligence in an open democratic society.     

Of Revelatory Histories and Hatchet Jobs: Propaganda and Method in Intelligence History

This article explores a number of issues in the contemporary study of intelligence. These issues are methodological (relating to engagement with ‘primary’ sources), epistemological (concerned with notions of ‘bias’ and objectivity), and presentational (dealing with how scholars locate their work within existing debates). The article will contend that the study of intelligence, largely because of its ambiguous positioning on the borderland between political science and history, has been somewhat isolated from the debates over theory and method that have flourished in the wider historical discipline in recent decades, and that an engagement with such literature will yield commensurate benefits. Finally, the article will explore the place of intelligence history within the wider discourse of ‘popular’ history. Given its potentially sensational content, some intelligence literature is targeted at a ‘popular’ readership, but many of the claims made in authoring, promoting and reviewing such books are highly problematic. Since this is inimical to scholarly rigour, and is unlikely to facilitate wider public understanding of major historical issues, such matters need to be addressed.     

The Rise and Fall of Power Line EMFs: The Anatomy of a Magnetic Controversy

The suggestion that power line electromagnetic fields (EMFs) cause diseases like cancer has generated dozens of popular articles and television news segments, hundreds of scientific studies, and numerous consensus reports; it has attracted the attention of epidemiologists, biologists, physicists, policymakers and lawyers. This article will examine the evolution of this controversy through a detailed analysis of the arguments that have been used for and against the hypothesis that power line EMFs have adverse health effects. This article argues that the power line EMF issue provides a classic case study for exploring the challenges citizens, scientists, and policymakers face in sorting out a complex science‐based controversy. This story not only brings together many different perspectives and—from popular notions of cancer clusters to complex epidemiological arguments, from to state‐of‐the‐art animal studies to policy instruments such as the precautionary principle—but also reveals the manner in which a heated controversy can be effectively resolved over time.     

Nano‐Industry Operationalizations of “Responsibility”: Charting Diversity in the Enactment of Responsibility

The Collingridge dilemma—the problem of reacting to emerging technology either “too early” or “too late”—is one that is readily recognized by developers and promoters of nanotechnologies. One response can be found in the rise of a discourse of “responsible development” in the science and innovation policy landscape. While a number of commentators have discussed the potential of such initiatives, it remains unclear how responsible development is actually being configured “on the ground,” in private sector nanotechnology. This paper addresses this question by analyzing empirical engagements in Europe and the United States in order to map industry operationalizations of “responsibility” in these contexts. We show that a number of different articulations of “responsibility” are present, including as a response to public lack of trust and perceived public pressure, and as the management of risk. We close by relating these findings to the theoretical literature on responsibility, other contemporary accounts of the ways in which responsible development can be operationalized, and the possibilities that these articulations of responsibility may open up.     

Creating Broader Research Impacts through Boundary Organizations

Climate science research documents and predicts changes in the physical environment. This information informs policy decisions and public programs through the design of human interventions that promote adaptive management. Since the early 2000s, federal funding has led to the creation of transdisciplinary regional climate workgroups to facilitate integrative knowledge coproduction and promote shared use of research results by scientific and nonscientific stakeholders. Labeled “boundary organizations,” these workgroups are tasked with facilitating partnerships between climate science researchers and practitioners with expertise in multiple physical and social science disciplines. When these organizations are successful, scientific findings and practitioner experiences are integrated to synergistically create usable knowledge about adaptive management that provides direct public value and creates broader societal impacts. This article explores the broader impacts provided by these boundary organizations through the establishment of regional research agendas and the communication of research results in ways that influence regional public policy and promote adaptive management.     

Useful to whom? Public management research,social science,and the standpoint problem

Answering “Big Questions” in public management will require close connections to social science, in particular political science. Yet connections are impeded by the difference in standpoint from which these questions are regarded by public management researchers and political scientists. Changing to a citizen standpoint changes the Big Questions and pushes political science and PM research toward unification. It also makes research more useful—at least to citizens.     

