Knowledge, Science and Society... how fake news is constructed

Knowledge, Science and Society... how fake news is constructed

Science its utility, context and practical application in contemporary society

There has been an on going debate concerning the utility and practical application of the production of scientific knowledge for the past fifty years.   Although: “Many argue that scientific knowledge cannot qualify as scientific if it is produced outside its legitimating structures” ² contemporary social research is now questioning whether: “there can be a sociology of scientific knowledge, as distinct from an analysis merely of the social relationships and moral ethos of science” ³. Furthermore, that there is nothing epistemologically special about science and its production of knowledge when researching complex contemporary society and its systems. ⁴ Others argue that there are now clear links between: “open systems of knowledge production on the one hand and the growth of complexity in the other” ⁵ and that science seems to have moved away from a traditional

Mode of science to at least three other types of knowledge production and these are Post Normal Science, Mode 2 and Tran’s science. Gibbons et al ⁽¹⁹⁹⁴⁾ show through their research that   Trans disciplinary and boundary work is used more regularly with technology than previously. They argue that this means science is not as tight and as rigid in its methods as thought but is flexible, holds fewer boundaries, has more become reflexive and actually works according to different criteria now.⁶  Weingart ⁽¹⁹⁹⁷⁾ however has argued not much has changed at all and the new labels on knowledge production are just fashionable “buzz” words. This essay shall discuss the debate around the development of these theories and particularly the assumed   shift from   traditional science in its utility, applicability and context in contemporary society towards more collaborative research and whether we have seen the democratisation of science and the end of traditional science because of this.

Normal science  that  emerged  from the enlightenment period is assumed to  follow a  ‘Newtonian’  methodology  with a hypothetical  deductive , rationale.⁷  It is a method that is used to attempt to define  and understand universal laws. Scientific method is assumed to be distinct, quantitative, reductionist and predominantly undertaken by academics in universities where: “Participation is restricted and hierarchical, corresponding to the more traditional practices of science, such as the laboratory procedures described by Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar”. ⁸   However it’s been argued that there has been a shift away from this  unitary discipline approach and methodology  towards more boundary and trans disciplinary work  with many disciplines now working  together on one research project.  

Nowtony et al, ⁽²⁰¹¹⁾ argue that science and technology came closer together after the 70s with each shaping and informing the other therefore, a scientific production of knowledge has now:  “becomes one of social activity”. ⁹  Nowtony et al^{(2001 )}  focus on the sociological assumed end of modern science and its predictive theories and argue that a more trans disciplinary post-modern approach is now taking place in research. This sociological interest has focused on concerns about whether science has a practical context with any real relevance within knowledge production its utility and practical  application concerning  complex  issues in the context of contemporary  society. They state that technological advances have bought to the fore these new issues. They show that because of an awareness of these issues and the limitations of Mode 1 science,  scientific research has seen a rise in  collaborative work.

Technological advances have:  “generated an awareness of the problems beyond the immediate concerns of particular specialism”. ¹⁰   for example,  environmental issues.  The environment cannot be confined in the laboratory for the convenient purpose of   research.  Indeed Sterh and Meja, ⁽²⁰⁰⁵⁾ state that: “ knowledge produced under special conditions can first only be reproduced outside the laboratory if the special conditions that allowed such awareness are also reproduced outside the laboratory” ^{. 11}   As science is faced with more  complex  systems and issues the  traditional method  may not be practical in certain contexts.  Certainly:  “the more that capacity is extended to complex issues, the more we will be confronted with what we do not know and cannot control”. ¹² Therefore:  “The scientific approach to innovation is bound to reveal that applicable knowledge, generated in the laboratory, is in fact inapplicable in the world outside;” ^{. 13} 

One of the reasons for the assumed inapplicability is that science is argued as not being as methodological, objective and linear as it was assumed to be and has:  “long since been unmasked as at best an exception, at worst as a social fiction”. ¹⁴ Furthermore, as humanities knowledge increases we are delving deeper into areas where we need more complex methods to understand what we are researching.  The issue of complexity is assumed to have  led to a more trans disciplinary approach  to the production of knowledge ¹⁵  with Sterh and Meja ⁽²⁰⁰⁵⁾ arguing that science now holds “obsolete epistemological conceptions”. ¹⁶  Traditional science is limited in its methodology  when working as a unitary discipline with complex issues.

