Technical Example Building

Technical Example Building
Deliverable : 2b
Title : Technical Example
Building
WP : 2
Dissemination level : PP
Authors :
Kristin Asdal, Gerald Beck, Irene Brickmann, Cordula Kropp
In cooperation with: Liam Heaphy, Danny Richards, Albena
Yaneva, Eduardo Camacho-Huebner, Valerie November
st
Delivery Date : December 31 , 2009
1
Table of Contents
1 Framing, wording and modeling: Re-inventing controversies ............................................ 3 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 3 1.2 Framing non-controversy............................................................................................ 4 1.3 From controversial science to scientific controversies ............................................. 14 2 Alternative Visualizations of Data from the Risk Cartography.......................................... 21 2.1 The Controversy on Dietary Supplements in Parametric Modelling ......................... 21 2.2 Dietary Supplements visualized by the Space Explorer ........................................... 25 2.3 Lessons learned from Alternative Mapping Experiments ......................................... 29 3 Evaluative hints about Risk-Cartography from users at the Venice Meeting ................... 30 4 General Reflections about articulating controversies ....................................................... 31 4.1 Distribution................................................................................................................ 31 4.2 Development ............................................................................................................ 33 4.3 Involvement .............................................................................................................. 33 4.4 What is at stake? ...................................................................................................... 34 4.5 Knowledge Claims .................................................................................................... 35 4.6 General summary for future controversy-mapping ................................................... 35 5 References ....................................................................................................................... 36 Preface
This deliverable consists of two major parts. The first part (Chapter 1; by Asdal in
cooperation with Rem) discusses the role of controversies in the history and philosophy of
science. The second part, (Chapters 2-4; by Beck, Brickmann, Kropp) reports the further
work of WP2 about technical example building and lessons learned from the MACOSPOL
project.
2
1
1.1
Framing, wording and modeling: Re-inventing controversies
Introduction
In the first deliverable from our work package, the main objective was to present and discuss
the work that had gone into the mapping tool of this specific work-package, namely the riskcartography. This second and last contribution will proceed doing this: present and discuss
the further development of the risk-cartography, with a particular focus on the exchanges and
technical and analytical developments that have been made possible through close
interaction and exchange with other work-packages.
However, in this second and last contribution, the objective is also to take “a step back”, and
reflect upon the tool/s for mapping controversies in relation to, on the one hand, the role of
controversies in the history and philosophy of science and traditions and approaches for
analyzing and grasping controversies within the field of science and technology studies
(STS) of which the MACOSPOL project is a part. On the other hand, what we will do is to
discuss and reflect upon the risk-cartography and the other mapping techniques and
strategies by contrasting these with other ways of making use of the web in re-presenting
comparable or similar techno scientific issues. As the food issue (food additives) is one of the
two topics of the risk-cartography, the example we have drawn from is the case of food. More
concretely, what we have done is to analyze the official Norwegian food-portal
(http://matportalen.no/). In order to reflect upon available techniques of mapping, we have
conducted a separate case-study, not only on the ways in which food issues are framed and
re-presented at the web-portal, but also of the process and the negotiations that have led up
to the ways in which food-issues are being made available to the general public.
The objective of these exercises have been to attend, critically and reflexively, one more time
and at one more place, to two of the central parts of the MACOSPOL project, - namely to
make shareable the research already done in STS as well as pointing to further challenges to
1
the development of mapping-techniques of controversies. Hence it seeks to revisit, if only a
very few, of the challenges of the interaction between science and politics in the European
knowledge-based society – and link these to the controversy-approach of MACOSPOL and
its philosophically and theoretically underpinning.
1
Cf. Mapping Controversies on Science for POLitics, project outline, p. 4.
3
1.2
Framing non-controversy
The point of departure of the MACOSPOL project is the assumption that society is made up
of and flourishing with techno scientific controversies, - and, moreover, that there are a range
of new possibilities, i.e. web-based tools, to make these controversies, - the models and the
frames they rest upon and are produced from, visible, traceable and/or to link them to their
material. On the one hand then, the challenge is to document, by way of mapping, these
controversies. On the other hand, describing and mapping, may also said to be taking part in
enacting controversies, it can be said to take part in producing the controversy-society (cf the
risk-society). Mapping then, is not merely neutral description; it is also a specific way of
acting and doing (cf. speech acts). So the question then is, - what does this kind of work
imply, how is it done and with what effects?
To begin with, one might ask: Why are these kinds of controversy-mappings thought of as
useful and relevant, in the first place? Isn’t the understanding that science is a societal
product, that science is of society a generally accepted fact, - a fact which also takes part in
informing or transforming the ways in which scientific findings and practices are made
available to the general public? When it comes to food-issues, this can be said to be
particularly relevant. Over the last two decades, food has developed into a highly contested
object or objects, - food has become politicized in new and extended ways, - or so it is often
2
argued. One of the food-controversies that came to pose particular challenges to public
authorities was the BCE-crisis and the ensuing decrease in the trust of food – as well as the
information about food and food related issues provided by public authorities. In the Nordic
countries, in Norway for instance, the Chernobyl accident had already posed somewhat
related challenges to public authorities - and served as an impetus for re-organizing and re3
forming policy as well as communication strategies. To what extent did this, in practice,
change the ways in which food as a technoscience/politicoscientific object is made present or
re-presented to the public?
In public communication about food, web-technologies have been taken into use in order to
help the general public navigate their ways around food-issues. In the Norwegian case, one
of the results is the so-called “Food portal” - a website opened in 2003 in order to
“present[s] consumer oriented information from public authorities and research
environments. The main focus of the portal is healthy and safe food” (
http://matportalen.no/Emner/om_matportalen). So what is this website, this platform or portal,
2
E.g. Marianne Elisabeth Lien and Brigitte Nerlich (eds.), The Politics of Food. Oxford and New York:
Berg 2007.
3
Kristin Asdal, Grensetraffikk. Nedslag i veterinærvesenets og matpolitikkens historie [Border traffic.
Tracing the history and politics of food], Unipub: Oslo 2005.
4
compared to the MACOSPOL platform in general, the risk-cartography in particular? How are
“food-issues” framed and enacted by this way of making use of web-based tools? And what
can we learn from analyzing this case, when it comes to possible and challenges to mapping
food-related controversies?
In the following, what we will do, is to present the finding of the case study of the web portal.
We’ll pursue this task in two stages: First, we want to explore the front-stage, i.e. the foodissue as it is presented at the portal. Second, we go backstage and trace some of the
negotiations and ways of reasoning behind what is presented.
4
According to the thesaurus, a portal is a main gate, which leads into a monumental building.
5
In this case, the building, which the gate led into, was the Norwegian food authorities. This is
a ‘building’ of endless rooms and a range of different offices. If we allow ourselves to press
the metaphor somewhat, there are many entrances to choose between, hence we can
understand why the portal had been established in the first place: Some had seen the need
for a main entrance, hence a portal, to a confusing building or field. Both consumers and
other commercial actors had difficulties in orienting themselves. The European food crisis
had led to a demand for more coordinated information from political authorities. There was
an increased focus on avoiding confusion among consumers about the stance and advise of
the governments on various food related issues. Hence, already the objective stands out as
somewhat different than the one of the Macospol platform and the integral risk-cartography:
The objective seems to have been to ‘clear out’ so to speak the science-politics relation.
Rather than presenting food issues as politico scientific imbroglios, the objective seems to
have been to make more clear-cut distinctions between science and politics.