James Bond,Ian Fleming and intelligence: breaking down the boundary between the ‘real’ and the ‘imagined’

This article looks to answer the question of why the James Bond novels and films should matter to scholars of intelligence and national security. We argue that Bond is important because, rightly or wrongly, and not without inaccuracy, it has filled a public knowledge vacuum about intelligence agencies and security threats. On another level, this article explores the unexpected yet important interactions between Bond and the actual world of intelligence. We contend that the orthodoxy dictating that Bond and spying are diametric opposites—one is the stuff of fantasy, the other is reality—is problematic, for the worlds of Bond and real intelligence collide, overlap and intermesh in fascinating and significant ways. In short, Bond is important for scholars because he is an international cultural icon that continues to operate at the borders of fiction and reality, framing and constructing not only public perceptions but also to some degree intelligence practices. Core narratives of intelligence among not only the public but also policymakers and intelligence officers are imagined, sustained, deepened, produced and reproduced through and by Bond. We conclude that Bond and intelligence should be thought of as co-constitutive; the series shapes representations and perceptions of intelligence, but it also performs a productive role, influencing the behaviours of intelligence agencies themselves.     

SCIENTIFIC FACT AND VALUE IN U.S. OCEAN DUMPING POLICY

Controversy among scientists over appropriate use of the ocean for waste disposal impedes U.S. policy in this area. The problem arises in part because scientific uncertainty over the fate and effects of wastes released into the ocean requires a large element of judgment, and hence value, when the uncertain science is applied to policy. Scientists often supply that judgment and so impose their values, though seldom explicitly, on policy. Further, science often determines policy because many perceive it as an objective basis for decisionmaking and so less subject to the debate that arises from weighing public preferences in policymaking. Thus, scientists' values rather than the public's come to set policy. The resulting policy may elevate one expert's values over another's. Then as values and so interpretation of science shift, policy changes. Or, as in the case now with arguments over the ocean's ability to assimilate many anthropogenic wastes, conflicting science, really conflicting values, results in an agreement and policy inertia. These problems are partially circumvented when scientists make the nonscientific factors behind their reasoning clear. These factors may then be evaluated by the public along with the supporting scientific evidence. Thus, weighing the welfare of society rather than resolving conflicts among scientists becomes the focus of policy.     

REINTERPRETING THE DEBATE ON AUTONOMY IN PUBLIC SERVICE SCIENCE*

Abstract: The report of the Science Task Force of the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration rekindled an old debate on autonomy versus accountability for government scientists. The rationale given there for allowing the natural science community great discretion in managing its own affairs while in receipt of very considerable public funds did not get much support in the debate. Unfortunately, the debate did little to illuminate the problems facing those charged with producing creative, but relevant research in public institutions. A more productive way of tackling the question of autonomy and accountability is to see whose interests are promoted by different stances on the issue. Some critics represent the quest for autonomy as simple power-seeking by professional elites. Yet the institutional setting for many supposedly autonomous scientists involved in successful innovation in industry often involves extensive interaction with non-scientists. User groups — such as the agricultural commodities research committees — influence scientists through a loosely coordinated network. In this situation a form of accountability exists, although it is not exerted through formal parliamentary mechanisms. The arrangements have some elements of corporatism. Autonomy is not prominent within this setting except elusively as a rationale used to blunt temporarily the impact of particular interest group demands that threaten the continuity required to realize investments in long-term research projects. In this case, autonomy is essentially a myth. However, to the extent that it allows scientific institutions to combine interaction in the practical world that their research must serve with some insulation from short-term political or interest group pressures, it may be valuable for successful research management. Science administrators sometimes regulate the research of their juniors quite closely, indicating that even individual “scientific autonomy” can be a very limited form of freedom. None the less, it can be managed in such a way as to allow creative talent to flourish within an accountable structure albeit one that departs from the conventional norms of responsible government.     