Mulkay ⁽¹⁹⁹¹⁾  also argues that  the practicality and utility of  normal science for knowledge production  has not been pure or fundamental and  neither does it  hold a ‘special epistemological status’ ^p96  Indeed he argues that only some scientific knowledge production has been achieved through this method and:  “ that whenever basic science is used as the foundation for technological science ... a considerable amount of reformulation is needed to make basic science work; it has to be radically re interpreted   in accordance with the requirements of the social context of practical application.”.¹⁷  This  implies that more complex applications for research are needed for knowledge production and also needed for understanding these and  any consequent issues that may arise. This may also explain one of the reasons behind the trans  disciplinary arguments and the venture into boundary work. Science is argued as being only one part of a research team and for this reason may not be an objective isolated discipline and should not be assumed to be a superior methodology

Previous research has shown the minimal effectiveness, utilisation and applicability of scientific knowledge production and has highlighted the importance of : “boundary work” when researching complex issues.  Contemporary research highlights the way in which research communities organize their relations with new science, other sources of knowledge, and the worlds of action and  policy  making. ¹⁸ Whereas traditional science is: “knowledge production that is carried out in the absence of some particular goal” the new productions of knowledge are argued as being: “generated and sustained in the context of application and not developed first and then applied to  that  context ^{. 19} Therefore: “A good deal of modern science has the tendency to implicitly extend research processes beyond the walls of the laboratory into the general public.” ²⁰ Indeed:  “according to the Mode 2 argument universities have begun to conduct research in wider social and economic  contexts across disciplinary boundaries” ²¹  Gibbons et al, ⁽¹⁹⁹⁴⁾ argue that science  is moving away from a traditional method of research towards the new methods of knowledge production.

 

Gibbons et al  ^{( 1994  )} discuss that science is moving away from traditional research and has moved out of the universities and away from its unitary disciplinary hierarchical and linear method.  They argue that this is because the homogenous growth in traditional science which they class as Mode 1 did not capture the:  “Model of increasing density of communication” that the new research methods require. ²² They term this new mode of knowledge production Mode 2.  Mode 2 is trans disciplinary and a more practically applicable approach to knowledge production and one where research has: “more actors” from different disciplines & backgrounds and: “as a consequence this dispersed and transient way of knowledge production leads to results which are highly contextualised.  Due to this trans disciplinary methods they greatly enhance further diffusion and production of new knowledge...” ²²This density of communication is increased across inter- disciplinary methods between science and technology systems and are located on three communicative levels and these are

·         Science and society

·         Between scientific practitioners

·         And entities of the physical and social world.

Mode 2 is characterised as a shift from Mode 1 because of the:  “constant flow back and forth between the fundamental and the applied, between the theoretical and practical.” ²³ The participation of these various communicative levels  is  argued as a  pragmatic  response to the previous legitimating  Mode 1 structures which  were understood   as  fairly un applicable   to  the new needs of technology and the environment. Therefore they argue that traditional sciences position in contemporary society has been challenged by the technological advances and this new method of research has different criteria to what it classes as good research.