6
The establishment of The Food Portal should also be seen in relation to a larger
recomposition of the politics and administration of food-issues, for instance the emergence of
a Norwegian Food Safety Authority in 2004. Here, a range of former separated offices was
assembled into one institution with the main responsibility for safe food. The new authority
was given the responsibility of running the food portal on behalf of the three ’food-ministries’:
The Ministry of Health, Fisheries and Agriculture and Food. Hence, the portal was linked up
with the ministries and made responsible for ‘drawing things together’ – to assemble the,
assumed, relevant facts and advises on food. Hence, rather than presenting food-issues by
way of making the models and the frames they rest upon and are produced from, visible,
4
Here we draw on Goffman as mobilised in Stephen Hilgartner,Science on stage. Expert advice as
public drama. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press 2000.
5
Kunnskapsforlagets blå ordbøker, Fremmedordbok. Aschehoug and Gyldendal Oslo 1978.
6
See Asdal, Kristin 2005,for this in relation to the establishment of the Food Safety Authority.
5
traceable and/or to link them to their material, the focus seems to be more on the end result,
on the advise and the conclusion.
In attending to the first stage, - the front stage, the question we want to pose is, - what is the
web portal and the ways in which food-issues are framed and formatted doing to the foodissue/food issues? Let’s start with presenting the food portal at a randomly chosen day in
2008.
One day in the life of the The Food Portal (27.11.2008)
The portal was, as usual, composed of several relatively permanent parts. In addition comes
‘news’. These are changed up till several times a week. The main title at the main page is:
“The Food Portal. Information about food from public authorities.” At the top right side we can
find links to ”Map of the website”, ”About the foodportal”, “Contact” and “Newsletter”. In
“About the foodportal” we can find, in addition to the piece of information we already
presented above, that the portal is meant to be an entrance or an introduction to consumeroriented information and deal with risk assessments and suggestions for how to relate to risk
within the area of food. The reader is also informed that current dietary advise to the
population will be kept continuously updated at the portal. In addition, the reader is informed
about all the different offices and research institutes that provide materials to the portal.
To the left you can do your own searching. Here, you can write a word etc. and then you will
find all that is written on the portal on this subject. Below you can find four themes with
subthemes: “Learn more about food”, ”Dietary advise”, Important subject matters”, “Good to
know about food”. The subtheme to “Learn more about food is “Search in the Foodproduct
table”, “Download Food and Teaching materials”. As subthemes to ‘Dietary Advise’, you’ll
find; “Keyadvise to your diet, - What you should not eat, What you should be careful about,
What you should eat more of”. In addition you’ll find advise aimed at selected groups of the
population. The subthemes to “Important subject matters” are “Poisonous mussels?,
Contagions, Extraneous matters [Fremmedstoffer], Nutrients, Additives, Biological poisons,
Gene-modified food stuff, Sick from food?, Food labeling, Ecological Food, Packing and
food, Hygiene and food, Food and Health” and finally “Dietary surveys”.
Linked to ”Good to know about food”, one of the themes you will find are ”What is functional
foods”. In addition there are links to “The right way of storing fruits and vegetables”, “Does
ecological food taste better?”, “Slaughtering, “culture and religion”.
Except for the three last ones, all these elements are part of the frame of the portal, hence
relatively permanent. The content to which they are linked however, may change. At the
bottom left, you’ll find the e-mail address to the editorial board of the portal. Hence, the portal
cannot simply be traced back or ‘reduced’ to the institution/s behind the portal. The portal is
6
also, to some extent, to be compared to a web-newspaper with editors. However, the editors
are not autonomous or “free” to write whatever they want – the content of the portal needs to
be negotiated. Hence, in this sense the portal, contrary to the Macospol platform, is equipped
with a series of gates, which the editors need to bypass before having anything posted.
At the top right side where you’ll find a field for news, today’s top news is about hygiene and
the preparation of food. Apart from this there are four themes at the right side: “Ask an
expert, “What’s on?”, “From the media” and ”News from the sciences”. Today’s question to
the expert is “What is the correct fridge temperature?” The question is linked up with earlier
asked questions.
At the centre stage of the page you will also find news. This day you can find five different
“news” or topics: “The teaching materials to be used in the data program on food is revised”,
“The project ‘Health for immigrants’ share the ‘Nutrition Prize of 2008”, “Vitamins and
minerals, not too little, not too much”, “Herbs for pleasure and utility” and “Last update on
mussels 2008”.
7
As referred to above, the background for why The Food Portal was established in the first
place, was that food issues in many ways had become not only highly contested and
politicized, - food had also become a risk-issue. Consumers were worried, not only about
how to eat healthy, they were also, due to a range of food-scandals, worried about how to
avoid risky food; food that could produce diseases. At the same time food had (re)become
linked to its way of being produced. Hence, questions around “slow food” versus “fast-food”,
ecological versus conventionally grown food, free range chicken versus “cage chickens”
were general matters of concern. The Food Portal however, presents a radical contrast to
such a “messy” and controversial picture. On the one hand the portal frames itself as an allencompassing portal; that the portal covers all aspects of food and food issues. This, in the
next turn, takes part in re-presenting the food issue as a controlled subject matter, indeed
under administrative control (by government). The flat, documenting approach adds to this;
the website is framed almost like a dictionary or a storehouse of information. But how does
one approach or read a dictionary? Normally not for fun, or because one is very engaged in a
case, or attracted to a subject matter, but to sort out the established facts. This again is
exactly the way in which the Food portal presents itself: As a portal to a storehouse of facts.
Hence, food, is not at all presented like an issue, or a matter of concern - it is rather
presented like a set of facts – and not so much facts about “food” as facts about “diet”: What
consumers ought to know about food before they eat. Hence, “food” is framed, or so it
7
The description of the portal and the ensuing interviews have been conducted by Silje Rem. See
unpublished manuscript of January 2009.
7
seems, as a question of the right form of nutrition. Food then, seems to be, to a large extent,
equaled with nutrition, - and not any form of nutrition, but human nutrition.
There is more to it. Pointing to that the Food portal is concerned with “facts” – and facts on
nutrition, rather than, for instance, food as a complex indeed contested issue, does not
sufficiently characterize the format of the portal and what it does to food. The facts seem to
be carefully selected, - they seem to be something we could call “general facts” or maybe we
could call it “consensus-facts”. By this we mean that the facts presented do not so much
have the character of being strong statements about food or nutrition. Rather they appear as
“negotiated facts”. They appear as information to the consumer about facts which all the
relevant actors behind the Food portal have been able to reach an agreement on, or rather,
what no one would object to.
Take for instance the statement regarding vitamins and minerals: “not too little, not too
much”, followed by a separate article/longer piece of information about why this is so. Taken
together, the site enacts non-controversy. Hence, this is the complete opposite of the
MACOSPOL platform and, for instance, the risk cartography on food supplements where the
point is to map the different, indeed conflicting, statements and objects involved, as well as
point to where these come from and what these statements imply.
Similarly to the risk-cartography and the MACOSPOL platform in more general, the Food
portal is meant to involve the consumer/the interested actor, - in the very specific sense that
you can “clique” yourself around on the web. However, contrary to the MACOSPOL platform
and the risk cartography, you are not guided into or allowed into the complexities of food or
the different offices, stakeholders or argumentative landscape. Actually, you are only to a
very little extent led anywhere or out of the governmental accepted sites or spaces. By way
of reading the Food portal, the reader is not being shown that there are diverging opinions
and she is not being led into the negotiations that must have led up to the presented facts.
Hence, what we get is non-controversies and ”flat facts”. Hence, the consumer is instructed
rather than engaged. The end result may very well be that the consumer is disinvolved as
well as the responsibility to inform about the correct facts are handed over to the authorities –
Or, as Noortje Marres has put it; No issue, no public.
