![Logo for [VertigO] La revue électronique en sciences de l’environnement](/en/journals/vertigo/logo.jpg){kind=logo}
Abstracts
Résumé
Cet article propose une vision des démarches d’évaluation de l’adéquation de la connaissance scientifique dans des situations d’incertitude forte et irréductible en recourant à des processus délibératifs élargis. Dans l’optique de la Science Post-Normale, la démarche s’appuie, d’un point de vue épistémologique, sur l’articulation des approches scientifiques et de sciences sociales pour définir la qualité intrinsèque de la connaissance et sa pertinence dans des contextes sociaux, culturels et politiques différents.
Cet article présente un outil de contrôle de la qualité de la connaissance et de « bonnes pratiques » scientifiques (NUSAP). La question de la pertinence de la connaissance, qu’elle soit scientifique ou vernaculaire, s’intègre dans un processus multidimensionnel délibératif, associant divers acteurs, critères, échelles, sites… et portant sur les indicateurs et sur les orientations politiques à travers la Foire Kerbabel™ aux Indicateurs et la Matrice Kerbabel™ de Délibération.
Mots-clés:
- Incertitude,
- Délibération,
- Qualité de la Connaissance,
- Pertinence,
- Indicateurs
Abstract
Knowledge Quality Assessment is an essential activity in the science-policy and science-society interfaces regarding complex (environmental) problems where decisions will need to be made before conclusive scientific evidence is available while high decision stakes, high systems uncertainties and values in dispute characterize these problems. In the past decennia analytical diagnostic tools have been developed and used such as the NUSAP system, to assess and make explicit internal strength of knowledge claims. In such an enlarged deliberative process, analytic diagnostic tools can facilitate a reflective deliberative discourse (KerbabelTM Deliberation Support Tools). It can improve the knowledge base for decision making by promoting the exchange of information, and in particular by making available key insights from local and ‘lay’ knowledge of relevant topics.
Keywords:
- Uncertainty,
- Deliberation,
- Quality Assessment,
- Pertinence,
- Indicators
Appendices
Bibliographie
- Barnes, B., Edge, D. (Eds), 1982. Science in Context: Readings in the Sociology of Science, Milton Keynes, Open University Press.
- Craye, M., et al., 2005. A reflexive approach to dealing with uncertainties in environmental health risk science and policy, International Journal for Risk Assessment and Management, 5, 2, 216-236.
- Douguet J.-M., O’Connor M., van der Sluijs J.P., à paraître, Tools to assess uncertainty in a deliberative perspective. A Catalogue, A. Pereira Guimaraes & S. Funtowicz (eds), Science for Policy: Opportunities and Challenges, Oxford University Press, India.
- Funtowicz ,S.O., Ravetz, J.R., 1993. Science for the Post-Normal Age, Futures, 25, 735-755.
- Funtowicz, S.O., Ravetz, J.R., 1990. Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy, Dordrecht: Kluwer.
- Guimarães Pereira, Â., Blasques, J., Corral Quintana, S., Funtowicz, S., 2003. TIDDD – Tools To Inform Debates Dialogues & Deliberations: The GOUVERNe Project at the JRC. European Commission, Ispra, EUR 21880 EN.
- Janssen, P.H.M., et al., 2005. A guidance for assessing and communicating uncertainties. Water science and technology, 52, 6, 125–131.
- Nowotny, H., 1999. The place of people in our knowledge, European Review, 7, 2, 247–262.
- O’Connor, M., 2006. Building knowledge partnerships with ICT? Social and technological conditions of conviviality, in Guimarães Pereira, Â, Guedes Vaz, S., Tognetti, S., Interfaces between Science and Society, Sheffield, Greenleaf Publishing.
- O’Connor, M., 2004. The Kerbabel Indicator Dialogue Box (v.3), C3ED Research Report, C3ED, University of Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, November 2004.
- O’Connor, M., 2002. Greening the Cube, C3ED Research Report, C3ED, University of Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, France.
- O’Connor, M., 1999. Dialogue and Debate in a post-normal practice of science: a reflexion, Futures¸ 31, 671-687.
- Petersen, A. C., Janssen, P. H. M., van der Sluijs, J. P., Risbey, J. S., and J. R. Ravetz, RIVM/MNP Guidance for Uncertainty Assessment and Communication: Mini-Checklist & Quickscan Questionnaire, Bilthoven, The Netherlands: RIVM/MNP. ISBN 90-6960-105-1, 2003.
- Ravetz, J., 2005. The Non-Sense Guide to Science, London, New Internationalist Publications.
- Risbey, J., et al., 2005. Application of a Checklist for Quality Assistance in Environmental Modelling to an Energy Model, Environmental Modelling & Assessment, 10, 1, 63-79.
- Saltelli, A., et al., 2004. Sensitivity Analysis in Practice: A Guide to Assessing Scientific Models, John Wiley & Sons publishers.
- Saltelli, A., et al., 2000. Sensitivity Analysis John Wiley & Sons publishers, Probability and Statistics series.
- Van der Sluijs, J.P., 2005a. Uncertainty as a monster in the science policy interface: four coping strategies, Water science and technology, 52, 6, 87–92.
- Van der Sluijs, J.P., Risbey J. S., Ravetz J., 2005b. Uncertainty Assessment of VOC Emissions from paint in the Netherlands using the NUSAP System, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 105, 229-259.
- Van der Sluijs, J.P., 2002. A way out of the credibility crisis of models used in integrated environmental assessment, Futures, 34, 133–146.
- Van der Sluijs, J.P., 1997. Anchoring amid uncertainty; On the management of uncertainties in risk assessment of anthropogenic climate change, Ph.D. Thesis, Utrecht University, 1997, 260 pp.
- Van der Sluijs, J. P., et al., 2002. Uncertainty assessment of the IMAGE/TIMER B1 CO2 emissions scenario, using the NUSAP method. Dutch National Research Program on Climate Change, Bilthoven, 2002, 225 pp. (available from www.nusap.net).
- Van der Sluijs, J. P. et al., 2003. RIVM/MNP Guidance for Uncertainty Assessment and Communication: Detailed Guidance Utrecht University & RIVM.
- Van der Sluijs, J.P., et al., 2005. Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Measures of Uncertainty in Model based Environmental Assessment: the NUSAP System, Risk Analysis, 25 (2). 481-492