Andrew Stirling

Opening up and "closing down" power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology

Discursive deference in the governance of science and technology is rebalancing from expert analysis toward participatory deliberation. Linear, scientistic conceptions of innovation are giving ground to more plural, socially situated understandings. Yet, growing recognition of social agency in technology choice is countered by persistently deterministic notions of technological progress. This article addresses this increasingly stark disjuncture. Distinguishing between “appraisal” and “commitment” in technology choice, it highlights contrasting implications of normative, instrumental, and substantive imperatives in appraisal. Focusing on the role of power, it identifies key commonalities transcending the analysis/participation dichotomy. Each is equally susceptible to instrumental framing for variously weak and strong forms of justification. To address the disjuncture, it is concluded that greater appreciation is required—in both analytic and participatory appraisal—to facilitating the opening up (rather than the closing down) of governance commitments on science and technology.

A general framework for analysing diversity in science, technology and society

This paper addresses the scope for more integrated general analysis of diversity in science, technology and society. It proposes a framework recognizing three necessary but individually insufficient properties of diversity. Based on 10 quality criteria, it suggests a general quantitative non-parametric diversity heuristic. This allows the systematic exploration of diversity under different perspectives, including divergent conceptions of relevant attributes and contrasting weightings on different diversity properties. It is shown how this heuristic may be used to explore different possible trade-offs between diversity and other aspects of interest, including portfolio interactions. The resulting approach offers a way to be more systematic and transparent in the treatment of scientific and technological diversity in a range of fields, including conservation management, research governance, energy policy and sustainable innovation.

The Politics of Social-ecological Resilience and Sustainable Socio-technical Transitions

Technology-focused literature on socio-technical transitions shares some of the complex systems sensibilities of social-ecological systems research. We contend that the sharing of lessons between these areas of study must attend particularly to the common governance challenges that confront both approaches. Here, we focus on critical experience arising from reactions to a transition management approach to governing sustainable socio-technical transformations. Questions over who governs, whose system framings count, and whose sustainability gets prioritized are all pertinent to social-ecological systems research. We conclude that future research in both areas should deal more centrally and explicitly with these inherently political dimensions of sustainability.

Keep it complex

When knowledge is uncertain, experts should avoid pressures to simplify their advice. Render decision-makers accountable for decisions, says Andy Stirling.

Dynamic Sustainabilities : Technology, Environment, Social Justice

1. Sustainability Challenges in a Dynamic World 2. Dynamic Systems: Environment and Development Challenges 3. Pathways to Sustainability: Responding to Dynamic Contexts 4. Governance in a Dynamic World 5. Opening Up, Broadening Out: Empowering Designs for Sustainability 6. An Alternative Politics for Sustainability 7. Towards Pathways to Sustainability

Moving Outside or Inside? Objectification and Reflexivity in the Governance of Socio-Technical Systems

Abstract Two contrasting, ideal-typical conceptualizations of the relations between governance and socio-technical change are developed, based on different considerations of the roles and links between social appraisal and social commitment in governance. ‘Governance on the outside’ objectifies the socio-technical and is managerial in approach. ‘Governance on the inside’ is more reflexive about the role of governance in co-constituting the socio-technical and, consequently, more overtly political. Each conceptualization lends itself to contrasting strategies for dealing with uncertainty, ambiguity and power. Both forms exist to varying degrees in specific instances of socio-technical governance. Tensions between imperfect attempts to reconcile contradictions between the two drive governance dynamics. This paper develops a conceptual framework to help understand these dynamics.

Deliberative mapping: a novel analytic-deliberative methodology to support contested science-policy decisions

This paper discusses the methodological development of Deliberative Mapping (DM), a participatory, multi-criteria, option appraisal process that combines a novel approach to the use of quantitative decision analysis techniques with some significant innovations in the field of participatory deliberation. DM is a symmetrical process, engaging “specialists” and “citizens” in the same appraisal process, providing for consistency of framing, mutual inter-linkage and interrogation, and substantial opportunities for face-to-face discussion. Through a detailed case study of organ transplantation options, the paper discusses the steps in DM. The analysis shows that DM is able to elicit and document consensual judgments as well as divergent views by integrating analytic and deliberative components in a transparent, auditable process that creates many opportunities for personal learning, and provides a robust decision-support tool for contested science-policy issues.

A Novel Approach to the Appraisal of Technological Risk: A Multicriteria Mapping Study of a Genetically Modified Crop

The recent controversy over genetically modified (GM) foods amply demonstrates the general difficulties encountered in the social appraisal of technological risk. Existing procedures for regulatory appraisal neglect many possible forms of impact and routinely exclude important cultural and social dimensions of risk. A narrow, expert, ‘science-based’ approach is now widely acknowledged to be insufficient. There is a need for new approaches that are more broadly based, transparent, pluralistic and ready to acknowledge uncertainty as well as being practically feasible and robust. The authors investigate the potential for a novel ‘multicriteria mapping’ (MCM) method as one such possible tool. Drawing on a variety of perspectives in the current UK debate, a range of agricultural strategies for the production of oilseed rape, including both GM and non-GM options were explored in this MCM pilot exercise. The results demonstrate the general feasibility and positive potential of this type of approach, with specific findings providing modest insights for policymaking in this difficult area.

A Collaboratively-Derived Science-Policy Research Agenda

The need for policy makers to understand science and for scientists to understand policy processes is widely recognised. However, the science-policy relationship is sometimes difficult and occasionally dysfunctional; it is also increasingly visible, because it must deal with contentious issues, or itself becomes a matter of public controversy, or both. We suggest that identifying key unanswered questions on the relationship between science and policy will catalyse and focus research in this field. To identify these questions, a collaborative procedure was employed with 52 participants selected to cover a wide range of experience in both science and policy, including people from government, non-governmental organisations, academia and industry. These participants consulted with colleagues and submitted 239 questions. An initial round of voting was followed by a workshop in which 40 of the most important questions were identified by further discussion and voting. The resulting list includes questions about the effectiveness of science-based decision-making structures; the nature and legitimacy of expertise; the consequences of changes such as increasing transparency; choices among different sources of evidence; the implications of new means of characterising and representing uncertainties; and ways in which policy and political processes affect what counts as authoritative evidence. We expect this exercise to identify important theoretical questions and to help improve the mutual understanding and effectiveness of those working at the interface of science and policy.

Science, Precaution, and Practice

b The precautionary principle has become an increasingly prominent theme in the debate over technological risk, raising many questions over its implications for policy making. A key issue is the relationship between precautionary and more traditional so-called science-based approaches to decision-making, such as cost-benefit and risk analyses. Some fear that a precautionary approach— unlike risk assessment—is too ambiguous and impractical to serve as a basis for real decision-making, and that it is somehow antagonistic to science and may even stifle technological innovation. This article first examines some of the key issues affecting the relationship between science and precaution. Far from being in tension, these two concepts are actually consistent and even mutually reinforcing. A more useful distinction is found to lie between the narrow risk assessments of many regulatory apprais- als and the broader precautionary approaches to hazard reduction and policy- making under conditions of scientific uncertainty, complexity, and high deci- sion stakes. This article identifies a series of key features characterizing a precautionary approach to regulatory appraisal. It cites a recent European Environment Agency (EEA) study that provides examples of how some of these key features could have improved past decision-making on risk. 1 Finally, it illustrates a method that addresses these issues and delivers an approach to regulatory appraisal that is both precautionary and scientifically robust.