1.2.1
8
Non-controversy in the making
As noted above, mapping is not merely neutral description, it is also a specific way of acting
and doing. As we have sought to demonstrate above, the framing takes part in producing the
8
Noortje Marres, No Issue, No Public, Ipskamp Printpartners, Amsterdam 2005.
8
character of a controversy, or – as in our case, may take part in producing non-controversy.
9
It takes work to enact and map the political – hence controversy and contestation. However,
it also takes work to produce non-controversy.
10
So what is the work that goes into the
making of such non-controversy? Let’s go backstage, - to the negotiations and ways of
reasoning that has led up to the Food portal and its way of doing food-facts.
The responsible editor of the Food-portal is the communication director of the Food Safety
Authority. The advisory board to the Food portal consists of the communication directors of
the ”Food-ministries” plus the communication director of the Food Safety Authority.
According to the editor, there had been (until that point in 2006/2007) only a few meetings
and the advisory board had been relatively passive when it came to the ways in which the
portal had been formed. This had lead to a certain form of uncertainty regarding the authority
of the editors. (But there is also an editorial forum consisting of representatives from the
different offices that contribute to the portal)
So what is the history behind, the back stage story, to a piece of text at the Food portal?
Often, the editors have to ask and engage the different offices into making them come up
with materials for the portal. It is a kind of work that not always makes it to the top of the list.
As the editor puts it: “We call and disturb and send mails”.
11
Some potential contributors are
very pressed on time. They want to contribute, but do not find the time for it. ”I don’t think it
helps that they see that this is an important and good communication tool”…What they need
are resources.
12
Sometimes there is disagreement about what should be made present at the portal, a matter
which causes a lot of frustration: ”…in the worst cases the case goes back and forth, back
and forth, until it has become too old”. The editor tells that things, which would have been
interesting to the media, must be taken out, because it is too controversial.
13
Some of the
institutions are more careful than the others regarding what should be made public and
present – and a single case needs to pass all the way to the top-management. This is timeconsuming, and along the way, for each gate the case needs to pass, the case becomes less
interesting. One could add then, that the result, it seems, also is that the portal is filled with a
range of relatively non-relevant facts. The storehouse is shrinking and equipped with non-
9
See Andrew Barry, Political Machines. Athlone Press 2001.
10
Kristin Asdal, “On Politics and the Little Tools of Democracy: A Down-to-Earth Approach”,
distinktion. Scandinavian Journal of Social Theory, no 16 2008 p. 11-26.
11
Interview editor 3.10.2006.
12
Interview editor 3.10.2006.
13
Interview editor 3.10.2006.
9
interesting and non-controversial objects. Hence, food issues, we would argue, are not
framed as lively, but rather trivial affairs.
The situation is also frustrating to the editor who would have liked the Food portal to relate to
the consumers somewhat differently: ”I think there is a bit too much anxiety. There is a
tendency to underestimate the consumers. What they need is simply to get a little help in
14
taking their own decisions. One does not need to feed them with tea-spoons”.
Thus there seems to be two parallel lines of working that together take part in producing the
food portal as a form of non-controversial space: One the hand the series of gates or doors
each case needs to pass before, finally, entering the portal. On the other hand the lack of
gates, or discussion and established framework for producing issues for the portal. Hence,
both an empty or uncertain space as well as a tightly woven net which is difficult and time
consuming to pass, take part in producing non-controversy. The end product is a field, which
becomes, constantly, narrowed down for the benefit of staying at a kind of ‘middle-track’.
15
This again, is a space, which allows for a kind of ‘clean and easy’ counseling; instructing the
consumer what to do on issues that are not the topic of too much dispute.
The sensitivity that is developed from within the administrators of the board then, seems to
be to stay away from subject matters and forms of framing that may stand out as political and
controversial or, to put it differently, to stay away from ‘hot potatoes’. And if the editors,
nevertheless, go for a somewhat possibly tense issue, there are immediate reactions from
the contributors.
16
An example is the gene-modified food, an issue which, according to the editor, is more or
less locked. “We presented what there is on the portal, almost trembling”. The reason is that
the field is so political, and the available information so vague. Thus, this is the complete
opposite logic underpinning MACOSPOL: Precisely because the field is so tense, or so hot,
and the science and politics not yet stabilized, the topic would be seen as particularly
relevant for a mapping exercise. Hence, what the food portal seeks to avoid, a mapping
controversy approach would be to immediately start mapping.
The administrators of the food portal see a need for careful balancing when it comes to
political issues. As the editor sees it, the food portal should not bee too political, because
politicians and politics change, and what is presented at the website should present what
public authorities stand for – independently of such changes. Thus, the portal should
14
Interview editor 3.10.2006.
15
Interview editor, 3.10.2006.
16
Interview editor, 20.06.2007.
10
represent a kind of god’s eye perspective, - facts unsituated in concrete and timely
practices.
17
The effect of that however, is also seen as problematic, as this easily leads to
non-controversy and, they acknowledge, a less interesting portal.
The risk is that the food-area becomes too narrow and uninteresting if the cases that are
presented lacks any form of political edge. On the other hand the editors are very conscious
that making the portal into what they would consider an arena for for politics, - hence, a
politicized arena, would lead to a lack of legitimacy and trustworthiness.
18
To hinder the
media from picking cases from the portal, which they, in the next round, can blow out of
proportions and present as, scandals, topics are “washed” (for potential politics) before they
enter the site. The effect is that the media still picks news from the portal, but mostly in the
format of ‘information’.
The choice that has been made is what the editors call a careful line: Not to ”enlarge” cases,
but at the same time try not to hide away risks.
19
(Which, one could argue nevertheless is
what they end up doing). The reason, as they see it, is that the more they “sharpen” the
message, the more scared people get. Hence, it seems that the objective behind the portal,
is not to engage, but rather to ”comfort” and avoid people from being worried. At the same
time it seems to be acknowledged that it is exactly this line of working that may pose a
‘danger’ to the very platform: The main challenge, as the editors see it, is to keep up with
being interesting. This demands however, that they dear moving a bit more out on ’the edge’
than what is presently the case.
This does not mean that all issues are treated in completely the same flat non-controversial
way, - and examples of such more complex and tricky cases are Omega 3, sugar versus
sweeteners and salmon.
1.2.2
Framing and wording
In Science on Stage. Expert advice as public drama, Stephen Hilgartner analyses the
American National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and three of their reports on nutrition. NAS is
a crucial institution when it comes to giving scientific advice to the American state. NAS
establishes food panels which go into single issues of these have many features in common
with the Norwegian Scientific Committees that sort under the Food Control Authority.
17
Donna Haraway. “Situated knowledges. The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of
Partial Perspective in Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature, New York,
Routledge 1991.
18
Shared Interview 20.06.2007.
19
Shared interview 20.06.2007.
11
The notions Hilgartner makes use of, are Goffmans notions ‘front stage’ and ‘back stage’,
and is made to refer to all the negotiations going on backstage as the scientific expert
committees go into nutrition issues. Disagreement among researchers seldom rises to the
surface because the objective is to reach consensus. The same framing can be applied to
the Norwegian food portal. The portal is filled with presentation of facts, and apparently
“agreed” facts (with a few exceptions, for instance that there is uncertainty whether cod liver
oil is as healthy as one used to believe).
Hilgartner´s topic or interest is scientific or expert advice. This, however, is a relevant issue in
many of the different stages leading up to the end product where food issues (in our case)
are presented as isolated statements or facts. Scientific uncertainty for instance, is present in
various and different stages in the process of giving concrete advice. For instance, even if
one documents that the level of dioxin in salmon is ‘acceptable’ (which is one of the tricky
cases in the Norwegian Food portal context), which effects will the consumption of salmon
have, in practice, on human health?
