Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice, Vol 13, No 1-3 (2016)

The death of scientific evidence in Canadian policymaking: Controversy and collective resistance to perceived government ‘anti-science’

Graham Smart
Issued Date: 31 Dec 2018

Abstract


This study examines publicly voiced resistance by a Canada-wide community of scientists and citizen supporters against what they perceived as the Canadian government's efforts to undermine publicly supported science, with its concern for empirical evidence, in order to facilitate a narrowly pro-industry orientation in its policy-making. Using Hajer's argumentative discourse analysis (ADA) to interpret a corpus of some 700 Web-published texts, the author identified a macro-argument collectively produced and publicly communicated by the Canadian scientific community. The study also showed how this macro-argument served as a vehicle for two ideological representations: a virtuous self-representation of the scientific community itself and a negative representation of the motives and actions of the Canadian government. The findings of the research contribute to our understanding of how collective argumentative positions emerge within the discourse of a major scientific controversy. At the same time, the study offers policymakers insights in how they might communicate more effectively with communities of scientific experts.

Download Media

PDF (Price: £17.50 )

DOI: 10.1558/japl.32093

References


Brante, T. (1993) Reasons for studying scientific and science-based controversies. In T. Brante, S. Fuller and W. Lynch (eds) Controversial Science: From Content to Contention, 177–191. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Dennen, V. and Pashnyak, T. (2008) Finding community in the comments: The role of reader and blogger responses in a weblog community of practice. International Journal of Web Based Communities 4 (3): 272–283. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJWBC.2008.019189

Dryzek, J. (2010) Foundations and Frontiers of Deliberative Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199562947.001.0001

Eagleton, T. (1991) Ideology: An Introduction. London: Verso.

Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A. and Healey, P. (eds) (1998) Capitalizing Knowledge: New Intersections of Industry and Academia. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Finday, S. (2012) Marking the death of evidence – A casualty in the war on science. Available online: http://deathofevidence.ca/sites/default/files/doe_ma.pdf

Gibbons, G., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Swartzman, S., Scott, P. and Trow, M. (1994) The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage.

Gómez, A., Balmer, B. and Canales, A. (2015) Science policy under democracy and dictatorship: An introductory essay. In A. Gómez, B. Balmer and A. Canales (eds) Science Policies and Twentieth-Century Dictatorships: Spain, Italy and Argentina, 1–26. London: Routledge.

Habermas, J. (1996) Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Trans. W. Rehg. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hajer, M. (1993) Discourse-coalitions and the institutionalization of practice. In F. Fischer and J. Forester (eds) The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning, 43–76. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822381815-003

Hajer, M. (1995) The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hajer, M. (2005a) Coalitions, practices, and meaning in environmental politics: From acid rain to BSE. In D. Howarth and J. Torfing (eds) Discourse Theory and European Politics, 299–315. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hajer, M. (2005b) Rebuilding Ground Zero: The politics of performance. Planning Theory & Practice 6 (4): 445–464. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649350500349623

Hajer, M. (2009) Authoritative Governance: Policy-Making in the Age of Mediatization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199281671.001.0001

Holton, G. (1992) How to think about the ‘anti-science’ phenomenon. Public Understanding of Science 1 (1): 103–128. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/1/1/012

Khorasani, M. (2008) The Development of Controversies: From the Early Modern Period to Online Discussion Forums. New York: Peter Lang.

Koyré, A. (1939) Études Galiléennes. Paris: Hermann.

Langström, C, Hauxwell-Baldwin, I. and Lorenzoni, T. (2015) The (mis)understanding of scientific uncertainty? How experts view policy-makers, the media and publics. Science as Culture 24 (3): 276–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2014.992333

Linnitt, C. (2013) Harper’s attack on science: No science, no evidence, no truth, no democracy. Academic Matters: The Journal of Higher Education (May). Available online: https://academicmatters.ca/2013/05/harpers-attack-on-science-no-science-no-evidence-no-truth-no-democracy/

Luzon, M.-J. (2013) Public communication of science in blogs: Recontextualizing scientific discourse for a diversified audience. Written Communication 30 (4): 428–457. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088313493610

Luzon, M.-J. (2014) Engaging in scientific controversies in science blogs: The expression of allegiance and ideological commitment. In H. Lim and F. Sudweeks (eds) Innovative Methods and Technologies for Electronic Discourse Analysis, 235–259. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.

