Article

Democracy as Inquiry, Inquiry as Democratic: Pragmatism, Social Science, and the Cognitive Division of Labor

Authors:
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the author.

Abstract

One of the most distinctive features of pragmatism's conception of democracy is the strong connection that it makes between science and democracy. Not only must science be democratically organized, Dewey argues, but democracy must also be a form of social inquiry that incorporates the cognitive division of labon The pervasiveness of agent/principal relationships that results from the "social organization of intelligence" presents a problem for deliberative democracy. In order that deliberation can become more than "mere discussion," the division of labor implies that it will sometimes be impossible for citizens to test the 'knowledge employed by experts. Using AIDS activism as an example, I propose that citizens will nonetheless be able to engage in public deliberation about the norms of cooperation between expert agents and lay principals, including even epistemic norms of validity, reliability, and evidence.

No full-text available

Request Full-text Paper PDF

To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.

... My proposal accounts for a division of labor between actors such as experts, governmental representatives and laypeople at multiple levels of discourse (cf. Bohman, 1999a). It relies on shared beliefs of the people in the water basin that enable dialogue and peaceful conflict management. ...
... The public nature of the committees prompt the participating actors to impose norms of reciprocity in terms of their behavior, in order to accomplish the following (cf. Bohman, 1999a;Cohen, 1989;Forst, 2001;Guttman and Thompson, 1996): 1) to give and take reasons to enhance the quality of justification; 2) to aspire to a kind of political reasoning that is mutua-lly justifiable; 3) to cast proposals in relation to the common good; 4) to consider future consequences of decisions; and 5) to collectively search for solutions deemed socially and publicly acceptable. ...
... Extremely dissenting aspects are reconsidered on the basis of a professional judgment of experts in terms of the extent to which they are deemed to be socially and publicly acceptable. It is the task of the discussion to shed light on the argumentative conclusiveness and cogency of the dissenting views with respect to their factual and common good related claims (Bohman, 1999a). The so re-assessed aspects by experts have a binding character in terms of the cognitive and evaluative knowledge basis on which the members of the deliberative representative institution render a collective decision. ...
Book
Full-text available
Se incluyen casos de gobernanza ambiental en la cuenca del río Nautla
... Signs of a resurgent pragmatism have been apparent since Richard Rorty, Richard Bernstein and other 'neo-pragmatist' philosophers published their accounts of the power of pragmatism in the 1980s (Bernstein, 1989(Bernstein, , 1992Rorty, [2009Unger, 2007). The neo-pragmatist perspective has selectively diffused into various areas of social research, such as social psychology (Shibutani, 2017), sociology ( Joas, 1993;Shalin, 1986), political science (Bohman, 1999a(Bohman, , 1999bFestenstein, 1997), public administration (Ansell, 2011;Dieleman, 2014;Shields, 2003Shields, , 2008, medical social science (Tolletsen, 2000), human geo graphy Wood and Smith, 2008), urban studies (Lake, 2016, planning theory Hoch, 1984), business studies (Wicks and Freeman, 1998) and economics (Nelson, 2003). Perhaps not surprisingly, take-up has been greatest in the humanities and applied arts, such as law (Posner, 2003), education (Biesta, 2015), history (Kloppenberg, 1989), literature (Mitchell, 1982), theology and philosophy (Misak, 2002), where the quest for certainty was already much less secure. ...
... There is increasing evidence of similar pragmatic themes emerging in various areas of social science, such as political science, economics and public administration. James Bohman has made a particularly strong contribution in applying pragmatism to international relations and political theory, adopting and adapting Dewey's arguments about inquiry into problematic situations (Bohman, 1999a(Bohman, , 1999b. has advocated a multiperspectival approach that seeks to understand problematic situations from the ground up through direct engagement with the people affected, so that: "In the context of inquiry, critical social science treats social actors as knowledgeable social agents to which its claims are publicly addressed … Social science research helps agents to see their circumstances differently, especially when mounting problems indicate that some change is practically necessary" (Bohman, 1999a, 475). ...
... This dilemma has not only persisted but deepened with the ever-increasing technological complexity of contemporary problems. Drawing on the example of AIDS activists who organised to challenge the exclusivity of the medical establishment over information and research, Bohman (1999b) highlights the benefits of greater popular scrutiny of expertise, saying that "[c]hallenges by the public to expert credibility or to expert definitions of the epistemic enterprise do more than make experts accountable; they make the knowledge so gained genuinely social and shared, even if differentially distributed" (Bohman, 1999b, 602). While the rise of the internet and greater opportunities for civic engagement in political decisionmaking are providing ways to break down these divisions, universities, think tanks and the professions continue to champion elite-led models of problemsolving that serve to exclude a wider range of voices. ...
Book
Full-text available
This edited book makes the case for a pragmatist approach to the practice of social inquiry and knowledge production. Through diverse examples from multiple disciplines, contributors explore the power of pragmatism to inform a practice of inquiry that is democratic, community-centred, problem-oriented and experimental. Drawing from both classical and neo-pragmatist perspectives, the book advances a pragmatist sensibility in which truth and knowledge are contingent rather than universal, made rather than found, provisional rather than dogmatic, subject to continuous experimentation rather than ultimate proof, and verified in their application in action rather than in the accuracy of their representation of an antecedent reality. The Power of Pragmatism offers a path forward for mobilising the practice of inquiry in social research, exploring the implications of pragmatism for the process of knowledge production.
... I believe this holds true, insofar as Dewey had regularly emphasized that imagination, qualitative feeling, and aesthetics must be as much a part of a democratic spirit as the capacity and the willingness to make oneself understood to others, to understand others, and to seek common solutions to commonly defined problems. There is, however, a prevailing interpretation of the implications of pragmatism for the democratic theory that foregrounds the problem-solving nature of this process, with deliberative and reflexive cooperation ultimately taking precedence over the affective aesthetic components of human experience and action, thus accounting for difference and alterity as necessary but ultimately transitory elements in a broader process of inquiry (e.g., [4][5][6][7][8][9]). 1 Taking these debates as a starting point, this paper has three interrelated aims. The first aim is to articulate the aesthetic foundations of (neo-)pragmatist democratic thought with Richard Rorty and Stanley Cavell, through which the incompleteness of the prevailing interpretation of the implications of pragmatism for democratic theory is revealed. ...
