Blok Anders, Jensen Mette, Kaltoft Pernille
Department of Policy Analysis, Danish Environmental Research Institute, Roskilde, Denmark.
Public Underst Sci. 2008 Apr;17(2):189-209. doi: 10.1177/0963662506070176.
Expert-based environmental and health risk regulation is widely believed to suffer from a lack of public understanding and legitimacy. On controversial issues such as genetically modified organisms and food-related chemicals, a "lay-expert discrepancy" in the assessment of risks is clearly visible. In this article, we analyze the relationship between scientific experts and ordinary lay citizens in the context of risks from pesticide usage in Denmark. Drawing on concepts from the "sociology of scientific knowledge" (SSK), we contend that differences in risk perception must be understood at the level of social identities. On the basis of qualitative interviews with citizens and experts, respectively, we focus on the multiple ways in which identities come to be employed in actors' risk accounts. Empirically, we identify salient characteristics of "typical" imagined experts and lay-people, while arguing that these conceptions vary identifiably in-between four groups of citizens and experts. On the basis of our findings, some implications for bridging the lay-expert discrepancy on risk issues are sketched out.
基于专家的环境与健康风险监管普遍被认为缺乏公众理解和正当性。在诸如转基因生物和与食品相关的化学品等有争议的问题上,风险评估中“外行与专家的差异”清晰可见。在本文中,我们分析了丹麦农药使用风险背景下科学专家与普通外行公民之间的关系。借鉴“科学知识社会学”(SSK)的概念,我们认为必须在社会身份层面理解风险认知的差异。分别基于对公民和专家的定性访谈,我们关注身份在行动者风险描述中被运用的多种方式。从实证角度看,我们确定了“典型”想象中的专家和外行的显著特征,同时认为这些概念在四类公民和专家群体之间有明显差异。基于我们的研究结果,勾勒了一些弥合风险问题上外行与专家差异的启示。