How Do Career Strategies,Gender, and Work Environment Affect Faculty Productivity Levels in University‐Based Science Centers?1

Recent studies have shown that in many science and engineering fields, almost 40% of faculty are affiliated with university‐based research centers ( Corley & Gaughan, 2005 ). As major science funding organizations continue to increase annual levels of funding for interdisciplinary science centers, it is likely that this number will increase significantly over the next decade. Moreover, some scholars have argued that the rise of university‐based science centers has already led to the development of a new institutional form for the execution of university‐based research ( Bozeman & Boardman, 2004 ). Yet, interestingly few researchers have studied the impacts of this new institutional form on the productivity of individual researchers. The purpose of this article is to begin to address how individual career strategies and perceptions of scientific work environments within university‐based science centers relate to the productivity of academic scientists who participate in these centers. In particular, this article investigates the relationships between productivity, individual career strategies, and perceptions of scientific work environment across gender. The results of the study demonstrate that university‐based science centers might serve as an equalizing mechanism for male and female productivity levels. Yet, women scientists affiliated with these centers are significantly more likely to feel discriminated against—and they are less likely to embrace the most promising career strategy for the current structure of these centers.     

Science Use in Regulatory Impact Analysis: The Effects of Political Attention and Controversy

Scholars, policy makers, and research sponsors have long sought to understand the conditions under which scientific research is used in the policy‐making process. Recent research has identified a resource that can be used to trace the use of science across time and many policy domains. U.S. federal agencies are mandated by executive order to justify all economically significant regulations by regulatory impact analyses (RIAs), in which they present evidence of the scientific underpinnings and consequences of the proposed rule. To gain new insight into when and how regulators invoke science in their policy justifications, we ask: does the political attention and controversy surrounding a regulation affect the extent to which science is utilized in RIAs? We examine scientific citation activity in all 101 economically significant RIAs from 2008 to 2012 and evaluate the effects of attention—from the public, policy elites, and the media—on the degree of science use in RIAs. Our main finding is that regulators draw more heavily on scientific research when justifying rules subject to a high degree of attention from outside actors. These findings suggest that scientific research plays an important role in the justification of regulations, especially those that are highly salient to the public and other policy actors.     

The emergence of ‘citizenship’ in popular discourse: the case of Scotland

ABSTRACT

The 2014 Scottish Referendum gauged public opinion on the possibility of Scotland leaving the United Kingdom, raising significant questions about the legitimacy of claims to citizenship in the event of independence. Through a mixed methods survey, this study explored the ways in which citizenship emerged in popular discourse in the lead up to the Scottish referendum. Findings point to an emphasis in public discourse on a commitment to and participation in society, instead of the more traditional citizenship markers of ancestry, birthplace or residency. Data indicates a view of citizenship encompassing status and practice, while identity was framed in terms of more static notions of birthplace and ancestry. The salience of social participation was noticeably greater in respondents’ assessment of others’ potential Scottish citizenship than their own. Specifically, the study highlights the salience of relational aspects of citizenship in popular discourse, with an emphasis on social citizenship in preference to legal citizenship. The study constitutes a significant contribution to ongoing discussions about ‘participatory citizenship’ in the field of Citizenship studies, by providing much needed empirical data on social conceptualizations of citizenship.     

Scientific opinion in policymaking: the case of climate change adaptation

The urgent need for policy decisions often outpaces scientific discovery. At such times, policymakers must rely on scientific opinion. This is the case with many aspects of current climate policy, especially those involving untested but potentially necessary adaptations to reduce vulnerability to climate change. Unfortunately, scientific opinion is not currently defined, measured, or used in a standardized way, which often allows for the accidental or intentional dissemination of misinformation and the marginalization of science where science could be most beneficial. In this article, we argue that scientific opinion can be usefully measured by systematic surveys of scientists that employ standards similar to those that govern public opinion surveys, including systematic decisions about target populations, sampling frames, and sampling techniques. We demonstrate this approach with the methodology for a study of scientific opinion on a potential adaptation to climate change, the managed relocation of species. We show that survey results may be used to corroborate other types of information, refine or contradict other information, and offer novel insights into emerging issues, such as adaptations to climate change, that are currently not addressed with any other type of available information.     