Article
Full-text available
In this paper, I discuss the importance of practices of disidentification and imagination for democratic progress and change. To this end, I bring together certain aspects of Stanley Cavell’s and Richard Rorty’s reflections on democracy, aesthetics, and morality with Jacques Rancière’s account of the importance of appearance for democratic participation. With Rancière, it can be shown that any public–political order always involves the possibility (and often the reality) of exclusion or oppression of those who “have no part” in the current order through a particular order of perceptibility, and that democratic action, therefore, requires rupturing acts of political agency on the part of self-proclaimed political actors through which disidentifications and constructions of difference against such existing orders become possible. With Cavell and Rorty, in turn, it can be shown that these rupturing moments, in order to actually become politically effective, require a responsive disposition and a willingness to engage in practices of imagination on the part of those who occupy dominant positions on existing orders, insofar as they must acknowledge the expression of others’ sense of injustice. The upshot of my discussion is that a comprehensive account of the aesthetic dimension of democratic politics must simultaneously address the interruption of political action on the one hand and responsiveness on the other, and that Rancière and the neo-pragmatists Rorty and Cavell complement each other insofar as they illuminate the blind spots of their respective approaches.
... Surely this difference in aims is significant. On the other hand, there has been a long-standing tendency to see important similarities between inquiry and democratic politics, or between science and democracy (Dewey, 1927;Merton, 1942;Bohman, 1999;Anderson, 2006;Ferris, 2011). The investigative character of democratic politics, of political discourse and debate as a mode of inquiry, erodes a clear distinction between inquiry and politics based solely on aims. ...
Article
Full-text available
Protecting science from politicization is an ongoing concern in contemporary society. Yet some political influences on science (e.g., setting public funding amounts) are fully legitimate. We need to have a clear account of when a political influence is politicization (an illegitimate political influence) in order to properly detect and address the problem. I argue in this paper that understanding how the space of scientific inquiry is distinctive from democratic politics can be the basis for defining politicization. Similarities between inquiry and democratic politics have long been noted, but there are important differences as well. I describe four norms that are importantly distinct for inquiry when compared with democratic politics, even if they can be seen as roughly similar. Although there are parallels between democratic political norms and norms for scientific inquiry, there are crucial differences as well. Eliding these differences creates politicization of inquiry. Even as we understand scientific inquiry as pursued within society and responsible to society, we pursue it in a distinctive space, guided by distinctive norms and practices.
... If publics were eclipsed and could not recognize themselves as such, they could not effectively participate and therefore not efficiently take care of the consequences of technology and innovation for society. techniques of science available to all kinds of publics) (Bohman 1999). Recognizing the intrinsic kinship between democracy and scientific experimental methods (Dewey 1990, LW 15, pp. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
Public engagement is viewed as a prominent aspect of responsible research and innovation (RRI) both in academia and policy circles. In our paper, we would like to contribute to refining the notion of public participation as an RRI element by assessing the potential of four domains of participatory R & I theory and practices that have to date received little recognition in the RRI context: 1. Participatory design, 2. user-led innovation, 3. participatory research and 4. systemic R & I policy instruments. We test the usefulness of our concepts with a set of case studies from a recent RRI research project.
... If publics were eclipsed and could not recognize themselves as such, they could not effectively participate and therefore not efficiently take care of the consequences of technology and innovation for society. techniques of science available to all kinds of publics) (Bohman 1999). Recognizing the intrinsic kinship between democracy and scientific experimental methods (Dewey 1990, LW 15, pp. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
European and national research and innovation (R & I) policies are increasingly oriented towards the task to tackle the unprecedented challenges reflected especially in the United Nations 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the Agenda 2030 that societies face today. Following the need to produce adequate and viable solutions with a strong societal impact and aware of the fact that this impact will strongly affect and depend on the lifestyles, values and attitudes of citizens, there has been a rising attention for the need to better root science, research and innovation in society.
... If publics were eclipsed and could not recognize themselves as such, they could not effectively participate and therefore not efficiently take care of the consequences of technology and innovation for society. techniques of science available to all kinds of publics) (Bohman 1999). Recognizing the intrinsic kinship between democracy and scientific experimental methods (Dewey 1990, LW 15, pp. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
The European Commission’s pursuit of “Responsible Research and Innovation” (RRI) and its implementation in the European Research Area serve to investigate how ambitious policy goals can be conveyed into action. Challenging about implementing policy is the need to foster coherence in the interpretation of policy goals while coordinating their elaboration in practice. This chapter identifies the European Commission’s approach to implementing RRI as a case of New Public Management, and contrasts this with efforts at ‘bottom-up’ RRI implementation. Experiments with involving researchers and other stakeholders in designing and executing concrete RRI actions that fit their professional setting are understood as manifestations of a New Public Governance approach to implementing RRI policy. It is found that such deliberation of policy concepts and goals, and their concretization in a context-specific learning-by-doing approach practically enables the uptake of normative policy ambitions in networks of interdependent, non-hierarchically related actors across diverse substantive and administrative contexts.
... If publics were eclipsed and could not recognize themselves as such, they could not effectively participate and therefore not efficiently take care of the consequences of technology and innovation for society. techniques of science available to all kinds of publics) (Bohman 1999). Recognizing the intrinsic kinship between democracy and scientific experimental methods (Dewey 1990, LW 15, pp. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
The “innovation divide” has been a common and persistent problem since the onset of Framework Programmes for Research and Innovation. Especially, for the group of countries that joined the European Union after 2004. Several initiatives have been implemented by the Union for encouraging the participation of these countries in these collaborative programmes, trying to maximize and extend the benefits of a knowledge economy across the EU. In this chapter, we explore how these instruments have been deployed paying special attention to the origins of “Spreading Excellence and Widening Participation” Horizon 2020 Work Programme. We explore its objectives and rationale, and we address some of its weaknesses and pitfalls. We argue that the “innovation divide” is not only a matter of providing adequate resources and encouraging participation for these countries and they cannot be treated as a homogeneous group. Particularly, in a moment of transition regarding innovation policies.
... If publics were eclipsed and could not recognize themselves as such, they could not effectively participate and therefore not efficiently take care of the consequences of technology and innovation for society. techniques of science available to all kinds of publics) (Bohman 1999). Recognizing the intrinsic kinship between democracy and scientific experimental methods (Dewey 1990, LW 15, pp. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
Research has provided ample evidence for the performance-enhancing effect of diversity on a wide range of organizational outcomes (Terjesen et al. 2009). The positive effects are manifold and range from better decision-making and corporate governance through better financial performance (Post and Byron 2015), more creativity and innovativeness to more responsible and ethical business conduct (Pechersky et al. 2016). In the context of Research & Innovation (R & I), the cooperation of a diversity of stakeholders has been shown to promote more responsible or ethical business practices (Wood 2002).