 This is not to state that Mode 2 exists independently from traditional science, as it still relies on some of the methodology and structure of traditional science but it also uses the tacit knowledge that is embodied in other organisational structures.  They argue that the tacit technical knowledge tends to be the larger knowledge base in Mode 2 whereas in science, the codified knowledge is the larger one.  For this reason: “disciplinary boundaries, distinctions between pure and applied research and institutional differences between, say, universities and industry seem less relevant”. ²⁴

Indeed as Gibbons et al ⁽¹⁹⁹⁴⁾ show Mode 1 may not be able alone to work with and answer the more complex issues.  This has  led  research away from science as outlined  in  Merton’s; ‘Cudos’  ²⁵  but towards  research  and development with technology and other disciplines.  Advances in technology and globalisation such as factories, power plants, nuclear power and  pollution  hold implications for the environment, individual health and a wider range of concerns that effect societies and individuals on  global and local scale.  Therefore these issues draw in a wider range of “actors”. ²⁶ The risks that these bring to society means everyone has a stake in the consequences of these.  Indeed social movements, clients and local residents all attempt to have a democratic say in whether a power plant is built next to their home. Therefore science has been forced into taking into account a wider range of views thus democratising scientific research.

Indeed Functowitz  and  Ravetz  ⁽¹⁹⁹²⁾  also argue a  new science has emerged out of the need for a more democratic research method that places greater  value on risk assessment and policy making. They also agree that normal science was never as objective as it claimed and that finding and declaring even basic law through this methodology has been largely abandoned in theory.  Their theory of Post Normal Science argues that there has been a shift away from traditional system of science that was defined by Khun,  towards a Post Normal Science.  Post Normal Science (PNS) argues that in a post-modern society there can be no grand narrative and that everyone is and must be  a stakeholder in the research process and application of results. These stakeholders are general society, its socio-political groups and judicial systems.  It is argued that these stakeholders  now influence research, what good research is and how knowledge is produced.   Therefore PNS is  a shift away from the us and them  of scientific institutions and everyone else  and previous research and  is now undertaken and based on a methodology of inquiry that is appropriate for cases where: "facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent"  ²⁷  This argument states that science can no longer be : “imagined as delivering a truth and it receives a new organising principle that of quality” ²⁸  An organising principle  seems to be evident certainly in a social context.

The environment, nuclear power, medicine, disease  and many other issues are a global multi disciplinary and individual concern. Indeed at the world conference on science Federico Mayor,  Director-General, of UNESCO  stated that  we are : “On the threshold of a new century and a new millennium, we are confronted with a range of tendencies and dangers which are increasingly interdependent, and which require all-round responses from society as a whole and not only from one specialized sector” ²⁹   and discusses this as a new “social contract”. ³⁰  This social contract requires the input of everybody in society and concerns  a cross section of disciplines and individuals with a variety of  knowledge.  Gross also states that : “large ecological experiments such those in restoration projects cannot be understood and reliably implemented without the inclusion of so called non-scientific elements like lay knowledge or aesthetic preferences of citizens.³¹ Indeed: “What has to be added is that the operational modes of research, and not just the scientific results, become incorporated into projects of innovation. Science is not only a resource but also an agent of change”. ³²  Therefore , as Nowotny ⁽²⁰⁰¹⁾ outlines, one of the characteristics of the Mode 2 science is that it is relevant to a Mode 2 society. ^{33 34}  Mode 2 therefore is more: “contextualised” because of the context of society and  knowledge production is being generated by its:  “context of application”.  ⁽³⁵⁾

