IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v85y2013icp79-86.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Scientific decision-making and stakeholder consultations: The case of salt recommendations

Author

Listed:
  • Timotijevic, Lada
  • Barnett, Julie
  • Brown, Kerry
  • Raats, Monique M.
  • Shepherd, Richard

Abstract

Scientific advisory committees (SACs) are seen as “boundary organisations” working at the interface between science, policy and society. Although their narrowly defined remit of risk assessment is anchored in notions of rationality, objectivity, and reason, in reality, their sources for developing recommendations are not limited to scientific evidence. There is a growing expectation to involve non-scientific sources of information in the formation of knowledge, including the expectation of stakeholder consultation in forming recommendations. Such a move towards “democratisation” of scientific processes of decision-making within SACs has been described and often studied as “post-normal science” (PNS) (Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1993). In the current paper we examine the application of PNS in practice through a study of stakeholder consultations within the workings of the UK Scientific Advisory Committee for Nutrition (SACN). We use the theoretical insights from PNS-related studies to structure the analysis and examine the way in which PNS tenets resonate with the practices of SACN. We have selected a particular case of the SACN UK recommendations for salt as it is characterized by scientific controversy, uncertainty, vested interests and value conflict. We apply the tenets of PNS through documentary analysis of the SACN Salt Subgroup (SSG) consultation documents published in 2002/2003: the minutes of the 5 SACN SSG's meetings which included summary of the SACN SSG's stakeholder consultation and the SSG's responses to the consultation. The analysis suggests that the SACN consultation can be construed as a process of managing sources of risk to its organisation. Thus, rather than being an evidence of post-normal scientific practice, engagement became a mechanism for confirming the specific framing of science that is resonant with technocratic models of science holding authority over the facts. The implications for PNS theory are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Timotijevic, Lada & Barnett, Julie & Brown, Kerry & Raats, Monique M. & Shepherd, Richard, 2013. "Scientific decision-making and stakeholder consultations: The case of salt recommendations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 79-86.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:85:y:2013:i:c:p:79-86
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.02.032
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953613001251
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.02.032?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Helga Nowotny, 2003. "Democratising expertise and socially robust knowledge," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 151-156, June.
    2. Ortwin Renn, 1998. "Three decades of risk research: accomplishments and new challenges," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(1), pages 49-71, January.
    3. Eugene A. Rosa, 1998. "Metatheoretical foundations for post-normal risk," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(1), pages 15-44, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Annette Boaz & Robert Borst & Maarten Kok & Alison O’Shea, 2021. "How far does an emphasis on stakeholder engagement and co-production in research present a threat to academic identity and autonomy? A prospective study across five European countries [Systems Thin," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 361-369.
    2. Temitope Fisayo, 2021. "Science in action? A critical view of UK blood donation deferral policy and men who have sex with men," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(4), pages 1207-1222, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Aven, Terje, 2013. "Practical implications of the new risk perspectives," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 136-145.
    2. Aven, Terje, 2018. "How the integration of System 1-System 2 thinking and recent risk perspectives can improve risk assessment and management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 237-244.
    3. Jeroen van der Heijden, 2021. "Risk as an Approach to Regulatory Governance: An Evidence Synthesis and Research Agenda," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(3), pages 21582440211, July.
    4. Jamie K. Wardman & Gabe Mythen, 2016. "Risk communication: against the Gods or against all odds? Problems and prospects of accounting for Black Swans," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(10), pages 1220-1230, November.
    5. Chabane Mazri, 2017. "(Re) Defining Emerging Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(11), pages 2053-2065, November.
    6. Aven, Terje, 2011. "Selective critique of risk assessments with recommendations for improving methodology and practise," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(5), pages 509-514.
    7. João Varela da Costa & Silvia Bogea Gomes & Miguel Mira da Silva, 2024. "Fake News: a conceptual model for risk management," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-11, December.
    8. Gundula Glowka & Andreas Kallmünzer & Anita Zehrer, 2021. "Enterprise risk management in small and medium family enterprises: the role of family involvement and CEO tenure," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 1213-1231, September.
    9. Chiasson, Guy & Angelstam, Per & Axelsson, Robert & Doyon, Frederik, 2019. "Towards collaborative forest planning in Canadian and Swedish hinterlands: Different institutional trajectories?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 334-345.
    10. Gunn, Callum J. & Bertelsen, Neil & Regeer, Barbara J. & Schuitmaker-Warnaar, Tjerk Jan, 2021. "Valuing patient engagement: Reflexive learning in evidence generation practices for health technology assessment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 280(C).
    11. Markus Dressel, 2022. "Models of science and society: transcending the antagonism," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-15, December.
    12. Rau, Henrike & Goggins, Gary & Fahy, Frances, 2018. "From invisibility to impact: Recognising the scientific and societal relevance of interdisciplinary sustainability research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 266-276.
    13. O. Ionuş & M. Licurici & M. Pătroescu & S. Boengiu, 2015. "Assessment of flood-prone stripes within the Danube drainage area in the South-West Oltenia Development Region, Romania," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 75(1), pages 69-88, February.
    14. Jieun Ryu & Eun Joo Yoon & Chan Park & Dong Kun Lee & Seong Woo Jeon, 2017. "A Flood Risk Assessment Model for Companies and Criteria for Governmental Decision-Making to Minimize Hazards," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-26, November.
    15. Tao Ye & Yangbin Liu & Jiwei Wang & Ming Wang & Peijun Shi, 2017. "Farmers’ crop insurance perception and participation decisions: empirical evidence from Hunan, China," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(5), pages 664-677, May.
    16. Sauermann, Henry & Vohland, Katrin & Antoniou, Vyron & Balázs, Bálint & Göbel, Claudia & Karatzas, Kostas & Mooney, Peter & Perelló, Josep & Ponti, Marisa & Samson, Roeland & Winter, Silvia, 2020. "Citizen science and sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(5).
    17. Scott, Susan V. & Perry, Nicholas, 2006. "The enactment of risk categories: organizing and re-organizing risk management practices in the energy industry," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 37868, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    18. Karina Landeros-Mugica & Javier Urbina-Soria & Irasema Alcántara-Ayala, 2016. "The good, the bad and the ugly: on the interactions among experience, exposure and commitment with reference to landslide risk perception in México," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 80(3), pages 1515-1537, February.
    19. Birgit M Beisswingert & Keshun Zhang & Thomas Goetz & Urs Fischbacher, 2016. "Spillover Effects of Loss of Control on Risky Decision-Making," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-19, March.
    20. Terje Aven & Ortwin Renn, 2012. "On the Risk Management and Risk Governance of Petroleum Operations in the Barents Sea Area," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(9), pages 1561-1575, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:85:y:2013:i:c:p:79-86. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.