... If publics were eclipsed and could not recognize themselves as such, they could not effectively participate and therefore not efficiently take care of the consequences of technology and innovation for society. techniques of science available to all kinds of publics) (Bohman 1999). Recognizing the intrinsic kinship between democracy and scientific experimental methods (Dewey 1990, LW 15, pp. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
The concept of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) revolves around stakeholders of research and innovation aiming for societal desirability of the innovation process. In practice, it is often not clear, however, why one instead of another stakeholder-(group) is invited and for which purpose (Repo and Matschoss 2019). In most of the RRI discourse, ‘stakeholders’ are used as a catchall phrase denoting societal actors without actually pointing to who they are, why their participation is important, what exactly they contribute and why they should be involved in the R & I processes. In the case of citizen engagement, a typical bias emerges around the inclusion of easily accessible groups of publics. In this chapter we look at stakeholder theory as it has been developed and used for strategic business purposes from the mid 80’s and suggest how stakeholder theory may be combined with RRI, RI and QH approaches and applied to research and innovation. We argue that moral, epistemic and power diversity and balance is key to a stakeholder theory of RRI in order to facilitate a democratic debate amongst a wide group of stakeholders in a specific R & I endeavor in order to arrive at outcomes that are appropriate, legitimate, and desirable.
... If publics were eclipsed and could not recognize themselves as such, they could not effectively participate and therefore not efficiently take care of the consequences of technology and innovation for society. techniques of science available to all kinds of publics) (Bohman 1999). Recognizing the intrinsic kinship between democracy and scientific experimental methods (Dewey 1990, LW 15, pp. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
Disruptive societal changes following from emerging science and technology have recently led to a growing interest in developing ethical frameworks. Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) is such a framework that aims to improve the relationship between science and society. Now a decade after its conceptualization, it still seems to suffer from conceptual unclarity and lack of implementation. Since responsibility in research and innovation practice remains as important as ever, we propose to revive the normative potential of RRI by approaching it as a matter of collective democratic experimentation. To further develop this approach, we propose a pragmatist conceptualization inspired by John Dewey, his work on democracy as an ethical way of life and his attention to the contextual nature of responsibility. Furthermore, we show how his interest in social inquiring publics provides a particularly apt foothold from which to operationalize collective democratic experimentation with RRI. We will illustrate the utility of this approach, with specific attention to the social, experimental and public character of social inquiry, by connecting it to the recent call to use social labs methodology to experiment with RRI. From this we draw lessons for future collective democratic experimentation with responsibility in research and innovation practice.
... If publics were eclipsed and could not recognize themselves as such, they could not effectively participate and therefore not efficiently take care of the consequences of technology and innovation for society. techniques of science available to all kinds of publics) (Bohman 1999). Recognizing the intrinsic kinship between democracy and scientific experimental methods (Dewey 1990, LW 15, pp. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
Research and research programmes have explicitly demanded to seek solutions to today’s societal challenges and have emphasised the importance of addressing societal needs and ethical questions in research and development (e.g. Owen and Pansera 2019). Since new sciences and emerging technologies are mostly embedded in fields of conflicting interests and are of high complexity, there is a need for multi-actor decision processes, including actors of the wider public (e.g. Chilvers and Kearnes 2016).
... If publics were eclipsed and could not recognize themselves as such, they could not effectively participate and therefore not efficiently take care of the consequences of technology and innovation for society. techniques of science available to all kinds of publics) (Bohman 1999). Recognizing the intrinsic kinship between democracy and scientific experimental methods (Dewey 1990, LW 15, pp. ...
Book
Full-text available
This Open Access book builds on the experiences of one of the largest European projects in the domain of responsible Research and Innovation: NewHoRRIzon. It highlights the potential of and opportunity in responsible R&I to conduct innovation in a socially responsible way. Employing the methodology of Social Labs, the book analyses responsible R&I from an experience-based viewpoint and further explores the application of responsible R&I beyond scholarly and industrial interests. The contributors analyze the current European R&I landscape, provide reflection and reconceptualization of its core concepts, and project future challenges in relation to responsible R&I. The book complements the readers' line of work by providing insights on how responsible R&I can be applied by the audience, for example, in their decision-making processes.
... If publics were eclipsed and could not recognize themselves as such, they could not effectively participate and therefore not efficiently take care of the consequences of technology and innovation for society. techniques of science available to all kinds of publics) (Bohman 1999). Recognizing the intrinsic kinship between democracy and scientific experimental methods (Dewey 1990, LW 15, pp. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
With new and emerging technologies, process of Research and Innovation (R & I) changed. Some point out an “increasingly growing complexity” (Gianni 2020: 14) that needs to be addressed. Other scholars note that “the pace of technological change has increased dramatically” (Gould 2012: 2) This complexity requires new modes of engaging stakeholders to the R & I process. As mentioned in Chap. 1 of this book, the concept of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) (von Schomberg 2013) was created as a way to better engage stakeholders and their needs.
... If publics were eclipsed and could not recognize themselves as such, they could not effectively participate and therefore not efficiently take care of the consequences of technology and innovation for society. techniques of science available to all kinds of publics) (Bohman 1999). Recognizing the intrinsic kinship between democracy and scientific experimental methods (Dewey 1990, LW 15, pp. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
This contribution addresses the question why Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) is facing problems to succeed as concept for research and innovation policy in the European Commission, despite the EC’s 20 years of history of funding research activities and coordination and support actions that address science and society relations. Our analysis highlights four interrelated elements that contribute to the instability of RRI as policy concept, i.e. semantic, legal, financial and institutional fragility. We use Sabatier’s advocacy coalition approach (1998) to explain how these elements of fragility developed and how the ups and downs of RRI as policy concept played out. We identify three opposing advocacy coalitions with regards to RRI and analyze their belief systems and resources.
... If publics were eclipsed and could not recognize themselves as such, they could not effectively participate and therefore not efficiently take care of the consequences of technology and innovation for society. techniques of science available to all kinds of publics) (Bohman 1999). Recognizing the intrinsic kinship between democracy and scientific experimental methods (Dewey 1990, LW 15, pp. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
In this concluding chapter, we want to take a broader perspective and, based on the contributions to this book, identify the key lessons from the NewHoRRIzon project about RRI implementation in general and via Social Labs in particular. From a bird’s eye perspective, the NewHoRRIzon Social Labs can be seen as interventions that depend on and are affected by several interrelated levels which might be separated roughly in the micro-level of Social Labs, the meso level of organisations, and the macro-level of national and European research and innovation systems and policy making.
... Any democrat could accept that 'expertise is not itself democratic', but then it is 'integrated into a wider democratic system' (Moore, 2017: 6). Democracies can indeed withstand an uneven distribution of epistemic influence while rejecting other kinds of political asymmetries (Bohman, 1999). The democratic objection is thus compatible with the recognition of science's cognitive authority. ...
