Exploring Scientists' Values by Analyzing How They Frame Nature and Uncertainty.
Cultural theory of risk
framing
uncertainty
values in science
wastewater
Journal
Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis
ISSN: 1539-6924
Titre abrégé: Risk Anal
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8109978
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 2021
11 2021
Historique:
revised:
15
01
2021
received:
15
12
2019
accepted:
18
01
2021
pubmed:
19
2
2021
medline:
8
3
2022
entrez:
18
2
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Several scholars have proposed that values embedded in science are a central reason why more research does not necessarily resolve scientific controversies around complex environmental issues. In the Capital Regional District, British Columbia, Canada, scientists have positioned themselves for and against the construction of a wastewater treatment plant in a debate framed as purely technical. This study explores the link between the scientists' positions in the debate and the way they, in their scientific publications, portray nature and environmental risks. We performed a qualitative content analysis of peer-reviewed publications by scientists who have publicly taken opposing positions in the controversy. We found that scientists against treatment predominantly frame nature as tolerant, up to a limit, to disturbances and potential risks, and they seem to embrace a view of science as capable of reducing uncertainties. In contrast, scientists in favor of treatment predominantly portray nature as fragile, particularly toward human-mobilized environmental risks and they commonly present scientific uncertainty as worrisome based on potentially harmful consequences. Our study suggests that value-laden perspectives impact scientists' positions even in a seemingly technical controversy.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2094-2111Informations de copyright
© 2021 Society for Risk Analysis.
Références
Barbour, R. S. (2013). Quality of data analysis. In F. Uwe (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis (pp. 496-509). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446282243
Biddle, Justin B. (2018). “Antiscience zealotry”? Values, epistemic risk, and the GMO debate. Philosophy of Science, 85(3), 360-379. https://doi.org/10.1086/697749
Castro, Paula, & Lima, Maria Luísa (2001). Old and new ideas about the environment and science: An exploratory study. Environment and Behavior, 33(3), 400-423. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139160121973052
Chapman, Peter M. (2006). Science, politics and ideology: The Victoria (BC, Canada) sewage issue. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 52(7), 719-721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2006.03.006
Chapman, Peter M., Cullen, Jay, Garrett, Chris, Littlepage, Jack, Pedersen, Tom, Varela, Diana, … Parsons, Tim (2008). Sewage treatment wasted: The Victoria (BC, Canada) example. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 56(11), 1815-1816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2008.05.015
Cohen, Jacob (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37-46. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104
CRD. (2017). CRD wastewater treatment program - Timeline. Victoria, BC: CRD.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Cullen, J., Garrett, C., Littlepage, J., Macdonald, R. W., Parsons, T., Pedersen, T., … Whiticar, M. (2013). Scientists on sewage treatment. Focus Online. Retrieved from http://focusonline.ca/?q=node/651
Dake, Karl (1992). Myths of nature: Culture and the social construction of risk. Journal of Social Issues, 48(4), 21-37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1992.tb01943.x
Day, R. A., & Gastel, B. (1995). How to write and publish a scientific paper (4th ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Douglas, H. E. (2017). Science, values, and citizens. In M. P. Adams, Z. Biener, U. Feest, & J. A. Sullivan (Eds.), Eppur si muove: Doing history and philosophy of science with Peter Machamer (Vol. 81, pp. 83-96). Berlin: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52768-0_6
Douglas, M., & Wildavski, A. (1982). Risk and culture: An essay on the selection of technological and environmental dangers (1st ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Elliott, K. C. (2011). Is a little pollution good for you? Incorporating societal values in environmental research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Elliott, K. C. (2017). A tapestry of values: An introduction to values in science (1st ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, D. (1989). Sewage-Victoria (Canada). In Environments at Risk: Case histories of impact assessment (pp. 126-154). Berlin: Springer.
Entman, R. M. (2010). Framing media power. In P. D'Angelo & J. Kuypers (Eds.), Doing news framing analysis: Empirical and theoretical perspectives (pp. 331-355). Abingdon: Routledge.
EPA. (2018). Toxic and priority pollutants under the Clean Water Act. Effluent Guidelines. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/eg/toxic-and-priority-pollutants-under-clean-water-act#toxic
Funtowicz, S., & Ravetz, J. (1990). Uncertainty and quality in science for policy (Vol. 15). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Funtowicz, Silvio O., & Ravetz, Jerome R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25(7), 739-755.
Government of Canada. (2014). Wastewater pollution. Retrieved from https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/wastewater/pollution.html
Grendstad, Gunnar, & Selle, Per (2000). Cultural myths of human and physical nature: Integrated or separated? Risk Analysis, 20(1), 27-40. https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.00003
Halffman, W. (2019). Frames: Beyond facts versus values. In E. Turnhout, W. Tuinstra, & W. Halffman (Eds.), Environmental expertise. Connecting science, policy, and society, (pp. 36-57). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hoffmann, M. H. G. (2011). Analyzing framing processes in conflicts and communication by means of logical argument mapping. In W. A. Donohue, R. G. Rogan, & S. Kaufman (Eds.), Framing matters: Perspectives on negotiation research and practice in communication (pp. 136-164). Bern: Peter Lang.