Martin, B. and Richards, E. (1995) Scientific knowledge, controversy, and public decision-making. In S. Jasanoff, G. Markle, J. Petersen and T. Pinch (eds) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, 506–526. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Nelkin, D. (1979) Controversies: The Politics of Technical Decision Making. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Nowotny, H. (2008) Insatiable Curiosity: Innovation in a Fragile Future. Translated by M. Cohen. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

Nowotny, H., Pestre, D., Schmidt-Assmann, E., Schulze-Fielitz, H. and Trute, H.-H. (2005) The Public Nature of Science under Assault: Politics, Markets, Science and the Law. Berlin: Springer.

Nowotny, H., Scott, P. and Gibbons, M. (2001) Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity.

Nowotny, H. and Testa, G. (2011) Naked Genes: Reinventing the Human in the Molecular Age. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262014939.001.0001

Perelman, C. and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969) The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

Rehg, W. (2009) Cogent Science in Context: The Science Wars, Argumentation Theory, and Habermas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Reis, P. and Galvão, C. (2004) Socio-scientific controversies and students’ conceptions about scientists. International Journal of Science Education 26 (13): 1621–1633. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069042000205413

Shapin, S. (1996) The Scientific Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226750224.001.0001

Sharman, A. (2015) The Impact of Controversy on the Production of Scientific Knowledge. Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment Working Paper 207. London: London School of Economics and Political Science.

Shils, E. (1972) Anti-science: Observations on the recent ‘crisis’ of science. In G. Wolsten­holme and M. O’Connor (eds) Civilization and Science: In Conflict or Collaboration?,
33–59. London: Ciba Foundation.

Smart, G. (2011) Argumentation across Web-based organizational discourses: The case of climate change. In S. Sarangi and C. Candlin (eds) Handbook of Communication in Organisations and Professions, 363–386. Amsterdam: Mouton De Gruyter.

Smart, G. (2012) The discursive production and impairment of public trust through rhetorical representations of science: The case of global climate change. In C. Candlin and J. Crichton (eds) Discourses of Trust: The Discursive Construction of ‘Trust’ within Applied Linguistic Research, 252–268. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Smart, G. (2016) Discourse coalitions, science blogs, and the public debate on global climate change. In A. Bawarshi and M. Reiff (eds) Genre and the Performance of Publics,
157–177. Logan: Utah State University Press. https://doi.org/10.7330/9781607324430.c008

Stewart, C. (2009) Socioscientific controversies: A theoretical and methodological frame­work. Communication Theory 19 (2): 124–145. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.
2009.01338.x

Toulmin, S. (1958) The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Toulmin, S. (1972) The historical background to the anti-science movement. In G. Wolsten­holme and M. O’Connor (eds) Civilization and Science: In Conflict or Collaboration?,
23–32. London: Ciba Foundation. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470719848.ch3

Toulmin, S., Rieke, R. and Janik, A. (1979) An Introduction to Reasoning. New York: Macmillan.

Van Eemeren F. and Grootendorst, R. (2004) A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Van Eemeren F., Grootendorst, R. and Snoeck Henkemans, F. (1996) Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory: A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Williams, R. (1985) Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. Oxford: Oxford Uni­versity Press.

Wynn, J. and Walsh, L. (2013) Emerging directions in science, publics, and controversy. Poroi 9 (1): 2–5. https://doi.org/10.13008/2151-2957.1156


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.







Equinox Publishing Ltd - 415 The Workstation 15 Paternoster Row, Sheffield, S1 2BX United Kingdom
Telephone: +44 (0)114 221-0285 - Email: info@equinoxpub.com

Privacy Policy