Article
Full-text available
The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted a question seldom addressed in a straightforward manner by political theorists: whether populism is intrinsically anti-science. This article identifies three different ways in which populist actors worldwide have grounded their scepticism, distrust, or hostility to scientific inputs, to the extent that they are relevant for political action: (1) they raise a moral objection against scientists who have been allegedly corrupted by foreign interests, turning them into enemies of the people; (2) they present a democratic objection against the technocratic claim that scientific experts should rule regardless of the popular will; and (3) they employ an epistemic argument against scientific reasoning, which is said to be inferior to common-sense and folk wisdom, and antithetical to the immediateness of political action. While these objections have been wielded in a selective and unsystematic way, they all speak to the core feature of populism, which is the people versus elites divide: the moral objection targets scientists as members of an elite in cahoots with alien powers; the democratic objection targets an unelected elite that seeks to undermine the people’s rule; the epistemic objection questions that the standard to validate knowledge-claims is a complex and detached-from-ordinary-experience rationality.
... This is central to Dewey's thoughts rooted in his notion of experience, inquiry and communication. The concept of power is vital to Dewey's creative project for participatory and inquiry based democracy (Bohman 1999, Caspary 2000, Westbrook 1991). ...
Chapter
Full-text available
The chapter is about how the parties of working life in Norway arrange for innovation in the private business sector. The authors introduce the concept of collaborative power which is based on John Dewey and Mary Parker Follett.
... In the original concept, based on a seminal chapter by MacKenzie and Warren (2012), the authors assume limited cognitive resources that citizens have available to weigh off participation on the one hand and putting trust in agents who act on behalf of them on the other (Warren 1996;Bohman 1999). Minipublics may assist them with two trust-based functions: as (a) information proxies in the legislative branch, and as (b) anticipatory publics within the executive domain. ...
Article
Full-text available
Facilitative political trust is the reduction in cognitive demand citizens experience when forming their opinions about political issues. This type of trust is important for generating legitimate democratic institutions in the eyes of politically uninvolved citizens. The article develops and validates an original direct measure of facilitative political trust among voters receiving a voting aid compiled by a Swiss municipal-level deliberative minipublic convening twenty citizens ahead of a federal popular initiative vote on expanding affordable housing policies. Based on perceiving the randomly selected group as competent and aligned with voters’ interests, we find a reliable and valid latent trust measure using confirmatory factor analyses among the same sample of voters within the municipality at two points during the campaign, ahead (N = 1159), and again around the time of the ballot (N = 472). In subsequent multiple regressions, increases in facilitative trust sores are the main driver of readers’ ratings of both the voting aid’s usefulness for deciding how to vote and of how important they judge its information for their peers’ vote decisions.
... For those of us who are not AI experts, it is difficult to judge whether such a consequence would have been foreseeable, which points to the novice/expert problem (Goldman 2006: 18), referring to the difficulty or impossibility for a non-expert to evaluate the expertise of experts. This suggests that we have no choice but to rely on experts (Bohman 1999;Baier 1986). Hence, whether the AI expert claims that she could have foreseen this undesirable, unintended consequence, or that she could not have foreseen it, it seems that we have no choice but to trust her. ...
Article
Full-text available
The purpose of this paper is to discuss the responsibility of AI experts for guiding the development of AI in a desirable direction. More specifically, the aim is to answer the following research question: To what extent are AI experts responsible in a forward-looking way for effects of AI technology that go beyond the immediate concerns of the programmer or designer? AI experts, in this paper conceptualised as experts regarding the technological aspects of AI, have knowledge and control of AI technology that non-experts do not have. Drawing on responsibility theory, theories of the policy process, and critical algorithm studies, we discuss to what extent this capacity, and the positions that these experts have to influence the AI development, make AI experts responsible in a forward-looking sense for consequences of the use of AI technology. We conclude that, as a professional collective, AI experts, to some extent, are responsible in a forward-looking sense for consequences of use of AI technology that they could foresee, but with the risk of increased influence of AI experts at the expense of other actors. It is crucial that a diversity of actors is included in democratic processes on the future development of AI, but for this to be meaningful, AI experts need to take responsibility for how the AI technology they develop affects public deliberation.
... The normative value of democratic politics is neither strictly in the intrinsic fairness of its procedures, nor strictly in the categorical importance of its normative principles. Rather democracy's value lies in its relative competence for interpreting the practical meaning of these principles in order to solve problems that are endemic to political society (e.g., Bohman 1999, Dewey 1927 Furthermore, not all of them are internally inclusive, egalitarian, or deliberative: bureaucracy, hierarchy, social norms, and markets are all useful but not, in themselves, democratic in the narrow procedural sense, and generally make no claim to be. Insofar as market-driven businesses helpfully address social problems, their non-democratic character does not present a categorial problem, as it might for certain participatory theories of democracy. ...
Article
Full-text available
What does democracy demand of business? We argue that an answer to this question requires an understanding of the sorts of ethical obligations businesses have more generally. Against approaches that understand the duties of business in terms of citizenship or fiduciary obligation, we propose and develop the notion of subcontractor duties. We conceive of commercial activity as a social subcontract, in which businesses are empowered to exercise their judgment in pursuit of parochial interests, but for broader social reasons. Such license, however, puts businesses in a position to use this judgment in ways that unduly influence broader political processes. Given this, business ethics should be seen as indispensable for normative democratic theory, as it offers a conception of how business leaders should discharge their discretionary power in a manner least offensive to democratic principles. Drawing on a pragmatist understanding of democracy, we contend that businesses must respect, and avoid undermining, the formal and informal processes that characterize democratic politics. We conclude with rough sketch of what this looks like in practice, listing three broad sets of desiderata that a social subcontract seems to demand of businesses vis-à-vis democracy.
... We must instead always subject our beliefs and convictions to an ongoing process of falsification through exposure to new ideas, new experiences, and open reason-giving. The firm commitment to maintaining the channels of inquiry and experimentation necessary for establishing which actions and conceptions will lead to which consequences means that nothing is inherently off the table, as long as we do not short-circuit our ability to reflect upon and revise our considered collective moral and political judgments (Bohman, 1999). We thus have a principled reason for both recognizing corporate persons-corporate voice adds a valuable point of view to the process of social deliberation-and asserting that whatever rights we assign to them are reconfigurable or even reversible. ...
Article
Full-text available
The fear that business corporations have claimed unwarranted constitutional protections which have entrenched corporate power has produced a broad social movement demanding that constitutional rights be restricted to human beings and corporate personhood be abolished. We develop a critique of these proposals organized around the three salient rationales we identify in the accompanying narrative, which we argue reflect a narrow focus on large business corporations, a misunderstanding of the legal concept of personhood, and a failure to distinguish different kinds of constitutional rights and the reasons for assigning them. Corporate personhood and corporate constitutional rights are not problematic per se once these notions are decoupled from biological, metaphysical, or moral considerations. The real challenge is that we need a principled way of thinking about the priority of human over corporate persons which does not reduce the efficacy of corporate institutions or harm liberal democracies.
