IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v11y2021i3p21582440211023155.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Deficit Lay or Deficit Expert: How Do “Experts†in Environmental Projects Perceive Lay People and Lay Knowledge?

Author

Listed:
  • Hatsue Koizumi
  • Hiromi Yamashita

Abstract

This research reveals expert perceptions of lay people and lay knowledge in environmental projects, such as information giving activities, research projects, and environmental planning projects. A semistructured interview method was employed with six researchers from a university in Sweden. Although the expert–lay relationship has traditionally been discussed within a “deficit model,†many experts in this research expressed a more positive view of lay people and lay knowledge; however, situations where lay knowledge was considered useful varied. The experts’ motivation for communication was analyzed within the four communication modes of education, responding, supplementing, and dialogue. Their recognition of the “deficit expert†was one of the remarkable findings: the experts acknowledged their knowledge and competence in understanding “reality†had its limitations and questioned the objectivity and universality of science in relation to environmental science.

Suggested Citation

  • Hatsue Koizumi & Hiromi Yamashita, 2021. "Deficit Lay or Deficit Expert: How Do “Experts†in Environmental Projects Perceive Lay People and Lay Knowledge?," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(3), pages 21582440211, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:11:y:2021:i:3:p:21582440211023155
    DOI: 10.1177/21582440211023155
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440211023155
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/21582440211023155?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Buchy, M. & Hoverman, S., 2000. "Understanding public participation in forest planning: a review," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 15-25, May.
    2. Rolf Lidskog, 2008. "Scientised citizens and democratised science. Re-assessing the expert-lay divide," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(1-2), pages 69-86, January.
    3. Friederike Hendriks & Dorothe Kienhues & Rainer Bromme, 2016. "Trust in Science and the Science of Trust," Progress in IS, in: Bernd Blöbaum (ed.), Trust and Communication in a Digitized World, edition 1, pages 143-159, Springer.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Hong, Yoorim, 2018. "How the discussion on a contested technology in Twitter changes: Semantic network analysis of tweets about cryptocurrency and blockchain technology," 22nd ITS Biennial Conference, Seoul 2018. Beyond the boundaries: Challenges for business, policy and society 190383, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    2. Tyrvainen, Liisa & Gustavsson, Roland & Konijnendijk, Cecil & Ode, Asa, 2006. "Visualization and landscape laboratories in planning, design and management of urban woodlands," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(8), pages 811-823, November.
    3. Alessandro Paletto & Claudia Becagli & Francesco Geri & Sandro Sacchelli & Isabella De Meo, 2022. "Use of Participatory Processes in Wood Residue Management from a Circular Bioeconomy Perspective: An Approach Adopted in Italy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-17, January.
    4. Angela Bearth & Gulbanu Kaptan & Sabrina Heike Kessler, 2022. "Genome-edited versus genetically-modified tomatoes: an experiment on people’s perceptions and acceptance of food biotechnology in the UK and Switzerland," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(3), pages 1117-1131, September.
    5. Floress, Kristin & Vokoun, Melinda & Huff, Emily Silver & Baker, Melissa, 2019. "Public perceptions of county, state, and national forest management in Wisconsin, USA," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 110-120.
    6. Lawrence, Anna & Deuffic, Philippe & Hujala, Teppo & Nichiforel, Liviu & Feliciano, Diana & Jodlowski, Krzysztof & Lind, Torgny & Marchal, Didier & Talkkari, Ari & Teder, Meelis & Vilkriste, Lelde & W, 2020. "Extension, advice and knowledge systems for private forestry: Understanding diversity and change across Europe," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    7. Silva Larson & Thomas G Measham & Liana J Williams, 2009. "Remotely Engaged? A Framework for Monitoring the Success of Stakeholder Engagement in Remote Regions," Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion (SEED) Working Paper Series 2009-11, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.
    8. Loureiro, Maria L. & Dominguez Arcos, Fernando, 2012. "Applying Best–Worst Scaling in a stated preference analysis of forest management programs," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 381-394.
    9. Kangas, A. & Saarinen, N. & Saarikoski, H. & Leskinen, L.A. & Hujala, T. & Tikkanen, J., 2010. "Stakeholder perspectives about proper participation for Regional Forest Programmes in Finland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 213-222, March.
    10. Kangas, Annika & Heikkilä, Juuso & Malmivaara-Lämsä, Minna & Löfström, Irja, 2014. "Case Puijo—Evaluation of a participatory urban forest planning process," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 13-23.
    11. Hiltunen, Veikko & Kurttila, Mikko & Leskinen, Pekka & Pasanen, Karri & Pykäläinen, Jouni, 2009. "Mesta: An internet-based decision-support application for participatory strategic-level natural resources planning," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 1-9, January.
    12. Eunyoung Choi & Kun Chang Lee, 2019. "Effect of Trust in Domain-Specific Information of Safety, Brand Loyalty, and Perceived Value for Cosmetics on Purchase Intentions in Mobile E-Commerce Context," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-24, November.
    13. Sarmiento Barletti, Juan Pablo & Larson, Anne M. & Hewlett, Christopher & Delgado, Deborah, 2020. "Designing for engagement: A Realist Synthesis Review of how context affects the outcomes of multi-stakeholder forums on land use and/or land-use change," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    14. Berninger, Kati & Kneeshaw, Daniel & Messier, Christian, 2009. "Effects of presenting forest simulation results on the forest values and attitudes of forestry professionals and other forest users in Central Labrador," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 140-147, March.
    15. Singer, Benjamin & Giessen, Lukas, 2017. "Towards a donut regime? Domestic actors, climatization, and the hollowing-out of the international forests regime in the Anthropocene," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 69-79.
    16. Saverio Miccoli & Fabrizio Finucci & Rocco Murro, 2014. "Social Evaluation Approaches in Landscape Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(11), pages 1-15, November.
    17. Roumane, Adil, 2013. "Droits de propriété en économie pastorale. Le raisonnement hardinien est-il crédible ?," Économie rurale, French Society of Rural Economics (SFER Société Française d'Economie Rurale), vol. 335(May-June).
    18. Cote, Marc-Andre & Bouthillier, Luc, 2002. "Assessing the effect of public involvement processes in forest management in Quebec," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 213-225, July.
    19. Dovie, Delali B. K., 2003. "Whose involvement?--can hierarchical valuation scheme intercede for participatory methods for evaluating secondary forest resource use?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 265-283, September.
    20. Ananda, Jayanath & Herath, Gamini, 2003. "Incorporating stakeholder values into regional forest planning: a value function approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 75-90, April.

    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:sae:sagope:v:11:y:2021:i:3:p:21582440211023155. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.