However not everyone in the discussion agrees that there has been such a transformational shift. Weingart,⁽¹⁹⁹⁷⁾ argues that  theories staking a claim to some sort of paradigmatic shift have not been epistemologically proven  and  that even  where  they are applied  any: “changes pertain to a particular sector of science; policy-related fields.” ³⁶ and that  the concepts behinds these buzz words  are susceptible to ‘fashion’ and ‘fads’ in the debate about the  reshaping of the production of knowledge and the  ‘finalisation thesis’ of science.³⁷    He argues that even now neither Post Normal Science or Mode 2 are  fully accepted because of the potential death of  the legitimisation of science certainly in policy making and that both are only a description of  a specific section of research and: “there is no fundamental change in epistemology in sight.” ³⁸ Furthermore,  he states  that  any statements of a shift are merely ‘conspicuous characteristics’ of these assumptions  where authors  “remain vague”  on the actuality of a situation in its context.  ³⁹   Weingarts⁽¹⁹⁹⁷⁾ research shows that the chemical and engineering companies have  worked with universities since the 19^th century and that these disciplines and areas of research have been working together poses Weingart ^{(1997 )} to state:  “it is also an empirical question as to how far recombined research fields are removed from their original disciplinary contexts”.  ⁴⁰  Due to the vagueness of statements and that no one has empirically substantiated this, the two terms Mode 2 and Post Normal Science cannot offer us any real definition or comparability  of a shift from traditional science, its function and epistemology.

Muller, ²⁰⁰⁸  also takes up Weingarts,  position arguing that  Mode 2 and Post Normal Science are: “little more than  fashionable reinstatements of  the  Sternberg  groups  finalization hypothesis of the 1970s    ⁴    rguing that as  science matured its relevance and application increased and that the ^: “The structure of these programs clearly exhibits all aspects of Mode-2, but the concrete research is mainly done in a traditional disciplinary setting:  “By embedding in a Mode-2 frame work science is more open to an interdisciplinary dialogue and to a discussion of values and goals and involves a far broader range of contributing parties than usual, but it is not a fundamentally new mode of knowledge production.”.  ⁴² However he does recognise that: “what counts is to take actions to address the problems human society faces today and to be aware of and use the chances of the values behind Mode-2 science seen as a regulative principle which can be done irrespective of the factual situation concerning the importance and presence of the concept of Mode-2 science.” ⁴³ Therefore the new production of knowledge  is guided and or under the : “regime of political correctness” ⁴⁴  The claims to  new science  approaches are value loaded and steer towards a consensus of knowledge based on policy, fear of reprisal and not objective knowledge but on criteria of quality or what is now classed as acceptable  not universally truthful knowledge. 

Both Weingart and Muller,  argue that the shift to accepting parts of the finalization theory by using the buzz words, 'Post Normal Science and Mode 2'  constitute not a paradigmatic shift but a shift towards understanding that science  does work  within a socio-political society. In Mode 2 and Post Normal science knowledge production, science and society are not separate domains. ⁴⁵  Some scientific research has moved out of the laboratory and can be seen as a process of negotiation between science and the public.   ⁴⁶   However they  also  argue that  lay knowledge itself cannot be seen as a higher rationale just by including it in to  the discourse either.  It seems from these arguments that  Mode 2 and Post Normal Methods are no paradigmatic shift  just a shift in “discursive context” ^{. 47}   Mode 2 and Post Normal Science only finding  their way into  the presumed shift through rhetoric  alone.  When taking into account linguistics, value loaded assumptions,  a history of technology, science and government policy working together, the needs of political correctness and much more, what can actually be abstracted as useful knowledge? 

 Aarstad, J (2010) Expert credibility and truth .Published online before print November 8, 2010, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1012156107 PNAS November 23, 2010 vol. 107 no. 47 E176

Auranen,  Otto  (2005  Social Capital In Mode 1 and Mode 2 Knowledge Production: A Finnish Case Study.  Conference paper for the The Fifth Triple Helix Conference, Turin, Italy, 18-21 May 2005

Clark, W, et al. (2010)  Toward a General Theory of Boundary Work: Insights from the CGIAR's Natural Resource Management Programs. Harvard Kennedy School:  online at http://ideas.repec.org/p/ecl/harjfk/rwp10-035.html

Cressman, D  April 2009 A Brief Overview of Actor-Network Theory: Punctualization, Heterogeneous Engineering & Translation ACT Lab/Centre for Policy Research on Science & Technology (CPROST)

Carrier, M & Nordmann, (2011)  A  Science in the Context of Application ,  Vol247,  Springer publications.

