IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v6y2020i1d10.1057_s41599-020-0434-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Science by, with and for citizens: rethinking ‘citizen science’ after the 2011 Fukushima disaster

Author

Listed:
  • Joke Kenens

    (KU Leuven, SCK CEN)

  • Michiel Van Oudheusden

    (University of Cambridge)

  • Go Yoshizawa

    (Oslo Metropolitan University)

  • Ine Van Hoyweghen

    (KU Leuven)

Abstract

This study illustrates how citizen-driven radiation monitoring has emerged in post-Fukushima Japan, where citizens generate their own radiation data and measurement devices to provide public with actionable data about their environments. Drawing on ethnographic fieldwork in and around Fukushima Prefecture, it highlights the multifaceted character of these bottom-up, citizen-led efforts, contrasting these initiatives with the emergence of “citizen participatory” science policy discourses in Japan. Recognizing the contested nature of citizenship in Japan and in the nuclear arena, the article considers how terms and definitions shape the participation of citizens and other stakeholders (local communities, public authorities, regulators, and professional scientists) in science and technology in culturally and historically specific ways. It builds on these observations to open up new spaces of expertise, which engage all stakeholders through social-scientific intervention.

Suggested Citation

  • Joke Kenens & Michiel Van Oudheusden & Go Yoshizawa & Ine Van Hoyweghen, 2020. "Science by, with and for citizens: rethinking ‘citizen science’ after the 2011 Fukushima disaster," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 6(1), pages 1-8, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:6:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-020-0434-3
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-020-0434-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-020-0434-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-020-0434-3?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.
    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. Dirk Helbing & Farzam Fanitabasi & Fosca Giannotti & Regula Hänggli & Carina I. Hausladen & Jeroen van den Hoven & Sachit Mahajan & Dino Pedreschi & Evangelos Pournaras, 2021. "Ethics of Smart Cities: Towards Value-Sensitive Design and Co-Evolving City Life," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-25, October.
    2. Sachit Mahajan & Ming-Kuang Chung & Jenny Martinez & Yris Olaya & Dirk Helbing & Ling-Jyh Chen, 2022. "Translating citizen-generated air quality data into evidence for shaping policy," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-18, December.
    3. Livia Fritz & Ulli Vilsmaier & Garance Clément & Laurie Daffe & Anna Pagani & Melissa Pang & Daniel Gatica-Perez & Vincent Kaufmann & Marie Santiago Delefosse & Claudia R. Binder, 2022. "Explore, engage, empower: methodological insights into a transformative mixed methods study tackling the COVID-19 lockdown," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-13, December.

    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. 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.
    2. 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).
    3. Klenk, Nicole L. & Hickey, Gordon M., 2011. "A virtual and anonymous, deliberative and analytic participation process for planning and evaluation: The Concept Mapping Policy Delphi," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 152-165, January.
    4. Michael Barnett, 2016. "Accountability and global governance: The view from paternalism," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(2), pages 134-148, June.
    5. Justus Henke, 2022. "Can Citizen Science in the Humanities and Social Sciences Deliver on the Sustainability Goals?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-20, July.
    6. Schneidewind, Uwe & Singer-Brodowski, Mandy & Augenstein, Karoline & Stelzer, Franziska, 2016. "Pledge for a transformative science: A conceptual framework," Wuppertal Papers 191, Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy.
    7. Camilla Adelle, 2019. "The Role of Knowledge in Food Democracy," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(4), pages 214-223.
    8. Andrea Saltelli & Mario Giampietro, 2015. "The fallacy of evidence based policy," Papers 1607.07398, arXiv.org.
    9. Walton, Nigel & Nayak, Bhabani Shankar, 2021. "Rethinking of Marxist perspectives on big data, artificial intelligence (AI) and capitalist economic development," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).
    10. Failing, L. & Gregory, R. & Harstone, M., 2007. "Integrating science and local knowledge in environmental risk management: A decision-focused approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 47-60, October.
    11. Ensor, Jonathan & de Bruin, Annemarieke, 2022. "The role of learning in farmer-led innovation," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    12. Klenk, Nicole L. & Hickey, Gordon M., 2011. "A virtual and anonymous, deliberative and analytic participation process for planning and evaluation: The Concept Mapping Policy Delphi," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 152-165.
    13. Froese, Anna & Mevissen, Natalie & Böttcher, Julia & Simon, Dagmar & Lentz, Sebastian & Knie, Andreas, 2014. "Wissenschaftliche Güte und gesellschaftliche Relevanz der Sozial- und Raumwissenschaften: Ein spannungsreiches Verhältnis. Handreichung für Wissenschaft, Wissenschaftspolitik und Praxis," Discussion Papers, Research Group Science Policy Studies SP III 2014-602, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    14. Mark W Neff, 2018. "Publication incentives undermine the utility of science: Ecological research in Mexico," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(2), pages 191-201.
    15. Susanne Jørgensen & Knut H Sørensen, 2023. "Numeric work: The efforts of calculation actors to make numbers count in climate and energy policy," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(2), pages 243-252.
    16. Conde, Marta, 2014. "Activism mobilising science," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 67-77.
    17. Sokolovska, Nataliia & Fecher, Benedikt & Wagner, Gert G., 2019. "Communication on the Science-Policy Interface: An Overview of Conceptual Models," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 7(4).
    18. Lonneke M. Poort & Jac. A. A. Swart & Ruth Mampuys & Arend J. Waarlo & Paul C. Struik & Lucien Hanssen, 2022. "Restore politics in societal debates on new genomic techniques," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(4), pages 1207-1216, December.
    19. Steve Hinchliffe & Les Levidow & Sue Oreszczyn, 2014. "Engaging Cooperative Research," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 46(9), pages 2080-2094, September.
    20. Cian O’Donovan & Aleksandra (Ola) Michalec & Joshua R Moon, 2022. "Capabilities for transdisciplinary research," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(1), pages 145-158.

    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:pal:palcom:v:6:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-020-0434-3. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    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.