Hybrid regimes of knowledge? Challenges for constructing scientific evidence in the context of the GMO-debate.

University of Augsburg, Institut für Soziologie, 86159 Augsburg, Germany.
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (Impact Factor: 2.76). 06/2009; 16(5):508-20. DOI: 10.1007/s11356-009-0164-y
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Over the last two decades, there has been a remarkable shift of attention to the scientific and political fundamentals of the precautionary principle. The application of this principle has become a main strategy of coping with the different forms and problems related to non-knowledge. Thus, societies are increasingly confronted with the challenging and hitherto unresolved problem of political and technological decision-making under conditions of diverging framings of non-knowledge. At present, there seems to be no generally accepted scientific or institutional approach. This is why the fundamental question of how different scientific actors define and construct evidence is not answered yet. Hence, this paper is based on the consideration that the conflicts in risk policy concerning genetically modified organisms (GMO) depend on the unresolved conflicts about the diverging scientific strategies and structures of evidence-making between the epistemic cultures involved. Thus, this study investigates two questions: (1) do the epistemic strategies of evidence-making differ systematically with the scientific actors involved in the GMO-debate? (2) What consequences emerge considering institutionalized procedures of decision-making?
This article is based on a secondary analysis of findings and perspectives reported in the literature and on the methods of qualitative social empirical research, i.e., interviews with experts. A total number of 34 interviews were conducted to explore the different strategies of handling non-knowledge and constructing evidence. Actors from science, administration, business and NGOs were interviewed. In this way, typical epistemic cultures can be described. An epistemic culture is the constellation of methodological strategies, theoretical assumptions and practical-experimental settings which define in every speciality the ways how we know what we know.
There are two main results. Firstly, it was worked out that the epistemic cultures involved in the GMO-debate use rather distinct strategies to define non-knowledge and to classify evidence. There are three types of constructing evidence, which correspond to different types of epistemic cultures. Secondly, the findings imply that the intensity of the conflicts in risk policy fields like the GMO-debate is due to a lack of knowledge politics. Usually, knowledge politics is restricted to the design of institutional procedures to compile knowledge provided by experts. The institutional setting of risk analysis and risk management is based on the premise of strict separation between knowledge and power. However, inadmissible mixing-up of knowledge and power is observable.
It seems that non-knowledge leads to an epistemic no man's land, and, hence, hybrid regimes of knowledge emerge. These regimes are hybrid with respect to the unclear and not explicitly reflected strategies of evidence-making. By lacking of knowledge politics, this situation opens up 'windows of opportunity' for actors with special interests in risk policy fields like the GMO-debate. Therefore, there is a difference between the visible institutionalized structures of risk policies and the rather invisible hybrid regimes of knowledge. Structure and scope of expertise have to be reflected and new instruments of knowledge politics have to be designed.
Different epistemic cultures can be qualified by describing their particular strategies of evidence-making. To solve the conflicts between these strategies, a meta-expertise is needed. Besides the institutionalized settings of knowledge politics, the underlying hybrid regimes of knowledge have to be identified.
The concept of epistemic cultures and their strategies of evidence-making should be investigated more explicitly with respect to other risk policy fields The analysis of hybrid regimes of knowledge should be deepened by looking at the complex interactions between institutional, discursive and practical rules affecting risk assessment.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Geoengineering is an example of a highly political science-driven topic. We explore how researchers frame geoengineering and what implications these frames have for the science-policy interface and the politicization of science. Our analysis revealed three main ways to frame geoengineering in scientific literature. The “Risk-benefit” frame emphasizes calculation and further research, the “Governance” frame emphasizes the need to develop institutions and procedures, and the “Natural balance” frame focuses on the ethical aspects of geoengineering. The researchers’ frames have different political implications, indicating a need to ensure transparency and dialogue at the science-policy nexus.
    Science Communication 02/2014; 36(1):3-29. DOI:10.1177/1075547013492435 · 2.08 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There is a growing interest in understanding how different actors involved in debates regarding GMOs produce, justify and mobilize evidence in the face of the ‘unknown unknowns’ put forward by this technology. Moreover, and in line with the STS literature on the role of non-expert knowledge and concerned groups in the shaping of GMO regulations, there is an ever-increasing interest in understanding how non-scientific actors – for example anti-GMO or groups or non-industrial farmers – create and legitimize an ‘evidential culture’.In this paper we analyze the case of the emergent controversy over GMOs in Chile. Expanding on the concept of civic epistemology and based on in-depth interviews and document analyses, we specifically examine how a key sector in the debate – medium and small farmers – frames its evidences regarding GMOs, what type of trials they mobilize, and which political strategies are fleshed out.Our preliminary findings suggest a very particular epistemic configuration, one that we call hybrid epistemology: a mix epistemology in which free-market claims are entwined with state intervention demands, consensual political strategies are mixed with perceptions of strong power inequalities, and science-based rationalities are entangled with experiential and intuition-based knowledge.Finally, the paper opens a question about the epistemological impacts of the Chilean neoliberal experiment on the positions of farmers regarding GMOs.
    Technology in Society 05/2013; 35(2):93–104. DOI:10.1016/j.techsoc.2013.01.004
  • Source

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 16, 2014