... Yet creating an interplay of reasoning forms can be challenging, because engaging socioscientific issues involves connecting-or perhaps, in some cases, re-connecting and repairing-perceived and real divides between scientific experts and the public (Bohman 1999;Fischer 2000;Renn 2004). In these types of discursive fields, public deliberation processes can be designed to encourage the consideration of professional expertise as well as personal and local experience. ...
Article
Full-text available
When addressing socio-scientific wicked problems, there is a need to negotiate across and through multiple modes of evidence, particularly technical expertise and local knowledge. Democratic innovations, such as deliberative citizens’ juries, have been proposed as a means of managing these tensions and as a way of creating representative, fairer decision making. But there are questions around participatory processes, the utilization of expertise, and deliberative quality. This paper considers forms of argumentation in the 2013-2014 “Citizens’ juries on wind farm development in Scotland.” Through a critical-interpretative research methodology drawing on rhetoric and argumentation, we demonstrate that arguments relating to the topoi of the environment and health functioned as de facto reasoning, whereas arguments using social scientific evidence around economics more prominently interacted with local knowledge. The findings offer implications for process design to improve and promote deliberative quality in mini-publics and other forms of participatory engagement on socio-scientific issues.
... I have already briefly mentioned new forms of doing research that are developing the traditional collaboration of researchers within the scientific community even further. Interdisciplinary research, citizen science research, or collaboration with citizen organizations, such as in action research (Bohman 1999), are possible new forms of research that could be interpreted as taking relevance of research in the pragmatic sense as a guideline. Expertise never comes in singular. ...
Article
Expertise is much contested in modern democracies. In this article I shall investigate whether Dewey's understanding of science and expertise provides us with some answers about the interplay between science, the public and society. Decisive for Dewey's vision of the relation of democracy and science is that epistemic qualities and what he calls "organized intelligence" should contribute to find the best solutions for human wellbe-ing and growth. Science and expertise that can live up to this purpose are relevant from a pragmatic viewpoint. I shall suggest a reading of Peirce's pragmatic maxim as a test for relevance that can be used to conceptualize a pragmatic version of science and expertise in the public interest.
... In return, actors gather bits and pieces of these interpretations to reconstruct statements that appeal to multiple sides (Nung, 2008). This two-directional flow highlights multivocality's instrumental and constitutive nature and how, through an interaction ecology, actors can structure inscriptions as text, artifacts, and even public persona (Ansell, 2011;Bohman, 1999). ...
... 2,3 While the context of policy decisions will differ, their legitimacy depends upon the transparency of the reasoning, the accountability of the decision-makers, the testability of the evidence informing the decision and the inclusive recognition of those the decision affects. 4,5 These four conditions are interrelated but their implementation should account for the specific mission of the decision-making body, the kind of resources being distributed, the societal groups affected by the decision and the potential for specific groups to dominate decisionmaking. 6 Transparency Transparency mandates that the values or principles used to make health resource allocation decisions are accessible. ...
Article
Introduction Data linkage of population data sets often across jurisdictions or linking health data sets or health data with non-health data often involves balancing ethical principles such as privacy with beneficence as represented by the public good. Similar ethical dilemmas occur in health resource allocation decisions. The NHMRC have published a framework to guide policy on health resource allocation decisions that could be applied to ensure the justification of data linkage projects that is defensible as in the interest of the public good. Objectives and Approach The four main conditions for legitimacy of policy decisions about access to healthcare in a democracy with a public health system and limited resources were examined for their relevance to decisions about the use of public data and linking data sets. Results Public policy decisions must be defensible and responsive to the interests of those affected. Decision-makers should articulate their reasoning and recommendations so that citizens can judge them. While the context of policy decisions will differ, their legitimacy depends upon (1) the transparency of the reasoning which should be free from conflicts of interest, the basis for decisions recorded and report widely, (2) the accountability of the decision-makers to the wider community, (3) the testability of the evidence used to inform the decision-making, which usually means that it will stand up to independent review and(4) the inclusive recognition of those the decision affects which often requires that the implications for disadvantaged groups are considered, even if they can’t always be accommodated. These conditions are interrelated but ensure that the good of society in general and not just specific dominant groups are accommodated. Conclusion / Implications It these principles are applied to decisions about data linkage projects they have clear applicability in society accepting data linkage projects having balanced the good against the ethical risks involved.
... I agree that many kinds of shortcuts are undemocratic, including many of those Lafont so nicely discusses. What we are missing is an account of those shortcuts that make democracy possible through divisions of political labour (see Bohman 1999;Elliott 2020). ...
Article
Full-text available
What might participatory deliberative democracy look like in complex, mass societies? Cristina Lafont’s Democracy Without Shortcuts (2019) challenges us to revisit this question by taking contemporary democratic theory to task for recommending a variety of shortcuts that would seem to reconcile democratic self-government with complex, mass societies, but do so by requiring ‘blind deference’ of citizens to decisions made by others. Here I make three general points. First, democracy is possible in mass, complex societies just because democratic societies and governments are full of shortcuts, through representation, political, epistemic and advocacy divisions of labour, differentiated institutions, multi-level governance, and trust relationships both among citizens and between citizens and governments. Few of these shortcuts require ‘blind deference’ of citizens. Second, because complex societies are highly differentiated in their structures, they also multiply opportunities for participation in ways that Lafont does not theorise owing to a statist focus on constitutional, rights-based politics. But, third, in arguing against shortcuts, Lafont underscores the importance of assessing the many kinds of principal–agent relationships in complex mass societies to ensure they advance rather than undermine the norms of participatory deliberative democracy.
... No one person or decision-making body will have a monopoly on this understanding, and the best experts on particular impacts are likely to be those affected. If people from across society can be brought into thinking about transport, then there is a possibility of improving understanding and prospects of making decisions which contribute to supporting lives (see also Bohman 1999). ...
... 2,3 While the context of policy decisions will differ, their legitimacy depends upon the transparency of the reasoning, the accountability of the decision-makers, the testability of the evidence informing the decision and the inclusive recognition of those the decision affects. 4,5 These four conditions are interrelated but their implementation should account for the specific mission of the decision-making body, the kind of resources being distributed, the societal groups affected by the decision and the potential for specific groups to dominate decisionmaking. 6 Transparency Transparency mandates that the values or principles used to make health resource allocation decisions are accessible. ...