Howland, Dave, Becker, Mimi Larsen, & Prelli, Lawrence J. (2006). Merging content analysis and the policy sciences: A system to discern policy-specific trends from news media reports. Policy Sciences, 39(3), 205-231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-006-9016-5
Khan, U., Tiedje, T., & Valeo, C. (2014, April 16). CRD selected best possible sewage-treatment plan. The Times Colonist. Retrieved from https://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/op-ed/comment-crd-selected-best-possible-sewage-treatment-plan-1.964733
Lachapelle, Erick, Montpetit, Éric, & Gauvin, Jean-Philippe (2014). Public perceptions of expert credibility on policy issues: The role of expert framing and political worldviews: Expert framing and political worldviews. Policy Studies Journal, 42(4), 674-697. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12073
Landis, J. Richard, & Koch, Gary G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
Lofstedt, R. E. (2011). Risk versus hazard: How to regulate in the 21st century. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 2(02), 149-168. https://doi.org/10.1017/S186729900001033
Mason, Sarah A., Dixon, Jenna, Mambulu, Faith, Rishworth, Andrea, Mkandawire, Paul, & Luginaah, Isaac (2015). Management challenges of urban biosolids: Narratives around facility siting in rural Ontario. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 58(8), 1363-1383. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2014.925853
Mason-Renton, Sarah, Vazquez, Marco, Robinson, Connor, & Oberg, Gunilla (2018). Science for policy: A case study of scientific polarization, values, and the framing of risk and uncertainty. Risk Analysis, 39(6), 1229-1242. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13248
Municipal Wastewater Regulation, B.C. Reg. 87/2012, Pub. L. No. S.B.C. 2003, O.C. 230/2012 Environmental Management Act 54. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/crbc/crbc/87_2012
Noble, Helen, & Smith, Joanna (2015). Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research. Evidence Based Nursing, 18(2), 34-35. https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2015-102054
NRTEE. (2001). Managing potentially toxic substances in Canada: A state of the debate report from the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. Government of Canada. Retrieved from http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/En134-32-2001E.pdf
Öberg, G., & Mason-Renton, S. A. (2018). On the limitation of evidence-based policy: Regulatory narratives and land application of biosolids/sewage sludge in BC, Canada and Sweden. Environmental Science & Policy, 84, 88-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.03.006
Öberg, Gunilla, & Morales, Margaret C. (2016). Biosolids are wicked to manage: Land application regulations in Sweden and B.C. Canada. Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation, 2016(3), 32-45. https://doi.org/10.2175/193864716821125556
Otsuka, Y. (2003). Socioeconomic considerations relevant to the sustainable development, use and control of genetically modified foods. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 14(5-8), 294-318. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-2244(03)00077-3
Penner, B. (2006). Amendment to core area liquid waste management plan detailing schedule for provision of sewage treatment [Official letter]. Retrieved from https://www.crd.bc.ca/docs/default-source/seaterra-pdf/correspondence/2006_letter_frombarry-pennerministerofenvironment_july21.pdf?sfvrsn=502598c9_2
Rayner, S. (1992). Cultural theory and risk analysis. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds.), Social theories of risk (Vol. 15, pp. 83-115). Westport, CT: Praeger. Retrieved from http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/pam.4050150313
Sarewitz, D. (2004). How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environmental Science & Policy, 7(5), 385-403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2004.06.001
Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Schreier, M. (2013). Qualitative content analysis. In U. Flick (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis (Vol. 1, pp. 170-183). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1479-3709(07)11003-7
Steel, D. (2015). Philosophy and the precautionary principle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Steg, Linda, & Sievers, Inge (2000). Cultural theory and individual perceptions of environmental risks. Environment and Behavior, 32(2), 250-269. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139160021972513
Thompson, M. (1988). Socially viable ideas of nature: A cultural hypothesis. In E. Baark & U. Svedin (Eds.), Man, nature and technology: Essays on the role of ideological perceptions, (pp. 57-79). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Thompson, M., Ellis, R., & Wildavsky, A. B. (1990). Cultural theory. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Wastewater Systems Effluent Regulations, Pub. L. No. SOR/2012-139, P.C. 2012-942 Fisheries Act 68 (2009). Retrieved from https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/SOR-2012-139.pdf
Wildavsky, A., & Dake, K. (1990). Theories of risk perception: Who fears what and why? Daedalus, 119(4), 41-60.
Zollitsch, W., Winckler, C., Waiblinger, S., & Haslberger, A. (2007). Sustainable food production and ethics. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers.