IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/lsg/lsgwps/wp207.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The impact of controversy on the production of scientific knowledge

Author

Listed:
  • Amelia Sharman

Abstract

Much of the existing literature employing the framework of controversy focuses on the science-policy interface. However a clear gap exists regarding the way(s) in which controversy may fundamentally shape the production of scientific knowledge itself. This research uses the debate about climate change as a case study to understand the impact of controversy on the production of scientific knowledge, focusing in particular on the interrelated elements of scientific practice and the agency of individual scientists. Based on 63 research interviews with climate scientists, 'sceptical voices' about climate change and others, it finds that whereas the majority of climate scientists do not consider sceptical voices to have an impact on scientific practice, the vast majority do identify impacts on scientific agency. The predominant type of agency-related impact is increased caution, followed by disruption, a greater focus on communication, defensiveness and reluctance to publicly engage. It is argued that scientists’ ability to distinguish between impacts on agency and practice is both a performative expression of Gieryn’s (1999) notion of boundary work and a function of controversy, with the greater the impact of controversy, the less fluid and contingent the boundary between the two. Boundary work is thus a more active and explicit process under conditions of public scientific controversy, as scientists work to ensure the independence and unassailability of their cognitive authority in contested domains. Potential implications for epistemological norms and the social value of science are also identified.

Suggested Citation

  • Amelia Sharman, 2015. "The impact of controversy on the production of scientific knowledge," GRI Working Papers 207, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
  • Handle: RePEc:lsg:lsgwps:wp207
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Working-Paper-207-Sharman.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Eva Heiskanen, 2005. "The Performative Nature of Consumer Research: Consumers’ Environmental Awareness as an Example," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 179-201, June.
    2. Lars H. Gulbrandsen, 2008. "The Role of Science in Environmental Governance: Competing Knowledge Producers in Swedish and Norwegian Forestry," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 8(2), pages 99-122, May.
    3. Reserve Bank of New Zealand, 2010. "For the record," Reserve Bank of New Zealand Bulletin, Reserve Bank of New Zealand, vol. 73, pages 47-58, September.
    4. Stephan Lewandowsky & Gilles E. Gignac & Samuel Vaughan, 2013. "The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 3(4), pages 399-404, April.
    5. Joanna Kempner, 2008. "The Chilling Effect: How Do Researchers React to Controversy?," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(11), pages 1-8, November.
    6. Ioana Negru, 2013. "How reflexive have economists been in the wake of the crisis: 'The times they are a -changin'?," Working Papers PKWP1306, Post Keynesian Economics Society (PKES).
    7. Daniel J.C. Skinner & Sophie A. Rocks & Simon J.T. Pollard, 2014. "A review of uncertainty in environmental risk: characterising potential natures, locations and levels," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(2), pages 195-219, February.
    8. Amelia Sharman, 2015. "Climate stories: why do climate scientists and sceptical voices participate in the climate debate?," GRI Working Papers 191, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    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. Luis Pérez-González, 2020. "‘Is climate science taking over the science?’: A corpus-based study of competing stances on bias, dogma and expertise in the blogosphere," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-16, 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. Jingze Jiang, 2016. "Peer Pressure in Voluntary Environmental Programs: a Case of the Bag Rewards Program," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 155-190, June.
    2. Stefano Pinardi & Matteo Salis & Gabriele Sartor & Rosa Meo, 2023. "EU−Africa: Digital and Social Questions in a Multicultural Agroecological Transition for the Cocoa Production in Africa," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-29, July.
    3. Beatriz Carmona-Moya & Antonia Calvo-Salguero & María-del-Carmen Aguilar-Luzón, 2021. "EIMECA: A Proposal for a Model of Environmental Collective Action," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-22, May.
    4. Christel W. van Eck & Bob C. Mulder & Sander van der Linden, 2020. "Climate Change Risk Perceptions of Audiences in the Climate Change Blogosphere," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-17, September.
    5. Gabrielle Samuel & Federica Lucivero & Bran Knowles & Katherine Wright, 2024. "Carbon Accounting in the Digital Industry: The Need to Move towards Decision Making in Uncertainty," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-15, February.
    6. Lawrence C. Hamilton, 2016. "Public Awareness of the Scientific Consensus on Climate," SAGE Open, , vol. 6(4), pages 21582440166, November.
    7. Dixon, Keith, 2013. "Growth and dispersion of accounting research about New Zealand before and during a National Research Assessment Exercise: Five decades of academic journals bibliometrics," MPRA Paper 51100, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. James, Christina Anne & Kavanagh, Marie & Manton, Carl & Soar, Jeffrey, 2023. "Revisiting recycled water for the next drought; a case study of South East Queensland, Australia," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    9. Linda Lilburne & Melissa Robson-Williams & Ned Norton, 2022. "Improving Understanding and Management of Uncertainty in Science-Informed Collaborative Policy Processes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-23, May.
    10. Heather W. Cann, 2021. "Policy or scientific messaging? Strategic framing in a case of subnational climate change conflict," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(5), pages 570-595, September.
    11. Mitchell J. Small & Ümit Güvenç & Michael L. DeKay, 2014. "When Can Scientific Studies Promote Consensus Among Conflicting Stakeholders?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(11), pages 1978-1994, November.
    12. Lawrence C. Hamilton, 2018. "Self-assessed understanding of climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 151(2), pages 349-362, November.
    13. Mark J Hurlstone & Stephan Lewandowsky & Ben R Newell & Brittany Sewell, 2014. "The Effect of Framing and Normative Messages in Building Support for Climate Policies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-19, December.
    14. E. Michael Nussbaum & Marissa C. Owens & Jacqueline R. Cordova, 2016. "‘It’s Not a Political Issue!’ The Interaction of Subject and Politics on Professors’ Beliefs in Human-induced Climate Change," Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, , vol. 10(1), pages 101-114, March.
    15. Kevin Winter & Matthew J. Hornsey & Lotte Pummerer & Kai Sassenberg, 2022. "Anticipating and defusing the role of conspiracy beliefs in shaping opposition to wind farms," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 7(12), pages 1200-1207, December.
    16. Jason Gainous & Rodger A. Payne & Melissa K. Merry, 2021. "Do Source cues or frames matter? Convincing the public about the veracity of climate science," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(4), pages 1894-1906, July.
    17. Haller-Bull, Vanessa & Rovenskaya, Elena, 2019. "Optimizing functional groups in ecosystem models: Case study of the Great Barrier Reef," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 411(C).
    18. R. Defila & Antonietta Di Giulio, 2020. "The Concept of “Consumption Corridors” Meets Society: How an Idea for Fundamental Changes in Consumption is Received," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 43(2), pages 315-344, June.
    19. Oana Georgiana SECUIAN & Anamaria Gabriela VLAD & Mihaela VLAD, 2021. "Smart city a solution for dealing with climate change in European cities," Smart Cities International Conference (SCIC) Proceedings, Smart-EDU Hub, Faculty of Public Administration, National University of Political Studies & Public Administration, vol. 9, pages 285-296, November.
    20. Toby Bolsen & James N. Druckman & Fay Lomax Cook, 2015. "Citizens’, Scientists’, and Policy Advisors’ Beliefs about Global Warming," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 658(1), pages 271-295, March.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:lsg:lsgwps:wp207. 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: The GRI Administration (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/grlseuk.html .

    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.