The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Science for the post-normal age
Abstract
In response to the challenges of policy issues of risk and the environment, a new type of science-‘post-normal’-is emerging. This is analysed in contrast to traditional problem-solving strategies, including core science, applied science, and professional consultancy. We use the two attributes of systems uncertainties and decision stakes to distinguish among these. Postnormal science is appropriate when either attribute is high; then the traditional methodologies are ineffective. In those circumstances, the quality assurance of scientific inputs to the policy process requires an ‘extended peer community’, consisting of all those with a stake in the dialogue on the issue. Post-normal science can provide a path to the democratization of science, and also a response to the current tendencies to post-modernity. Science always evolves, responding to its leading challenges as they change through history. After centuries of triumph and optimism, science is now called on to remedy the pathologies of the global industrial system of which it forms the basis. Whereas science was previously understood as steadily advancing in the certainty of our knowledge and control of the natural world, now science is seen as coping with many uncertainties in policy issues of risk and the environment. In response, new styles of scientific activity are being developed. The reductionist, analytical worldview which divides systems into ever smaller elements, studied by ever more esoteric specialism, is being replaced by a systemic, synthetic and humanistic approach. The old dichotomies of facts and values, and of knowledge and ignorance, are being transcended. Natural systems are recognized as dynamic and complex; those involving interactions with humanity are ‘emergent’, including properties of reflection and contradiction. The science appropriate to this new condition will be based on the assumptions of unpredictability, incomplete control, and a plurality of legitimate perspectives. At present, there is no agreed description of what the future will bring, but
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Weinberg, A. M. (1972) · Minerva · doi:10.1007/bf01682418 · Cited by 624
Cited by
Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: Practice, principles, and challenges
Lang, D. J., Wiek, A., Bergmann, M., Stauffacher, M., Martens, P., Moll, P., Swilling, M., & Thomas, C. J. (2012) · Sustainability Science · doi:10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x · Cited by 2,925
Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture
Pretty, J. N. (1995) · World Development · doi:10.1016/0305-750x(95)00046-f · Cited by 1,753
Risk assessment and risk management: Review of recent advances on their foundation
Aven, T. (2016) · European Journal of Operational Research · doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2015.12.023 · Cited by 1,713
Sustainability Transitions Research: Transforming Science and Practice for Societal Change
Loorbach, D., Frantzeskaki, N., & Avelino, F. (2017) · Annual Review of Environment and Resources · doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-102014-021340 · Cited by 1,401
A Systemic Framework for Sustainability Assessment
Sala, S., Ciuffo, B., & Nijkamp, P. (2015) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.09.015 · Cited by 743
Metadata
- Authors
- Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R.
- Venue
- Futures
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1993-09
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 739-755
- ISSN
- 0016-3287 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1974564128
- Cited by
- 4,255
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 91.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.