Elkay, M ( 1991), The Sociology of Science,  Open University Press, Buckinghamshire

Elzinga, Aant:  The New Production of Particularism in Models relating to Research

Policy. A critique of Mode 2 and Triple Helix, Inst f. History of Ideas and Theory of Science University of Göteborg, Sweden

 Fraser, I. (2011) Does over-reliance on wind energy risk the lights going out across Europe? Online at http://www.qfinance.com/blogs/ian-fraser/2011/08/26/does-over-reliance-on-wind-energy-risk-the-lights-going-out-across-europe

Functowitz, S  &  Ravetz,  J  ( 1992 ) The Worth of  a Songbird: Ecological economics as a Post Normal science, in Ecological economics 10 ( 1994) p 197-207^{. Online at  http://classwebs.spea.indiana.edu/kenricha/Oxford/Archives/Courses%202010/Decision%20Making%202010/Articles/Funtowicz.pdf}

Funtowicz, S . POST-NORMAL SCIENCE - Environmental Policy under Conditions of Complexity. EC-JRC/ISIS, Ispra (Va), Italy; RMC Ltd., London (England)

Gibbons, M et al,  (1994)  The New Production of Knowledge,

Gross, M (2002) New Natures and Old Science: Hands-on Practice and Academic

Research in Ecological Restoration. Science Studies 2/2002 online at http://www.sciencestudies.fi/system/files/Gross.pdf

Hessels, L & Lente, H 2008 Rethinking New Knowledge production: Litrature review and research agenda, research policy 37 (2008) 740-760.

Kirsch, S.  (2008 )  Social Relations and the Green Critique of Capitalism in Melanesia. American Anthropologist • Vol. 110, No. 3 • September 2008

Krohn W. & van den Daele, W. Science as an Agent of Change: Finalization and Experimental Implementation ^{online@http://www.unibielefeld.de/ZIF/FG/2006Application/PDF/Krohn%20and%20van%20den%20Daele_essay.pdf}

Marchi, B & Ravetz, J (1999) Risk management and Governance, A Post Normal Science Approach. Futures p 743-757. ^{Online @ http://governance.jrc.it/jrc-docs/jerrybruna.pdf}

Mulkay, M 1991, Sociology of Science , A Sociological Pilgrimage. Open University Press, Buckingham

Muller, J (2000) Reclaiming Knowledge, Social Theory Curriculum and Education Policy. Routledge and Farmer.  London

Muller , A. 2003 A flower in full blossom? Ecological economics at the crossroads between normal and post-normal science. Ecological Economics  45 (2003) 19_/27

Nowotny, et al  (2001) Re-Thinking Science, Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Polity Press, Cambridge.

Nowotny and P. Leroy: Natures Sciences Sociétés 17, 57-64 (2009): An itinerary between sociology of knowledge and public debate online at http://helga-nowotny.eu/downloads/helga_nowotny_b12.pdf

Shailer, K, April 17, 2005 INTERDISCIPLINARITY IN A DISCIPLINARY UNIVERSE: A REVIEW OF KEY ISSUES , Academic Colleague Faculty of Liberal Studies, Ontario College of Art & Design

Sterh, N & Meja, Volkar,  (2005) Society & Knowledge, contemporary perspectives in the sociology of knowledge and science, (2^nd edition) Transaction Publishers, New Jersey

Sterh, N & Weiler, B ^{( eds)} ( 2008 )  Who Owns Knowledge? Knowledge and the law. Transaction Publishers . New Jersey

Suárez, M, et al editors (2010) EPSA Epistemology and Methodology of Science: Launch of the European . Springer. New York

Weingart, P; ( 1997) From Finalization to Mode 2 ; New Wine in Old Bottles.

