IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v28y2001i2p123-129.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Privileging process over ‘fact’: The Sydney water scare as ‘organised irresponsibility’

Author

Listed:
  • Stephen Healy

Abstract

The Sydney water scare shares with numerous contemporary policy issues a complex intermeshing of ‘fact’ and ‘value’. An examination of the institutional reforms that resolved this matter shows the ‘appeals to the facts’ that dominated contemporary commentary to be both misleading and counterproductive. The emphasis on process that emerges reflects recent approaches to science in policy which, in acknowledging a key role for values, privilege decision processes over technical analyses, highlight community involvement, and stress discursive procedures and fora over more conventional rational choice models of decision making. Ultimately we need to reconceive the fact/value distinction and how it frames science in politics. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Stephen Healy, 2001. "Privileging process over ‘fact’: The Sydney water scare as ‘organised irresponsibility’," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(2), pages 123-129, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:28:y:2001:i:2:p:123-129
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/147154301781781534
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:oup:scippl:v:28:y:2001:i:2:p:123-129. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    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.