The outline of the events surrounding the earthquake show, that at the heart of the L’Aquila case lies the notion of expertise. This paper will first formulate a research question that seeks to understand the conceptualizations of normative and non-normative approaches to expertise. Subsequently both lines of thought will be discussed in detail. The following chapter will then reflect on what both approaches will allow us to see in the case of the L'Aquila earthquake. Finally, the last chapter will summarize the findings, providing further context and contrast to both lines of thought.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Research Question
3. Basic Assumption of Expertise in Key STS Literature
3.1 Misunderstood Misunderstanding
3.2 The Study of Expertise and Experience
4. Expertise and the L'Aquila Case
4.1 Conflict of Social Identity and the Importance of Historical Context
4.2 Contributing and Interacting During Techno-Scientific Uncertainty
5. Normative and Non-Normative Conceptualizations of Expertise
Objectives and Core Themes
This paper examines the dynamics of expertise through the lens of the L'Aquila earthquake controversy, specifically investigating how normative and non-normative theoretical frameworks conceptualize the conflict between scientific authorities and lay experts. It seeks to understand the interplay of trust, social identity, and communication in high-stakes techno-scientific decision-making.
- Theoretical foundations of expertise in Science and Technology Studies (STS)
- Brian Wynne’s conceptualization of social identity and trust
- Collins and Evans' "Third Wave" of science studies and the Study of Expertise and Experience (SEE)
- The clash between certified scientists and lay-experts in the L'Aquila earthquake case
- The role of interactional expertise in bridging knowledge gaps
Excerpt from the Book
3.1 Misunderstood Misunderstanding
Brian Wynnes (1992) case study Misunderstood Misunderstanding: Social identities and public uptake of science was published in the context of various literature assessing wide spread assumptions about the public understanding of science. The case focuses on responses of Cumbrian sheep farmers to scientific advice after the restrictions introduced after radioactive cesium, fallen on their land after the meltdown of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, contaminated their grazing land. Wynne identifies several elements that lead to a deep mistrust towards the scientists and therefore, a lack of credibility of the experts. He reveals that the scientists discounted the knowledge of the local lay-men even though they had valuable information about the radioactive contamination. Furthermore, the scientists do not communicate with the sheep farmers on a clear and eye-to-eye basis. At first they deny any effects from the Chernobyl nuclear disaster but, nonetheless, a ban on the sheep was instated by the government. The scientists claimed that the radiation would quickly disperse which was based on wrong assumptions, again, creating more distance between the farmers and the scientists.
Wynne identifies the reason behind the distrust as a gradually escalating conflict between the scientists and the farmers due to both the scientists’ rejection of the well-established lay-knowledge of the farmers and a historical context of previous, unresolved incidents with ‘scientific experts’ experienced by the farmers. Wynne argues that the conflict was not due to a lack of scientific education but rather a lack of trust and credibility based on a wide range of factors from past and present actions.
Chapter Summaries
1. Introduction: Provides an overview of the L'Aquila earthquake, the subsequent legal controversy involving the "L'Aquila Seven," and the emerging global debate regarding science-society relations.
2. Research Question: Establishes the core research focus on how normative and non-normative approaches within STS conceptualize the dynamics of expertise in the context of the L'Aquila controversy.
3. Basic Assumption of Expertise in Key STS Literature: Explores the theoretical backgrounds of Brian Wynne’s perspective on social identity and trust, contrasted with the Collins and Evans framework on expertise and experience.
4. Expertise and the L'Aquila Case: Applies the previously discussed STS theories to the L'Aquila case to analyze the conflict between scientists and the lay-technician Gioacchino Giampaolo Giuliani.
5. Normative and Non-Normative Conceptualizations of Expertise: Synthesizes the findings to conclude that both approaches highlight the need for improved communication, while offering different temporal and predictive perspectives on expertise.
Keywords
STS, Expertise, L'Aquila, Science and Technology Studies, Social Identity, Trust, Credibility, Brian Wynne, Collins and Evans, Lay-Expertise, Interactional Expertise, Techno-scientific Uncertainty, Science-Society Relations, Risk Assessment, Controversy
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the central focus of this paper?
The paper examines the role of techno-scientific expertise during disasters, using the L'Aquila earthquake as a case study to explore how different theoretical frameworks in STS interpret the conflict between experts and the public.
What are the primary theoretical themes covered?
The work centers on the tension between normative approaches (like Collins and Evans' "Third Wave") and non-normative/descriptive approaches (like Brian Wynne's focus on social identity and trust).
What is the main research question?
The study asks how normative and non-normative approaches to the understanding of expertise conceptualize the L'Aquila controversy.
Which scientific methodology is employed?
The author uses a comparative theoretical analysis, applying established STS literature (Wynne, 1992; Collins and Evans, 2002) to an empirical case study (the L'Aquila earthquake trial).
What aspects of the L'Aquila case are analyzed?
The analysis focuses on the distrust between the "L'Aquila Seven" (certified scientists) and Gioacchino Giampaolo Giuliani (a lay-technician), as well as the failures in communication and institutional responsibility.
What are the key takeaways regarding expertise?
The paper concludes that while different theories provide unique angles, both emphasize that successful knowledge transfer requires a level playing field and effective communication, though they differ on whether expertise should be analyzed descriptively or prescribed.
How does the author interpret the role of the technician Gioacchino Giampaolo Giuliani?
Giuliani is treated as a "lay-scientist" who lacked the interactional expertise to communicate effectively with established scientific institutions, despite potentially possessing local contributory knowledge.
What is the "Third Wave" of science studies mentioned?
It refers to the framework by Collins and Evans, which moves beyond simple description to a more normative approach aimed at helping decision-makers identify expertise in real-time, despite the criticisms that this might create new, artificial boundaries.
- Quote paper
- B.A. Stefan Raß (Author), 2017, Disaster and the role of techno-scientific expertise. The case of the earthquake in L’Aquila, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1001844