Hilgartner argues that public authorities lean on scientific knowledge in order to legitimate
decisions and take part in moving issues out of the political domain. However, many
problems are complex “hybrids” of scientific and political character. So to what extent is this
possible? Are not the hybrids such a ‘bricolage’ that they do not allow for being “chopped up”
in such purified ways? Rather than seeking to purify, the acceptance that food-issues, for
instance, are politicoscintific imbroglios, is the point of departure for the mapping-controversy
approach.
How should we characterize, for instance, the claim of the Norwegian scientific committee
that one can eat four meals of fat fish a week, whereas the advice from the British Food
Agency is that girls and fertile women should eat no more than two meals of fat fish a week?
A range of the relevant topics could have been politicized or made into explicitly political
issues open for democratic discussion and debate.
20
And what about the very framing of the
issues? For instance, - is the level of environmental contaminants an isolated question of
nutrition? What about the pollution, which has caused the contamination in the first place?
Why do one decide upon an acceptable daily intake without at the same time taking action to
clean up the fish feed? The issue then, is not only the isolated facts, but also the framing, what kind of issue “food” is made to be. What is produced as external to the relevant issue,
and what is found place for within the established framing?
21
20
But a difference in the strategic use of expertise in the US setting (Hilgartner) and the reflexive and
open discussion in the Norwegian context.
21
Cf Michel Callon (eds.), The Laws of the Markets, Oxford: Blackwell 1998.
12
But not only the framing is crucial, - so is the wording: Which word that is chosen in order to
describe the relevant problem or issue, and which word or sentence that is put up front,
comes second, and maybe last. Hence, not only is it interesting to note what is silenced or
made external to scientific reports or “news” and manuscripts at the portal. So is the concrete
forming and formatting of the report, - the chosen texture so to speak. For instance, should
one write “it is not dangerous to….” Or rather “it is safe to eat…”.
The above points however, do not only pose challenges to the Food portal, but also to
strategies of mapping like the one pursued in the Macospol project as well: How to attend,
not only to the framing, but also the wording? There is a challenge in including the close
reading of text in order to grasp the texture; the ways in which semiotic resources go into the
making of objects and issues.
There is also another, related, side to this. In his study of expert advice, the focus of
Hilgartner is predominantly that of ‘seeking control’ or in strategic use of expertise. He sees
his experts and the relevant institution as active in trying to secure control over the situation
as well as the knowledge. This is not necessarily the fact when it comes to the portal we
have analyzed. When going back-stage of the food-portal, what becomes evident, is that
positions and statements are not stable and not always easy to locate within single
stakeholders or institutions. Rather, positions are also negotiated and somewhat ‘under
construction’. Single actors or stakeholders do not always identify in a straightforward way
with discrete clear-cut statements. Hence, a challenge to mapping is to develop tools and
approaches for making negotiated and unstable positions visible and traceable: How is the
wording developed? What are the minor transformations that go on, endlessly, in making and
remaking objects? How to make this visible and traceable by way of available tools for
mapping controversies? This is all the more important, since if not taking such elements into
account, - one may risk enacting positions as stable and ready made; - hence enforcing or
“freezing” controversies.
1.2.3
Salmon and fatty acids
In the case study on Food Safety and Nutrition, the purpose has been to analyze such
textual processes in relation to salmon and the risk versus the potential health benefits of
fatty acids. This has been done, for instance in relation to the question touched upon above:
What ought to be presented first in a report on this issue; - the risk-aspects or the more
positive nutritional sides (in this case, salmon).
22
22
See Guro Skarstad, ”Balancing Fish: A meeting between Food Safety and Nutrition in an
Assessment of Benefits and Risks”in distinktion. Scandinavian Journal of Social Theory, no. 16. 2008.
13
We will return to this issue in a related manner in the following section, where we will explore
different approaches to the study of scientific controversies within the field of science and
technology studies. One of the purposes of doing this is, on the one hand, to outline some of
the different ways in which controversies have been approached within this field of research.
On the other hand we seek to make use of this in order to single out a set of possible
challenges when mapping controversies in a manner that speaks to core issues in material
semiotics and actor-network-theory.
1.3
From controversial science to scientific controversies
It is nothing special in arguing that controversy plays a crucial role to science. Philosophers
and sociologists of science, like Karl Popper for instance, attend to the role of controversies
in science. To Popper disagreement and critique is understood as the driving forces of
science, however its function is to solve mistakes and eliminate disagreement, hence move
science forward.
23
When it comes to Thomas Kuhn and his influential book ”The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions” published in 1962, this of course opened for that scientific
development could not be studied and understood by so called rational or factors internal to
science alone.
24
However, he himself did not really try to analyze these factors.
Within the field of Science and Technology Studies, the suggestion to give scientific
controversies more attention, indeed to develop the study of scientific controversies into
more of a research program within this field, has emerged at several points in the last thirty
years. One early example is the studies conducted by Dorothy Nelkin in the late 1970ies and
25
80ies.
Nelkin however, studied primarily the ways in which science and scientific experts
were perceived, and why. She does not go into the scientific knowledge production or the
work of the scientists as such.
26
Besides Harry Collins´ work, inspired by Mary Douglas,
another early example of studies of controversies that has been given attention, is Gerald E.
23
Se Thomas Brante, Steve Fuller, William Lynch (eds) Controversial science. From content to
contention.State University of New York Press, Albany 1993.
24
Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago
1962.
25
See for example Dorothy Nelkin (ed) Controversy. Politics of Technical Decisions. Beverly Hills
California. Sage Publications 1979 (reprinted many times) and Dorothy Nelkin, “Controversies and the
Authority of Science” in H. Tristram Engelhardt & Arthur L. Caplan (eds) Scientific Controversies:
Case Studies in the Resolution and Closure of Disputes in Science and Technology, Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press 1987.
26
For this discussion, see Göran Sundqvist, Vetenskapen och miljöproblemen – En Expertsociologisk
studie. Monograph from the Department of Sociology. University of Gothenburg, No. 46, page 132134.
14
Markle and James C. Petersen suggested protocol for the study of controversies in science
and technology, - published in Science, Technology and Human Values in 1981.
In the following we will turn to what we can label the Swedish tradition for the study of
scientific controversies and then next compare and contrast this approach to actor-networktheory and more recent takes on scientific controversies. In 1993, a group of STS-scholars
(Brante, Fuller and Lynch), published the book Controversial science. From content to
contention. The most interesting contribution from a controversy-study perspective is the
contribution of one of the editors, the Swedish scholar Thomas Brante. In his article,
“Reasons for Studying Scientific and Science-Based Controversies” he argued for a set
specific as well as more general reasons why scientific controversies, at this point, the first
half of the 1990ies, were a crucial object of study.
27
One the one hand he, leaning on Peter
Weingart, pointed to the so-called scientization of society: Society had, to an increasing
extent, become dependent upon scientific knowledge. At the same time, he argued, science
had become more politicized, - in the sense that science had, to an increasing extent,
become enrolled in larger governmental programs. Hence, knowledge production was to a
large extent the result of commissioned research. Finally, and largely an effect of this,
experts were to an increasing extent disagreeing; controversies had escalated.
The argument put forward by Brante is that rather than seeing controversies (which has
always, to some extent been part of science), as something irrational, scientific controversies
could be said to reflect something more profound about the very nature of science. Thus,
this can be said to be the general, ‘timeless’ reason for studying science.
28
This again should
be seen on the background of Durkheimian sociology of knowledge, in which all knowledge
claims are seen as socially constituted.
29
Hence, if one wants to understand the nature of science, controversies need to be taken
seriously as objects of study. In another contribution, an additional argument for the study
controversies was put forward, namely that as controversies break open, so do positions,
lines of reasoning and beliefs that normally do not reach the surface or are made explicit.
30
27
But see also Thomas Brante and Margareta Hallberg: Brain or Heart? The Controversy over the
Concept of Death, Social Studies of Science, 1991, 21 pp. 289-313.
28
Thomas Brante, “Reasons for Studying Scientific and Science-Based Controversies” in Thomas
Brante, Steve Fuller, William Lynch (eds) Controversial science. From content to contention.State
University of New York Press, Albany 1993, p. 184.
29
See Göran Sundqvist, Vetenskapen och miljöproblemen – En Expertsociologisk studie. Monograph
from the Department of Sociology. University of Gothenburg, No. 46. – in which he traces this
Durkheimian tradition from Durkheim, Mary Douglas, Harry Collins, The Strong Programme and
Thomas Brante´s version of controversy studies.
30
See Thomas Brante, unpublished manuscript.
15
Hence, controversies are particularly valuable if one are to understand the ‘real’ or the
deeper, dynamics of science.
In sum, in his article, Brante pointed out a range of reasons for studying controversies: Firstly
because this provides an alternative to the conventional, rationalist research programs,
secondly because this opens a road to the (underlying) assumptions on which science is
based. Or, to put it differently, controversy is seen as a way of making the tacit explicit. A
third reason relates closely to this, as it has to the with the ways in which controversies also
may disclose emotions and indignations – thus provide a basis for the study of the norms
that operate in science. Another, fourth, reason, is parallel to the symmetry-criteria of the
strong program: The strength of a controversy study is its detached relation to the object of
study. To attain and preserve ‘neutrality’ is seen as a goal. Fifth, it allows for ‘naïve’
questions, which a more rationalist approach do not. For instance, - “If scientists build on
objective scientific questions, how is disagreement possible?”. The study of controversies
was also seen as a potentially fruitful remedy against hiding oneself away in academic ivory
towers and instead prove oneself (and the field) politically relevant: A social science that
“directly links modern science to the surrounding social context”.
31
Moreover, the sheer
quantity of controversies made them an interesting phenomena per se.
The above is linked up with Alan Mazur´s claim – that just as historians used to chart the
course of empires by tracing the links from one war to another, one could write a passable
history of modern science by linking the great theoretical and experimental controversies.
32
Linked to this relevance-argument is the next argument, which is that the study of
controversies may also cast light upon the role of scientific expertise in modern welfare
states.
However, in turning to this approach, we have to buy into another approach to science,
namely a shift from (for instance) functionalist perspectives, to a conflict perspective. This
conflict perspective however, comes with what we can label a classic sociological frame, in
the sense that conflicts are seen to be upheld by various groups holding contending
interests. This conflict and social group perspective is, in the next turn, applied to science:
The order of scientific communities is not primarily sustained by cognitive agreements and
shared values, but factors like control over career paths, general relations of domination and
subordination. The same perspective is applied, in Brantes contribution, to the individual
31
Thomas Brante, p. 188.
32
Allan Mazur.The Dynamics of Technical Controversy. Communications Press, Washington D.C,
1981.
16
level: The dynamics of science can not be derived from scientists´s altrustic will to search for
truth, but rather from ‘the will to power, from competition and the urge to defeat rivals.
33
Thus, this approach to the study of controversy, should be seen as a way of adding or
offering, a new object of study, namely science and scientific controversies, to a classical
sociological framework and already established concepts like social groups and interests. It
is worth noting, that this “power driven” interpretative framework for the understanding of
scientific knowledge, coincides with trends in classical sociology when it comes to the study
of professions. The study of professions had, at this point, already for a long time been an
important tradition of study both within the discipline of history and sociology. Towards the
end of the eighties, early 90ies, the ‘profession is the hunt-for power’ tradition within this field
of knowledge, was at its peak. However, this was a peak which was about to, or was at least
partly, about to be substituted with a more open approach which, to a larger degree, took an
interest in studying the relevant profession in its concrete situation and environment as well
as the content: the professions´s knowledge base.
And even if the subtitle of the book “From content to contention” of which Brante was one of
the editors, indicates a move away from the study of content, as do parts of Brante´s
program (in the sense that what he is after is the social positions that can take part in
explaining the controversy), the concrete case studies that were pursued did not necessarily
follow such lines. In an article published in Social Studies of Science with Margaretha
Hallberg, on the controversy of the definition of death, the very content of the various
positions is far more present.
34
Interestingly, the above book should, in several ways, be read as a reply and critique to the
laboratory studies and the actor-network-theory that had been developed a few years earlier
– and from which the mapping controversy project is inspired and to a large extent draws on.
Latour´s work was criticized both for representing an extreme position when it came to
interpreting science in power-terms (Brante), and at the same time for being too occupied
with content, thus depriving science studies for the sociological tools that could take part in
explaining science.
There are however, far more interesting similiarities as well as crucial differences between
the two traditions than the above authors were able to grasp or were pinpointed here.
The approaches that together constitute the ‘mapping controversies for politics’ are, in many
ways based upon comparable approaches and strategies – for instance when it comes to
33
Thomas Brante 1993, p. 185.
34
Thomas Brante and Margaretha Hallberg Margareta 1991, pp. 289-313.
17
tracing arguments, trajectories (time lines), sources and positions. The argumentative
landscape for instance provided by the risk-cartography, is a much related strategy. However
here, it becomes far more evident that the included actors are not only scientists, - but a
whole range of actors linked to various organisations, regulatory institutions etc. Thus, within
the risk-cartography science is not privileged - as has often been the case with more
conventional approaches to study controversies. Moreover, in carefully ‘spacing’ and ‘timing’
controversies (cf. the cooperation with Lausanne on dietary supplements, see part B of this
deliverable) narrative strategies that are available for academic writing, is not only sought
transferred but even reworked in the developed web-based tools. (The crucial difference
remaining nevertheless, that the cartography is not simply meant to be read by possible
future readers or actors – but to equip citizens and the public with tools for exploring as well
as doing their own mapping. This fundamental difference, hence the precise tools and the
development of these, is not the topic here, but discussed in more details in the other
deliverables, for instance part B here).
There is however a few crucial differences in the approaches, - which also raises interesting
challenges for how to map controversies. First and foremost, this has to do with the notion of
‘the social’. The Swedish approach places, as noted above, science within a classic
sociological framework and seeks to explain controversies by help of classical notions like
‘interests’. This approach however, is exactly what a material semiotic approach have sought
to do away with. Here, conventional sociological analysis and explanatory tools have been
rejected for the benefit of (among other things) studying the ways in which the technical and
the scientific takes part in composing, assembling hence constituting the social. Rather than
explaining by sociological notions and categories, the ambition has rather been to turn the
social, just as well as the technical and the scientific, into objects of empirical study.
Moreover, ‘power’ is not seen to relate so much to positions and the interests of social
groups, but has, just as much, to do with efforts in defining, shaping and transforming
objects.
Interest and the interested do not need to refer to interest theory, as in the Edinburgh-school
from which the Swedish approach to the study of scientific controversies is inspired. It can
rather refer to the notion of translation. Hence, the point of departure is not that interests are
stable or that groups have explicit goals, - it is rather the uncertainty regarding the
composition as well as existence of social groups that is interesting
35
- Taken together, -
interests should not be seen as explanatory tools, - they are not what can explain science
35
See Bruno Latour,The Pasteurization of France. Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
Massachusetts 1988, page 260, footnote 5.
18
and society, rather interests – as well as the social – is what will be explained.
36
Moreover,
when controversial issues emerge, this can not be understood in isolation from the relevant
issues/objects. This is related to why issues and ‘things’ are given specific attention, and not
only actors and positions, in the risk-cartography. Nevertheless, this remain something of a
challenge to mapping controversies on the map: How to pursue a form of mapping which
does not simply reproduce conventional sociological theories about positions and interests?
And how to map controversies while all the time keeping in mind, indeed tracing the ways in
which objects, and not only subjects and their propositions and arguments take part in and
are transformed, undergo modifications, throughout controversies.
There is also another interesting contrast to draw between the two outlined approaches to
studying controversies: The suggested Swedish research program and arguments for the
study of controversies, takes as its point of departure that controversies are situations of
clashes and confrontations, hence represent situations that, even if they happen more and
more often, do not go on all the time. As Brante put it in: In a controversy, the participants are
always highly aware of the situation and act from it, for instance by assembling resources for
the specific purpose of undermining the position of adversaries. Moreover, the argument is
that controversy creates interaction, - “thus it signifies convergent as well as divergent
tendencies between groups of antagonists regarding a common concern”. It is also pointed
to that a controversy has a certain endurance in time and space: In general it exists over a
longer period of time and divides groups of people.
The ‘French approach’, on the other hand, was developed from studies of “science-as-usual”.
- Hence, science is seen as genuinly characterized by controversies, and scientific
controversies is nothing “extra-scientific”. However, this is not necessarily controversies in
the form of open and explicit conflicts and not controversies in the sense that it involves well
defined groups or adversaries with ready made interests. As it was put already in the project
outline of MACOSPOL: The word ‘controversy’ refers to every bit of science and technology
which is not yet stabilized, closed or black-boxed; it does not mean that there is a fierce
dispute not that it has been politicized; we use it as a general term to describe shared
uncertainty. (When mapping controversies however, the label “hot” and “cold” controversies
have been introduced – implying that controversies that are ‘hot’, i.e. still active and have not
been resolved, are easier to map than ‘cold’ controversies). Science is moved by way of
interesting and enrolling and it is rather in the sense that scientific practices is transformative,
that it can also be said to be characterized by controversies. Thus controversies are not
36
See also Bruno Latour but also, for instance Bruno Latour, “Postmodern? No, Simply Amodern!
Steps towards an Anthropology of Science”, in Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 21.
1990 and John Law (eds) Science, Action and Belief. A New Sociology of Knowledge. Routledge and
Kegan Paul, London 1986.
19
necessarily explicit and do not necessarily involve clashing interests, rather it is the moves
that are the objects of analysis and scrutiny. This implies that the area open for controversymapping is radically enlarged; - however the challenge in demonstrating, making visible as
well as re-presenting transformations and modications is made equally challenging and
demands a great deal from the tools and equipment.
Even if derived from different forms of philosophical underpinning or reasoning the shared
understanding of the two proposed research programs for the study of controversies, is that
scientific controversies are the result of more science: More science does not produce more
agreement or certainty, but on the contrary: More science produces more controversies.
Controversies in science however, does not need to be linked to ‘our’ particular time, - to be
understood as the result of a specific science-public/politics relations today. As we have
pointed to, controversies can just as well be seen as a crucial side to scientific practice in
general. This again raises particular challenges for the mapping of controversies, - as
“timelines” and “backgrounds” will always need to downplay and hide some controversial
moments and issues, at the benefit of others. Making visible the ways in which past models
and frames plays into/or fold themselves into present controversies is a particular, but maybe
too ambitious challenge.Working on this historical dimension to the controversy has
nevertheless been an important part in thinking about the mapping and framing of the
controversy.
The line of development that we can draw from Dorothy Nelkins approach to the study of
controversies to the present approach, is the line from “controversial science” to “scientific
controversies”. Whereas the first approach was primarily concerned with the ways in which
various audiences looked upon science and how science became controversial, the latter
approach is more concerned with the practices of science. Hence, the relevant issue is rather
the ways in which science-as-usual is developed through controversies. The Swedish
approach (even if the book I have partly used to characterize this program goes, as such, in
many diverging directions), can be said to represent a position in between: As indicated in
the title, the strategy here is more to move from the study of scientific content per se for the
benefit of studying the ways in which science take part in controversies that can be socially
explained. But, it is not the positions of the general public that is sought explained, but rather
the positions and knowledge claims of the scientists involved.
Finally, when it comes to the public/s involved: The rationale behind MACOSPOL is the
lesson that ‘a public’, interested actors, are not always already there: Hence the platform is
not only to equip an already existing public, but a platform for enabling publics to emerge in
relation to the re-presentation of issues.
20
2
Alternative Visualizations of Data from the Risk Cartography
One task of WP2 was to test tools for visualization with the case studies of dietary
supplements and nano scale materials. Some first tests have been documented in D2a. For
D2b we decided to invest in cooperation with other work packages to see to what extent
visualisations of the data from the Risk Cartography with alternative tools result in new
insights and can integrate new aspects. This work can be understood as a step towards the
development of interfaces between mapping tools. In our experiments, the interfaces are
based on manual work, but for future projects software based solutions can learn from our
experiences.
This chapter will describe the effort of linking Risk-Cartography with the mapping approaches
from Manchester (2.1) and Lausanne (2.2). The final section will discuss lessons learned
from these experiments for further research on tools for visualizing controversy data (2.3).
2.1
The Controversy on Dietary Supplements in Parametric Modelling
The cooperation between WP5 (Manchester) and WP2 (Munich) has already been described
in D5b. In this chapter, we want to focus on some points that have been discussed after and
in relation to D5b.
2.1.1
Point of departure
In cooperation between the MACOSPOL Team in Manchester (Albena Yaneva, Liam
Heaphy, Danny Richards, Nick Dunn) and Munich (Gerald Beck, Cordula Kropp) the aim was
to produce an animated visual representation of the dietary supplements case study data.
The basis of the animation is the parametric modeling approach performed for the
controversy on the London Olympic Stadium by WP537.
Previously, the dietary supplements case study has been visualized with the help of the RiskCartography tool38. The visual appearance of the controversy in this tool is flat at the first
glance. The visualization is useful for structuring the controversy from a user’s perspective
and enables access to details and connections from different perspectives which is not easily
found in reports. Risk-Cartography has some weaknesses that have already been discussed
in the MACOSPOL project (cf. Deliverable 2a). The cooperation between Manchester and
Munich addressed especially two observations:
37
http://www.mappingcontroversies.net/Home/PlatformControversyDynamicsSim
38
http://riskcart1.wzu.uni-augsburg.de/
21
a) Users loose the “big picture” very fast when browsing deeper into the controversy
b) The position of the entities and the distance between them (e.g. between actors) do
not have a meaning
The first challenge is addressed in the new animation by introducing a “world view” (see
figure 1) that assembles all matters of concerns, actors and their connections on a single
sequence for the entire case study.
Figure 1: World View – actors and matters of concern in relation
39
The second point (meaningful distance between elements) happened to be more
challenging. The parametric modeling that the Manchester Team produced for the London
Olympic Stadium controversy showed the controversy in the media over time. The database
that is used by Risk Cartography does have a timestamp for every quotation but the
empirical approach has not focused on “time”. The aim was to show the controversy in its
broadness in a certain period of time (2006-2008), not in its dynamic over time. Time in a
more longtime oriented perspective has a special section in the Risk Cartography which is
static and not connected to the database (“chronology”). We decided that the new animation
would not have a time scale but would show the controversy from the perspectives of
39
Animation by Danny Richards, Liam Heaphy, Nick Dunn, Albena Yaneva.
http://www.mappingcontroversies.net/Home/PlatformDietarySupplemetsDynamicAnimation
22
“Concerns”. The distance between actors is calculated from the number of shared
statements. The distance between actors and the center is calculated from the amount of
quotations of the actor related to the concern.