Weingart, P; (   ) How Robust Is “Socially Robust Knowledge”? ^{online at http://upress.pitt.edu/htmlSourceFiles/pdfs/9780822943174exr.pdf}

Weingart, Peter and Nico Stehr, eds. Practising Interdisciplinarity. University of Toronto Press, 2000. Cited in  April 17, 2005 INTERDISCIPLINARITY IN A DISCIPLINARY UNIVERSE:  A REVIEW OF KEY ISSUES  Kathryn Shailer, Academic Colleague Faculty of Liberal Studies, Ontario College of Art & Design 

Weinberg, A, 1972, Science and Transcience, Minerva vol 10

Young NS, Ioannidis JPA, Al-Ubaydli O (2008) Why Current Publication Practices May Distort Science. PLoS Med 5(10): e201. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050201

Ziman, J. (2004)  Real science: what it is, and what it means. Cambridge University press. Cambridge

References

·         Gibbons et al ( 1994  )

·         Muller, J.  (2000)

·         Mulkay, M. ( 1991) p:90

·         Cressman, D (2009)

·         Nowtony et al  ( 2001 ) p:4 

·         Hessels, L & Lente, H,  (2008)

·         Carrier, M & Nordmann, (2011)  p:433

·         Kirsch, S.  (2008 )  

·         Auranen,  Otto  2005 

·         Gibbons et al ( 1994   )  p:280  

·         Stehr and Meja ( 2005  )  p:310

·         Krohn W. & van den Daele, W. (  )

·         Krohn W. & van den Daele, W. (  )

·         Gross. M, ( 2002)

·         15

·         Sterh and Meja (2005)

·         Mulkay (1991), 

·         Clark, W, et al. (2010) 

·         Gross, M (2002)

·         Gross, M,   (2002) p: 21

·         Auranen Otto  (2005) 

·         Gibbons et al ( 1994  )  p:274

·         Gibbons et al( 1994  ) . p: 276

·         Gibbons et al (   )   p:286

·         Suárez, M, et al editors (2010)

·         Gibbons et al( 1994  )  P:2

·         Functowitz & Ravetz (1992)

^·          Functowitz & Ravetz   (1992)  p:1

·         Mayor, R , (2000)  p: 27

·         Mayor, R , (2000)  p: 27

·         Gross, M (2002)

·         Krohn W. & Van den Daele,

·         Pfadenhauer,  (2001)  pp 225, 228

·         Nowtony (2001 ) p:6

·         Nowtony  ( 2001  ) p:1 

·         Weingart, P  ( 1997 ) p:2

·         Wiengart, P (1997)

·         Weingart, P.  ( 1997  ) p:2             

·         Weingart, P,  (1997) p:7

·         Weingart, P,  (1997)p:7

·         Muller, J (2000)

·         Muller, A . (2003) p:23

·          Muller, A. (2003)  p:24

·         Functowitz,R  (    )   p: 21

·         Kirsch, S.  (2008 ) p: 288

_·          Gross, M (2002)

·         Functowitz,R  (    )   p:21

·         Weinberg (1972) p:209

·         Weinberg and Miverva 

·         Nowotny, H and Leroy, P (2009) pp: 57-6

·         Gross, M, ( 2002)

·         Gross, M  (2002) p:29

·         Gross, M (2002)

·         Ziman, J (2004) p:

·         Ziman, J (2004) p:46

·         Elizinga

^·          Ziman, J. (2004)  

^·           Aarstad, J (2010)Expert credibility and truth Published online before print November 8, 2010, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1012156107 PNAS November 23, 2010 vol. 107 no. 47 E176

·         Shailer, K  April 17, 2005

^·          Weingart, P and Stehr N, (2005)

^·          Weingart, P and Stehr N (2005)

·         Young NS, Ioannidis JPA, Al-Ubaydli O (2008)

·          Fraser, I (2011)

·         Elizinga, A

·         Weingart, P in socially robust knowledge

·         Weingart, P in socially robust knowledge

·         Sterh, N & Weiler, B ^{( eds)} ( 2008 )