Experts’ understanding of the public: knowledge control in a risk controversy

Abstract

This paper reverses the common emphasis in the literature on public understanding of science by examining “experts’ understanding of the public.” This research uses the case of aquaculture in Canada, a highly contested mode of production that has divided the scientific community and public opinion. Using a survey of 300 aquaculture experts in Canada, we examine three dimensions of experts’ understanding of public “contributions” to this controversy. These are (1) stakeholder participation in aquaculture regulation and policy, (2) the media as an interpreter and communicator of expert claims, and (3) the knowledge and values basis of general public opinion. We find that experts’ views on lay knowledge and participation in the debate swing from strongly positive to strongly negative. Using quantitative and qualitative data from the survey, we argue that these swings in experts’ views of the public coincide with issues of control over knowledge. Experts on all sides of the aquaculture controversy are markedly open to incorporating lay knowledge into scientific practices (a situation where expert control over knowledge is retained), but are highly critical of lay “consumption” of expert claims (a situation where expert control over knowledge is lost).

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ali, H. (1997) “Trust, Risk and the Public: the Case of the Guelph Landfill Site,” Canadian Journal of Sociology 22(4): 481-503.

Ali, H. (1999) “The Search for a Landfill Site in the Risk Society,” Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 36(1): 1-19.

Bastien, Y. (2003) Achieving the Vision: Report of the Commissioner for Aquaculture Development. Ottawa: Government of Canada.

Bauer, M. , Petkova, K. and Boyadjieva, P. (2000) “Public Knowledge of and Attitudes to Science: Alternative Measures that may End the ‘Science War,’” Science, Technology & Human Values 25(1): 30-51.

Beck, U. (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: SAGE.

Blaikie, N. (2003) Analyzing Quantitative Data: From Description to Explanation. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

British Columbia (1997) Salmon Aquaculture Review: Summary. Victoria, BC: British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office.

Burns, T. , O’Connor, D. and Stocklmayer, S. (2003) “Science Communication: a Contemporary Definition,” Public Understanding of Science 12: 183-202.

Burrows, J. (1999) “Sovereignty’s Alchemy: an Analysis of Delgamuukw v. British Columbia,” Osgoode Hall Law Journal 37: 537-596.

10.

Collins, H. M. and Evans, R. (2002) “The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience,” Social Studies of Science 32(2): 235-296.

11.

Cronbach, L. (1951) “Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests,” Psychometrika 16: 297-334.

12.

Davis, A. and Wagner, J. (2003) “Who Knows? On the Importance of Identifying ‘Experts’ When Researching Local Ecological Knowledge,” Human Ecology 31(3): 463-489.

13.

Demeritt, D. (2000) “The New Social Contract for Science: Accountability, Relevance, and Value in US and UK Science and Research Policy,” Antipode 32(3): 308-330.

14.

Economist (2003) “The Promise of a Blue Revolution: How Aquaculture Might Meet Most of the World’s Demand for Fish without Ruining the Environment,” Economist 7 August.

15.

Ellis, D. (1996) Net Loss: the Salmon Netcage Industry in British Columbia. Vancouver: David Suzuki Foundation.

16.

Fiorino, D. (1990) “Citizen Participation and Environmental Risk: a Survey of Institutional Mechanisms,” Science, Technology & Human Values 15(2): 226-243.

17.

Glavin, T. (2004) “Introduction,” in A. Morton , S. Hume , B. Keller , R. Leslie , O. Langer and D. Staniford (eds) A Stain upon the Sea: West Coast Salmon Farming, pp. 13-16. Madeira Park, BC: Harbour Publishing.

18.

Gunther, A. and Schmitt, K. (2004) “Mapping Boundaries of the Hostile Media Effect,” Journal of Communication 54(1): 55-70.

19.

Hartz, J. and Chappell, C. (1997) Worlds Apart: How the Distance between Science and Journalism Threatens America’s Future. Nashville: First Amendment Center.

20.

Hites, R. , Foran, J. , Carpenter, D. , Hamilton, C. , Knuth, B. and Schwager, S. (2004) “Global Assessment of Organic Contaminants in Farmed Salmon,” Science 303(9 January): 226-229.

21.

Kallerud, E. and Ramberg, I. (2002) “The Order of Discourse in Surveys of Public Understanding of Science,” Public Understanding of Science 11: 213-224.

22.

Kenney, A. (1997) Net Gain: the Salmon Farming Industry in British Columbia. Vancouver: The British Columbia Salmon Farmers Association.

23.