Realized Publicness at Public and Private Research Universities

Although research‐extensive universities in the United States produce similar outcomes—research, teaching, and service—they vary substantially in terms of the publicness of their environments. In this article, the authors adopt a public values framework to examine how regulative, normative/associative, and cultural cognitive components affect realized public outcomes by faculty. Using survey data from a random sample of faculty scientists in six fields of science and engineering at Carnegie Research I universities, findings show that organizational and individual public values components are associated predictably with different realized individual public outcomes. For example, individual support from federal resources and affiliation with a federal lab (associative) are related to increased research outcomes, while tuition and fee levels (regulative) explain teaching outcomes, and perceived level of influence in the workplace (cultural cognitive) explains teaching and service outcomes.     

The construction of urgency discourse around mega-projects: the Israeli case

Various studies have pointed to urgency in decision-making as a major catalyst for policy change. Urgency evokes a crisis frame in which emotions and cognitive and institutional biases are more likely to be mobilised in support of the policy preferences of powerful actors. As a result, decision-makers tend to be driven by emotions and opportunity, often with detrimental results for the quality of the planning process. Although urgency has such a profound influence on the quality of decision-making, little is known about how, when and by whom urgency is constructed in the planning process of public infrastructure. By means of a discourse analysis, this study traces the timing, motives and ways actors discursively construct a sense of urgency in decision-making on the building of terminals for the reception and treatment of the natural gas that was recently found off the coast of Israel. The results of this study indicate that government regulators, but also private sector actors, deliberately constructed an urgency discourse at critical moments during the planning process. By evoking terms that resonated with the target audience, regulators employed urgency as an instrument to legitimise unorthodox planning practices whilst precluding the consideration of alternative planning solutions. Thus, urgency framing is a means of controlling both the discourse and the agenda—and is therefore an exercise in power maintenance—by entrenched interest groups.     

The New Public Management: a bibliographical essay for Latin American (and other) scholars

The New Public Management is a field of professional and policy discussion—conducted internationally—about public management policy, executive leadership, design of programmatic organizations, and government operations. Scholars specializing in public administration/political science have contributed to this discussion for a decade; however, their contribution has yet to be examined as a whole. The paper—a bibliographical essay, rather than a literature review—attempts to fill this gap. Studies published in the 1990–96 period are examined in detail, while subsequent works are briefly discussed. The paper aims to help scholars situated outside the original English-speaking precincts of the NPM discussion to benefit from and contribute to this maturing literature. This aim is pursued here in three main ways: first, by reviewing each study’s distinctive methodological and theoretical approach; second, by contrasting each item with a common benchmark; and, third, by including two studies about Latin America within the review. The bibliographical essay can be used for envisioning the public administration/political science contribution to the NPM discussion in its second decade, as well.     

Depleted Uranium,Public Science,and the Politics of Closure

The public controversy over depleted uranium (DU) seems to follow a standard trajectory—scientific closure, via the reduction of scientific uncertainty, led directly to policy closure, as government bureaucracies increasingly downplayed its dangers and denied redress to exposed individuals. Closer inspection, however, reveals a more complex dynamic. A series of expert, public science reports, while articulating a shared narrative of DU safety, actually accentuated great uncertainty concerning DU's biological effects, mirroring new uncertainties raised by ongoing scientific research. Policy closure is thus mirrored in neither the scholarly scientific literature nor in broader political realms, suggesting a close and unique relation between the expert reports and governmental policy making. Public science institutions and the expert reports they produce are crucial political resources for resolving governmental policy making but are decidedly less successful at closing the broader political debate.     

Franz Boas: The Anthropologist as Public Intellectual

Franz Boas is among the most important public intellectuals in American history because the authority of his expertise was joined with the purposes to which he applied his citizenship. His contributions to the discipline of anthropology were as towering as anyone has ever made; he also tapped his scholarly credentials to fight for good causes, such as civil rights and civil liberties. His origins as a Jewish immigrant and his political ideals as a cosmopolitan liberal predisposed him to reject the racialism that dominated late-nineteenth-century thought, and to advance an alternative social science that would be unpolluted by condescension towards lesser breeds. So persuasive was his research that a paradigm shift occurred; and buttressed with the authority of scholarship, Boas was decisive in changing public discourse on the often radioactive subject of race. He honored the ideal of the scholar as activist and as social conscience, and virtually no one in modern American history came closer to satisfying that standard.