2.1.2
Data transformation
We had to match the existing data with the new approach for visualization created by WP4.
Thus we needed to find an interface between the Risk Cartography database and the
modeling software used in Manchester.
The data of the food supplement case study is stored in a mysql database which is the core
of Risk Cartography. For the modeling we extracted the datasets for quotations (quoteID,
concernID, statementID, thingID) and the referring full text labels for actorID, concernID and
thingID. For future works, it would be useful to have a software interface that can connect the
animation database and the Risk-Cartography database in order to be able to quickly
generate animations from case studies already mapped in Risk-Cartography.
2.1.3
Interpretation
The “world view” gives an impression about the whole debate. We can see all the concerns
and all the actors at once. It might take some time for the user to get comfortable with all the
information at hand40 but it becomes obvious quite fast which actors are active in which
concerns.
In the single concern views the animation shows how actors are related to each other. In one
concern, two actors can be very close while they will be very distant in the next concern. For
participative processes these pictures can help planners to represent the whole spectrum of
actors. At the same time it can give an idea to what extent so-called “discourse coalitions”
are flexible or stabilized. The first concern of the animation “Can there be performanceenhanced effects in sports by dietary supplements?” (Figure 2) shows three clusters of
actors: two represent the industry (Herbalife, Neuform), one represents the state (Federal
Institute for Risk Assessment) and the three others are a University and two consumer
associations. Going through the entire animation, the user will find actors in different clusters.
There will be actors that tend to be in separate clusters but not in every concern.
This illustrates very nice what we often observe when we study controversies: It is mostly not
possible to make simple pro/con orders for actors in a controversy and every grouping of
actors is only one version of multiple possibilities that relates to one unique matter of
concern. Hence the mapping accentuates single-issue-associations and makes them
comparable to more far-reaching associations. These insights can also be valuable for
40
One difficulty results from the speed of the animation which is however manipulable.
23
stakeholders if they want to know which other actors support their arguments. Actors can find
out, what their position is in relation to other actors in relation to various concerns and they
can get an idea how they have to move in the controversy space to relate to others.
Compared to risk cartography the animation has the advantage to give this information at the
very first view and in an intuitive, visual representation. It might be worth discussing to use
the animation as a starting point in Risk-Cartography instead of the arbitrary assemblages
that are used at the moment.
Figure 2: Actors located around one concern
2.1.4
What do we have to take into account when we transform qualitative data
into quantitative visualizations?
As discussed in the technical report, we have to be very careful when we transfer qualitative
data into numbers. The style of dynamic animation produced by the team in Manchester
needs measurable variables like “time”, “scale”, “distance” or “size”. A scholar needs to have
this already in mind while doing research. In our case the numbers are derived from the
24
variables “quote” and “statement”. Statements are paraphrased quotations. The category of
statements allows us to summarize quotations from several actors or several quotations from
one actor. In practice, we coded interview transcripts and original documents from actors in
MAXQDA. Similar meanings in quotations were summarized in statements. For the
animation we wanted to show the “distance” between actors in a controversial space (as
suggested by the Lausanne Team in Deliverable D4a). Actors that share statements (via
quotations) are located closer to each other than actors that don not share statements. This
is already one step beyond a simple pro/con order because the use of “statements” allows us
to represent various opinions towards one concern. Still we have to be very careful in
calculating: Actors that have few quotations (in the database) are less likely to be close to
others than actors with a lot of quotations.
2.2
Dietary Supplements visualized by the Space Explorer41
In the second interface-experiment we wanted to generate a visualization of the controversy
on dietary supplements with the interactive tool “Space Explorer” (Figure 3). The tool has
been developed by WP4 (Lausanne) for visualizing the controversy on flooding in the area of
Geneva42. The Space Explorer visualizes data in four dimensions: time, scale, actors and
space. On this basis, WP4 (Valerie November, Abram Pointet) and WP2 (Irene Brickmann,
Gerald Beck, Cordula Kropp) developed a mapping approach that abstracts the concepts of
both tools in order to translate the data from Risk-Cartography into a format that can be
processed by the Space Explorer. Like in the cooperation with WP5 (see chapter 1.1) the
underlying interest is to show the possibility of creating interfaces between different
MACOSPOL tools, to explore thereby alternative mapping dimensions and, even more
important, to move towards a language of controversies that can be applicable for any
controversy.
The following chapters will describe our point of departure (2.2.1) and our ideas of visualizing
the dietary supplements controversy in the four sections of the Space Explorer tool: Time
(2.2.2), Scale (2.2.3), Actors (2.2.4) and Space (2.2.5).
41
The “Space Explorer” has been developed by the EPFL Team (Camacho-Huebner, November,
Pointet). http://www.mfsa.ch/fileadmin/projects/macospolm/
42
http://www.mfsa.ch/fileadmin/projects/macospol/
25
Figure 3: The Space Explorer Interface
2.2.1
Point of Departure
What does space mean in controversy mappings and what might be a controversy space?
These questions have been elaborated in MACOSPOL D4a 43. In this experiment WP2 and
WP4 wanted to develop further the notion of a – not necessarily geographical – controversy
space. Together with the Lausanne-team we chose a practical approach that uses the data
from the Munich dietary supplement case and the visualization strategy of the Space
Explorer.
First discussions in Lausanne at the mapping controversies workshop in May and at team
meetings in July showed the similarities and differences of the two database structures.
Nevertheless it appeared feasible to generate spatial visualizations of the dietary supplement
controversy. At the same time it became clear that geographical space does not play a
central role in this case study.
Thus we draw on the distinction between “localization” and “spatiality” that has been
introduced in D4a. Spatiality in that sense has to do with heterogeneity and similarity in a
relational space. What does this mean for visualization practice? Both, Risk-Cartography and
43
Camacho-Hübner, E. / November, V. 2009: Spatial Dimensions of the Controversy. Macospol
Deliverable 4a
26
the EPFL tool rely on a two dimensional visualization and a high degree of
interconnectedness of visualized elements. This means, that we have to define the relational
space in a two dimensional composition of elements on the computer screen. Thus we can
(and have to) give meaning to the distance between elements, which can make the
visualization richer than e.g. in Risk-Cartography where the distance between elements has
no meaning. As described in D4a the task “definition of the spatiality of the controversy from
the entities and relationships defining the assemblage” is our main target.
2.2.2
Time
The Controversy-Space-Explorer is equipped with a dynamic timeline that can play a role in
the spatial visualization as mentioned above. The data of the Munich food supplement case
includes a date for every quotation. This date was used to position the quotation within the
timeline. It might be useful to choose the visible part of the timeline due to the available data
so that users can get to the important events more quickly. Each dot represents one
quotation that has been made in the controversy. Moving the mouse over the event gives
more information on the quotation. As there are many quotations (events) at the same date,
the timeline shows only the statements that are supported by the quotations at the time the
statement is supported for the first time.
2.2.3
Scale
The dimension scale illustrates whom the quotation addresses. We used three levels: the
micro level is chosen if concerned individuals are addressed; in the case of the meso level
bigger groups of people, the public or enterprises get approached and the macro level
represents quotations that refer to regulations and legislation or deliver general affirmations.
The different actors can be selected to see only the quotations done by them. If no selection
is done, there will be for every group of actor and different level one quotation appearing.
In this case we have, as in the timeline, a limited amount of space for a lot of quotations.
Thus statements might overlap and will not be clickable for the user. In a next version, this
problem could be addressed by using statements instead of quotations and by placing the
dots in several lines instead of only one line per level.