Article
Public policy decisions about patients' access to limited healthcare resources must be defensible and responsive to the interests of those affected. Decision‐makers should articulate their reasoning and recommendations so that citizens can judge them. While the context of policy decisions will differ, their legitimacy depends upon the transparency of the reasoning, the accountability of the decision‐makers, the testability of the evidence used to inform the decision‐making and the inclusive recognition of those the decision affects. An example of applying this framework to resource allocation is that of approving effective high‐cost anticancer drugs in a timely fashion.
... To be effective, this technical information needs "seasoning" of some type to retain its validity in the planning or public policy process. Bohman (1999) recognizes the importance of specialized expertise that informs the public, but argues that expert knowledge becomes useful in setting policy in a democracy to the extent that it retains credibility through engagement with the citizenry. Because no society can have a public made up of individuals that are fully informed on every topic, the public as a whole is more informed if it relies on the specialization of expertise. ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Using the San Francisco Bay Area as a case, this paper describes the academic, policy and political aspects of projecting future employment, population and household growth in and within the San Francisco Bay Area. Written from the viewpoint of analysts working at the regional agency, the case study provides a history of regional analysis in the region and discusses in some detail recent approaches underlying regional economic and geographic analysis and the strategies used to bridge the chasm between the results based on sound analytic techniques and local policy debates and constraints. The projections process is itself based on three analytic tools, the Regional Economic Modeling Inc. REMI model, UrbanSim (a land use distribution model) and the Pitkin-Myers population projection model. The results that inform the planning process, however, are not the analytic output but the interpretation of model results in the context of the perceptions and goals of local residents, firms, jurisdictions, and regional organizations. A dialogue develops between the academic understanding of economic and demographic forces, the regional goal of sustainable land use and transportation planning, and sometimes contradictory local, individual, and organizational goals of neighborhood preservation, equity, and economic opportunity. Methods of approach addressed in the paper range from regional economics to political dialogue and engagement with labor, industry and community organizations. The "forecast" and local projections that emerge are not necessarily the future most likely to occur, but a picture of future regional conditions that can be used as targets for planning at the firm, jurisdictional, and organizational level. Hypothesis: The interaction of regional analytics with the real world of politics and advocacy is a necessary element of creating forecasts and projections that can inform a regional planning process. Relevance to Planning Theory, Education and Practice: This paper opens up the sausage factory of regional analysis to illustrate how planners conversant with ever more complex models will need to retain the soft skills necessary for engagement with their diverse communities to ensure relevance of model output that can be incorporated into a more successful planning process.
Article
This theory-building essay aims to conceptually articulate the valuing of the transfer of citizens’ nonadministrative knowledge to government. Two ways of valuing, instrumental and normative, are identified and examined in public administration literature. I argue that public administration lacks an understanding of the distinctive normative or democratic significance of citizens’ nonadministrative knowledge. To fill this gap, selected critical theory, postmodern, and pragmatist philosophical approaches to the valuing of citizens’ knowledge are examined in relation to two kinds of knowledge transfer in citizen-government exchanges: administrator knowledge transfer and citizen knowledge transfer. The review suggests that the normative valuing of citizen knowledge transfer requires the empirical and proactive examination of contemporary forms of citizens’ knowledge; that administrator and citizen knowledge transfers should be investigated as interconnected phenomena in an integrative approach, which implies a greater attention to conflict over knowledge; and that the greater normative valuing of citizen knowledge transfer could stimulate its instrumental valuing.
Chapter
The previously identified lawful means to promote or enforce disaster risk reduction, that states could implement if democratic support was given, leads this chapter to examine deliberative democracy as an avenue to mobilise democratic demand for disaster risk reduction. To that end, this chapter examines how deliberative processes can mitigate the influence of distorted risk perception on public risk evaluation and explores the advantages of deliberative democracy under normative political theory. The chapter further strengthens the case for deliberative processes by discussing competing schools of thought that propose empowering experts to make ‘rational’ risk decisions for the public to mitigate the influence of distorted risk perception. The discussion highlights the flaws of such proposals with respect to their practical implementation and their compatibility with normative political theory, particularly the concept of political legitimacy.
Chapter
Les approches classiques de l’engagement se sont principalement intéressées à ses déterminants, rapportés à des variables sociodémographiques, des dispositions, des vertus ou des rétributions, comme à autant de motifs déjà constitués en amont et extrinsèques à l’expérience de l’engagement. Or, les intérêts des personnes – et leur puissance d’agir elle-même – peuvent s’analyser comme des produits de l’engagement, pour peu qu’on le saisisse dans sa dimension temporelle, itérative et située. Envisagé comme expérience, il paraît indissociable d’une enquête menée à la fois sur soi et sur le monde, où les personnes interrogent autant leurs propres désirs et possibilités d’agir, que la vie commune qu’elles souhaitent cultiver ou voir advenir. Ce volume rassemble une série de contributions théoriques et empiriques qui explorent des façons d’articuler souci de soi et souci du monde. Elles documentent la façon dont les engagements circulent entre différentes sphères de la vie et entre moments biographiques, en suivant les formes d’expérimentation auxquelles ils donnent lieu. Notre compréhension du rapport au politique s’en trouve enrichie, ressaisie depuis la trame des expériences de la vie commune faites en personne.
Article
Full-text available
This study evaluated the importance of integrating active learning techniques in to Lebanese middle school science classes. It examined the effect of this modification on students' academic performance and social development .The researcher collected data by using mixed method approach referred to as sequential explanatory design where the research collected both quantitative and qualitative data. The quantitative data was collected by distributing questionnaire developed based on 5 point Likert- scale to a non-probability convenience sample (N=50) of science teachers and the qualitative data was collected by performing an online interview with four middle school science teachers. The researcher used Statistical Package for the social sciences program (SPSS) to analyze quantitative data and to answer the studied hypothesis and problematic by using three tests (a) one sample T-test, (b) one way Manova test, and (c) correlation test. The interview data was analyzed qualitatively .The findings of this study showed that (a) there is a significant importance for teachers’ shifting from passive learning to more active learning in Lebanese middle school science classes, (b) Lebanese middle school science teachers are modifying their teaching methods in their classes to improve students' academic performance and social development, and (c) there is a significant effect of the teaching methods modification on students' academic performance and social development based on the Lebanese middle school teachers' perspective.