Leggatt, S. (2002) Clear Choices, Clean Waters: the Leggatt Inquiry into Salmon Farming in British Columbia. Vancouver: Western Printers and the David Suzuki Foundation.

24.

Levy-Leblond, J. (1992) “Misunderstandings about Misunderstandings,” Public Understanding of Science 1: 17-21.

25.

Lippert, O. (ed.) (2000) Beyond the Nass Valley: National Implications of the Supreme Court’s Delgamuukw Decision. Vancouver: Fraser Institute.

26.

Living Oceans Society (2004) “New National Poll Reveals Declining Consumer Confidence in Farmed Salmon,” Media release, 15 March.

27.

Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee (1999) “Delgamuukw Backgrounder,” URL: http://www.lmtac.com/publications/papers/99-delgamuukw.pdf (accessed August 2004).

28.

Malone, R. , Boyd, E. and Bero, L. (2000) “Science in the News: Journalists’ Constructions of Passive Smoking as a Social Problem,” Social Studies of Science 30(5): 713-735.

29.

Matthews, R. , Elliott, B. , Elliot, S. , Schreiber, D. , Paradis, E. and Poon, A. (2001) “Framing Aquacultural Risk in Western Canada,” presented to the annual meeting of the Aquaculture Association of Canada, Halifax, Canada, 7-10 May.

30.

Matthews, R. , with Young, N. , Lauer, S. , Shaw, M. and Paradis, E. (2004) “The Canadian Aquaculture Employment Study”, report prepared for the Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance.

31.

Morton, A. , Hume, S. , Keller, B. , Leslie, R. , Langer, O. and Staniford, D. (2004) A Stain upon the Sea: West Coast Salmon Farming. Madeira Park, BC: Harbour Publishing.

32.

Moore, P. (2004) “Farmed Salmon, PCBs, Activists, and the Media,” report prepared for Positive Aquaculture Awareness, URL: www.farmfreshsalmon.org/images/PDFS/rptupdate.pdf (accessed August 2005).

33.

Peters, H. (1995) “The Interaction of Journalists and Scientific Experts: Co-operation and Conflict between two Professional Cultures,” Media, Culture & Society 17: 31-48.

34.

Petts, J. (1997) “The Public-Expert Interface in Local Waste Management Decisions: Expertise, Credibility and Process,” Public Understanding of Science 6(4): 359-381.

35.

Roll-Hansen, N. (1994) “Science, Politics, and the Mass Media: on Biased Communication of Environmental Issues,” Science, Technology & Human Values 19(3): 324-341.

36.

Schabel, U. (2003) “God’s Formula and Devil’s Contribution: Science in the Press,” Public Understanding of Science 12: 255-259.

37.

Schreiber, D. , Matthews, R. and Elliott, B. (2003) “The Framing of Farmed Fish: Product, Efficiency and Technology,” Canadian Journal of Sociology 28(2): 153-169.

38.

Slovic, P. (2000) “Informing and Educating the Public about Risk,” in P. Slovic (ed.) The Perception of Risk, pp. 182-198. London: Earthscan.

39.

Sturgis, P. and Allum, N. (2004) “Science in Society: Re-evaluating the Deficit Model of Public Attitudes,” Public Understanding of Science 13: 55-74.

40.

Supreme Court of Canada (1997) Delgamuukw v. British Columbia. S.C.R. 1010, URL: http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/1997/vol3/html/1997scr3_1010.html (accessed August 2005).

41.

Vallone, R. , Ross, L. and Lepper, M. (1985) “The Hostile Media Phenomenon: Biased Perception and Perceptions of Media Bias in Coverage of the Beirut Massacre,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 49: 577-585.

42.

Wynne, B. (1991) “Knowledges in Context,” Science, Technology & Human Values 16(1): 111-122.

43.

Wynne, B. (1993) “Public Uptake of Science: a Case for Institutional Reflexivity,” Public Understanding of Science 2: 321-337.

44.

Wynne, B. (1996) “May the Sheep Safely Graze?,” in S. Lash , B. Szerszyski and B. Wynne (eds) Risk, Environment and Modernity, pp. 44-83. London: SAGE.

45.

Wynne, B. (2001) “Creating Public Alienation: Expert Cultures of Risks and Ethics on GMOs,” Science as Culture 10(4): 445-481.

46.

Yearley, S. (1994) “Understanding Science from the Perspective of the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge: an Overview,” Public Understanding of Science 3: 245-258.

47.

Yearley, S. (2000) “Making Systematic Sense of Public Discontents with Expert Knowledge: Two Analytical Approaches and a Case Study,” Public Understanding of Science 9: 105-122.