Chapter
Full-text available
Introduction The burgeoning literature on DMPs has studied and debated the merits of this form of democratic innovation. It is striking that this field of research contains no unanimously accepted definition of DMPs. As explained in Chapter One of this book, our goal is not to determine which definition is the most appropriate. Rather, we work with a definition of DMPs based upon two basic constitutive elements: (1) it should be a mini-public, meaning participants are selected through a process that generates a representative sample of the public; and (2) it should be a deliberative process, meaning that participating citizens reach their conclusions or recommendations after receiving information and engaging in a careful and open discussion about the issue or issues before them. We build from this to examine the diversity of real-life examples of DMPs that have taken place over the last two decades. Real-world DMPs are indeed diverse, ranging from planning cells to citizens’ assemblies, consensus conferences and deliberative polls. This chapter derives from the empirical diversity of DMPs a general description of their organization and core design features, and the ways in which they have been implemented across countries. In particular, we will build upon the inventory of DMPs instituted by national and regional public authorities across Europe produced within the POLITICIZE project. This data set, which has been gathered by one of the authors of this book, has identified and described over 120 different cases since 2000. We have chosen this data set because it provides a comprehensive inventory of mini-publics. We recognize that this data set only covers European cases and that there are other data sets with broader coverage, such as the one compiled by the OECD or the Doing Mini-publics project. Nonetheless, we find this data set valuable, for it provides detailed information regarding how the mini-publics were composed and organized, as well as on the topics deliberated and on the outcomes. To enrich our analysis, we also bring in insights from other DMPs that have occurred outside Europe or before 2000 that are not covered by this inventory. Capitalizing on this original data set, the chapter describes the core features of DMPs along three dimensions: their composition; their format and topic of deliberation; and their outputs.
Chapter
Full-text available
Introduction The increasing popularity of DMPs raises expectations as to what these forums can achieve. A Financial Times editorial declared that ‘deliberative democracy is just what politics needs’, referring to the power of citizens’ assemblies to address political polarization (The Financial Times, 2019). A year later, an editorial in The Guardian echoed the same sentiment, calling for ‘deliberation, not confusion’ as it spotlighted the UK's first climate assembly (The Guardian, 2020). Calls for various forms of democratic innovations emerged in the early days of the pandemic as societies imagined what it would take to make the ‘new normal’ work for all. The increasing calls for DMPs are testament to the normative force as well as empirical track record of these forums. However, we are cautious not to pitch DMPs as a panacea that can revive democracy in challenging times. In this chapter, we take the position that DMPs are best appreciated as forums in democratic systems. This means two things. First, DMPs are not an end to themselves, but one of many potential practices that fulfil particular democratic functions, like elections, representation and exit, among others (Warren, 2017). We find that DMPs are helpful in facilitating collective will formation due to these forums’ design features but less so for collectively binding decision-making due to the lack of accountability of DMPs to those affected by their recommendations. Second, appreciating DMPs as forums within democratic systems means linking democratic deliberation with other practices of participatory decision-making. In this chapter, we take a close look at two empirical examples – the Irish Citizens’ Assembly and Ostbelgien modell – to demonstrate how DMPs can be meaningfully linked to institutions of representative democracy. While this book focuses on core design features, we find it necessary to present an extended discussion on the wider purpose of DMPs to clarify these forums’ relationship with existing institutions of representative democracy. Viewed this way, we offer a measured appreciation of the transformative power of DMPs. We recognize that DMPs are not always the best option in solving democracy's problems, and the challenge lies in determining the precise ways in which DMPs can contribute to democratic reform. DMPs and democracy's functions We begin our discussion by taking a step back and thinking about the problems that a political system needs to solve to count as democratic.
Chapter
Full-text available
Introduction DMPs should be consequential. Participants who experience taking part in a mini-public may find the exercise valuable in its own right, but without impact outside the process, DMPs are at risk of becoming insignificant talking shops that do little to enhance the quality of collective decision-making. This, indeed, was one of the early concerns raised against DMPs. For Carole Pateman (2012: 9), their reach was limited, they had little influence in decision-making and the public did not know a lot about them (see also Rummens, 2016). Fast-forward to a decade later and, today, DMPs are increasingly becoming visible in public life (see OECD, 2020). They are commissioned by national leaders like President Emmanuel Macron in France or parliamentary committees in the UK. They are part of the global environmental group Extinction Rebellion's core demands. Belgian political party Agora won a seat in the Brussels Parliament by running on the single issue of calling for a citizens’ assembly. Similarly, editorials in publications like The Financial Times, The Guardian and The Economist recognize the merits of DMPs. As the popularity of DMPs grows, the concern shifts from their insignificance to the implications of giving power to an unelected, randomly selected group of individuals. At the heart of this issue are concerns about the legitimacy of DMPs. To what extent should DMPs shape decision-making? Should DMPs be empowered to make binding decisions? Are they better off taking an advisory role? What is the basis of DMPs’ legitimacy in the first place? These issues, among others, point to the challenge of finding the sweet spot of ensuring that DMPs are neither too powerless, nor too powerful. This chapter examines this challenge in three parts. We begin by establishing the premise that before any mini-public should seek to influence decision-making, it should first establish its internal legitimacy. While there is no established consensus on what count as ‘legitimate’ DMPs, we can draw on a range of literature that defines what counts as good deliberation in mini-publics. We are cautious that before any calls for mini-publics’ consequentiality are made, it is necessary to first establish whether the procedure was run with integrity and demonstrated good-quality deliberation. We then turn to the second section and consider what makes DMPs legitimate from the perspective of non-participants. We draw on the growing empirical work on this topic.
Book
The link between liberty and knowledge is neither static nor simple. Until recently the mutual support between knowledge, science, democracy and emancipation was presupposed. Recently, however, the close relationship between democracy and knowledge has been viewed with skepticism. The growing societal reliance on specialized knowledge often appears to actually undermine democracy. Is it that we do not know enough, but that we know too much? What are the implications for the freedom of societies and their citizens? Does knowledge help or heed them in unraveling the complexity of new challenges? This book systematically explores the shifting dynamics of knowledge production and the implications for the conditions and practices of freedom. It considers the growth of knowledge about knowledge and the impact of an evolving media. It argues for a revised understanding of the societal role of knowledge and presents the concept of 'knowledge societies' as a major resource for liberty.
Article
In the current crisis of liberal democracy, Confucianism has been cited as offering superior alternative models of government. With the resources from Dewey’s Pragmatism, this paper defends democracy, which should not be equated to de facto liberal democracies, as desirable for Confucian societies. It examines the affinities between Confucian and Dewey’s conception of the person and community and argues for an understanding of democratic values that brings together Dewey’s democratic values and Confucian ideals of personal cultivation and virtuous governance.
Article
In recent years, fundraisers have become increasingly focused on major gift solicitation while donors have been making larger gifts to fewer organizations. As this trend continues, some have begun to question whether major organizations and/or wealthy individuals now have too much control over the work of nonprofits and the communities they serve. While it is true that major gifts are important and can made a noticeable, positive impact, in some cases community members might see their impact as intrusive. In situations such as this, what is the “best” course of action? How should fundraisers consider, balance, and address the perspectives and rights of their organization, donors, and community members? This paper creates a framework for fundraisers as they consider not only their responsibilities to their organization and constituents, but also their responsibilities for promoting equity within their community as a whole. This paper draws on the social-ecological model, as well as concepts from intersectionality, to explore how fundraisers can increase involvement from all community members in a nonprofit's work to create a participatory and community-engaged process, with a special focus on including those who are typically marginalized, rather than maintaining a hierarchical system of power. It also draws on the theories of rights-balanced fundraising ethics, community-centric fundraising, and other ethical frameworks of fundraising and public administration to compare what is being done by fundraisers to what should be done to encourage ethical practices in fundraising. The paper is supplemented by examples of the impact of implementing (or not implementing) community engagement in fundraising practices. This paper aims to create a community-engaged philanthropy framework for fundraisers as they consider not only their responsibilities to their organization and donors, but also their responsibilities for promoting equitable distributions of power within their community. This framework provides specific guidance for fundraisers as to how they can balance these multiple (and sometimes competing) responsibilities while also keeping ethics at the forefront of their actions. It demonstrates how, by taking a community-engaged approach to their work, fundraisers are able to bring about better long-term outcomes for their organization. Specifically, the framework considers: (1) To whom are fundraisers most responsible, and to whom should fundraisers be most responsible—their nonprofit, their donors, or those being served? (2) For what rights of community members must the fundraiser account when soliciting funds, and to what extent is the fundraiser responsible for upholding these rights? (3) In what ways can an invitation from a fundraiser to make a gift also invite some level of power or control over the organization's work? (4) To what extent do fundraisers have the responsibility to maintain an equitable power balance among their constituents, including donors and those served? (5) How can fundraisers help ensure that all community members are able to participate in the organization's work to extent that they are willing and able?
Article
Full-text available
Background Mixed methods research studies continue to pervade the field of health care, where pragmatism as a research paradigm and patient‐oriented research (POR) as an engagement strategy are combined to strengthen the process and outcomes of the research. Pragmatists use the most appropriate research methods to address issues at hand, where complex social problems need multipronged approaches. As an emerging healthcare research strategy, POR actively engages individuals with lived experience across all stages of the research process. While POR continues to garner attention within mixed‐methods research designs, there is a paucity of literature that considers POR in relation to pragmatism. Objective As POR grows in popularity within the field of health care, there is a need to explore the theoretical and epistemological alignment with pragmatism and the implications to research. Methods To address this need, we provide a critical review of the literature to examine the synergies between POR and pragmatism, and argue for the adoption of pragmatism as a paradigm for conducting POR. Main Results This article begins with a discussion of the philosophical underpinnings informing the pragmatic paradigm. It then identifies key alignments between POR and pragmatism across three intersecting concepts: democratic values, collaborative approaches to problem‐solving and the pursuit of social justice. Discussion and Conclusions Reflecting on our experiences engaging with patient partners in a mixed‐methods POR study titled READY2Exit, we illustrate the relevance of pragmatism to POR by applying these concepts to practice. Implications and considerations for conducting POR within the pragmatic paradigm are also described. Patient or Public Contribution This paper provides a critical review of the literature and did not directly involve patients or the public. The authors reflected on their experiences collaborating with five young adult patient partners in the READY2Exit study (case exemplar described in this article) to demonstrate the relevance of the pragmatic paradigm to POR. We acknowledge and thank the young adult patient partners for their contributions to the research, for encouraging us to think critically about patient engagement in research, and for sharing their experiences.
Chapter
Full-text available
This collection of new essays interprets and critically evaluates the philosophy of Paul Feyerabend. It offers innovative historical scholarship on Feyerabend's take on topics such as realism, empiricism, mimesis, voluntarism, pluralism, materialism, and the mind-body problem, as well as certain debates in the philosophy of physics. It also considers the ways in which Feyerabend's thought can contribute to contemporary debates in science and public policy, including questions about the nature of scientific methodology, the role of science in society, citizen science, scientism, and the role of expertise in public policy. The volume will provide readers with a comprehensive overview of the topics which Feyerabend engaged with throughout his career, showing both the breadth and the depth of his thought.
Chapter
Research ethics is typically limited to topics like harm to participants, privacy issues or fraudulent research. While these clearly are important issues for research in science education, the broader field of social impact and social responsibility also poses challenges for science education research. In this article social responsibility and social impact are taken up as issues for science education research with a pragmatic understanding of relevance of research. The aim of this article is to clarify what relevance of research means. I argue that philosophical pragmatism (Peirce and Dewey) offers science education researchers an understanding of relevance that is neither reduced to the inner scientific standards of accumulation of knowledge nor to the external demands for a direct social impact of their research, for instance the political goal to rise the numbers of science students. Peirce’s pragmatic maxim is interpreted as a relevance test that directs the researcher towards practical consequences of research. Dewey supports Peirce’s practice orientation with an understanding of science that circumvents the traditional opposition between objectivity of knowledge and value-ladenness. In Dewey’s understanding, research is an intermediary process between practical contexts as the start and the endpoint of research and the science education researcher has to learn to engage in research that is of significance while navigating in a mixed field of interests and claims.
Article
Full-text available
How can expertise best be integrated within democratic systems? And how can such systems best enable lay judgment of expert claims? These questions are obscured by the common framing of democratic politics against an imagined system of pure and unmixed expert rule or ‘epistocracy’. Drawing on emerging research that attempts to think critically and institutionally about expertise, this reflections essay distinguishes three ways of democratically organising relations between experts and non-experts: representative expertise, in which experts are taken to exercise limited and delegated power under the supervision of political representatives; participatory expertise, in which expertise is integrated with publics by means of directly participatory processes; and associative expertise, in which civil society groups, advocacy organisations, and social movements organise expert knowledge around the objectives of a self-organised association. Comparing these models according to the cognitive demands they make on lay citizens, the epistemic value of citizen contributions, and the ways in which they enable public scrutiny and contestation, the essay goes on to explore how they can support and undermine one another, and how they can open up new questions about democracy, trust and expertise in political science and political theory.
Chapter
The Social workers need to call on a broad range of sources of bodies of knowledge and respond to the complexity and its chaotic nature of situations arising in social work profession. There appears to be dire need to consider the use of (a) the theoretical knowledge into practice by being more caring and supportive with the aim of (b) disentangling the various elements of a complex system and enhancing the resilience both of the people involved and the social and organizational systems that they are inter-twined with people lives. The current acknowledgement of the bi-cultural framework by the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers (ANZASW) is no doubt a positive move towards infusing indigenous practice frame work into dealing with the chaotic nature and complexity of the social work profession in New Zealand but still remains to be seen in actual social work practice .The purpose of this chapter is to attempt to explore the potential of infusing Indigenous bodies of knowledge into practice against the background of the complexity nature of the social work profession in a developed world like New Zealand.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.