2.2.4
Actors
On the right side of the Space Explorer interface, the user can choose the actors she is
interested in. Checking or un-checking groups of users or unique users will have impact on
the other dimensions of the interface. Only statements and quotations of users that are
checked will be shown in the other areas. With this part of the interface, the user can
compare very quickly for example which statements dominate in the public discourse and in
the scientific discourse.
27
2.2.5
Space
After discussions in Lausanne that showed the similarities and differences of the two
database structures and further ones in Munich, it became clear that there are possibilities to
visualize the food supplement case in the Controversial-Space-Explorer. To do so, the
relational space would have to be a two dimensional composition that includes a meaning
regarding the distance between elements. Following this, we could make the visualization
richer than it is in the Risk-Cartography where distance between elements has no meaning.
The first idea focused on the element ‘Actor’ that seemed to offer the largest potential within
the visualization. The idea was based on the following assumption:
Actors that have quotations related to the same statement are more
similar (closer) to each other than actors whose quotations are
related to different statements.
Based on the fact, that quotations are a central element that are related to many others
(actors, statements, events, things, matter of concern, etc.), we thought about generating a
table for a ‘matter of concern’ M1 that includes all actors (A1-n) and all statements (S1-Sm)
related to M1. The idea was to calculate the composition of actors in the controversial space
related to matters of concern and show the distance between the different actors.
After the examination of the idea, it appeared to be an issue that actors that did a lot of
statements would always be closer to one another since the probability of common
statements would increase. Due to this fact we had to find a different solution.
At the moment, the Space Explorer shows statements in the space area:
The x-axis represents the centrality of the statement. It is calculated
using the number of citations composing the statement weighted by
the visibility of the actor involved.
The y-axis as the intensity of the statement is calculated using the
number of matters of concern the statement is attached to, weighted
by the activity of the matters of concern itself.
In this current solution, the meaning of distance between elements is not accessible very
easily for the users. What does it mean for the positioning of actors or matters of concern in a
controversy space if a statement is more central than another one?
After discussing this issue we propose to try a visualization that puts the element in the
center of attention, that is expressing the controversies within our data and how can it be
used to present a controversial space: Matter of Concern. So our suggestion for a
representation of matters of concern in the area “space” is based on the following distribution
in a two dimensional space.
28
•
X-axis: How many statements support each matter of concern? The demonstration
could illustrate the plurality connected to each matter of concern.
•
Y-axis: How many actors are involved in each matter of concern? The presentation
could express the contestedness of the matter of concern.
Since there are only 12 matters of concern, the presentation within the Space-Explorer could
secure a clear arrangement and present the changes in importance for each matter of
concern over time.
2.3
Lessons learned from Alternative Mapping Experiments
The two experiments showed, as well as the experiment with the issue crawler that has been
documented in D2a, that visualizations change the perspective under which a controversy is
shown and can be opened up for further exploration. While Risk-Cartography does not give a
meaning to distance and size and thus leaves interpretation of the controversy in this regard
to the beholder, the other two visualizations can be seen as efforts to quantify qualitative
data. If we take this chance, we will always add something new to the mapping of the
controversy. As long as this is done very carefully, such visualizations can help the beholder
to gain a quicker and maybe deeper understanding of the controversy.
Still the design process has to be integrated very closely with the social scientific analysis of
the case to avoid visualizations that are misleading. On the other hand, the analysis of the
case study should already have in mind the possible techniques of visualization. Mapping is
both: research and communication in a continuous process. If we want to offer several
visualizations based on the same set of data, we will have to define the components that we
need to have in the database systematically. Doing this will make computer based interfaces
between tools possible. The question of a meta-language for mapping data internet-based is
just put!
29
3
Evaluative hints about Risk-Cartography from users at the Venice
Meeting
In this chapter we want to summarize briefly the feedback on the technical example building
at the MACOSPOL stakeholder event in Venice in October 2009.
Main criticism towards the Risk Cartography concerned the outdated database which had
been edited for the last time by the end of 2008. This showed once again the importance of
continued database maintenance. Thus interfaces to automatic methods of data collection
earn further attention.
The second criticism regrets the lack of pictures. This shows that internet users expect a
certain aesthetic and the availability of various forms of visual media.
The technical example building in Risk Cartography also received positive feedback. It is
evaluated as a good way to store and deploy controversial knowledge. Users appreciated the
multiple entry points that respond to various users´ interest. Some users liked the tutorials as
it improves the accessibility of the tool.
For journalists, a special interest is to identify interesting interview partners. The Risk
Cartography can be a shortcut to solve the information overview problem. Decision makers,
in contrast, appreciated the Risk Cartography as a briefing tool which should be maintained
by public bodies responsible for policy consulting.
Both user groups saw potential to use the tool in participative processes. This has already
been tested by WP6 with the alternative tool “Debategraph” (cf. Deliverable 6b).
More general feedback from the stakeholder workshop about what the contribution of the
platform for all those interested in mapping controversies has already been reported by WP8.
30
4
General Reflections about articulating controversies
During the last decades the general public has not only become co-participant in the passive
reception of science and technology but more and more in its active direction, conception
and design. In result there is a growing concern that various interested publics profit firstly to
inform themselves about science and scientific controversies, and secondly to participate in
processes of deliberation and policy formulation directed to close scientific controversies in
further decision-making. Nevertheless, it remains extraordinary difficult to see how the
expertise, necessary for any constructive participation, can be obtained and shared.
The MACOSPOL-Team intends to stimulate new participative forms and dialogue initiatives
among citizens, institutions, stakeholders, NGOs and the scientific community by equipping
them with the help of diverse methods and techniques of “mapping controversies”. A
collection of tools to explore and visualize the complexities and uncertainties of scientific and
technical debates resulting from all the MACOSPOL efforts can now be toured on the
platform www.mappingcontroversies.net. Although you will find there a huge variety of
mapping approaches gathered and partly discussed and evaluated, their common aim is to
equip procedures that can facilitate the development of decisions taking into consideration
the different points of view of concerned actors, particularly citizens.
As an ANT-based approach “Mapping Controversies” claims to support citizens by opening
up more symmetric, more relation-oriented and more multi perspective explorations of
scientific controversies and their dynamics than policy reports usually can do. The objective
is to open up articulations of scientific controversies for detecting entanglements and
positioning to which all scientific knowledge-making is object of. At the same time, mapping
approaches themselves are linked to underlying methods and techniques, hidden frames and
structuring possibilities and selections of data as other case studies and their representations
in reports are. Reconsidering the resulting shortcomings and biases, it has been an
cooperative Oslo-Munich (WP 2) effort to distinguish which decisions have to be made
(explicitly) once a case study is in the making and will be articulated respectively translated in
mappings e.g. visualizations. The following is a collection of more or less conscious design
criteria which shape the articulation of controversies following the researchers’ mapping
decisions.
4.1
Distribution
In the cosmopolitical world of controversies, issues cannot be found as such, just to be
picked up. They have to be identified, categorized and traced in time, in space and by
crossing heterogeneous spheres of reality making. This is why each mapping means to
31
decide in which way the controversy is distributed geographically, historically and socially
and in how far the discovered distributions can be represented in visualizations. The
researcher’s explorations will vary if the issue is discussed/ hot in widespread networks or
just in encapsulated interactions. The case study has to explore the density and the duration
of a controversy as well as the actors’ relations to it in their size and mandate.
One result of mapping controversies is to get an idea about the controversy’s sphere and the
various accesses and inter-linkages to it as well as about its internal structures and clusters.
Be it by internet-based tools of exploration like Clusty or Exalead, be it by ways of handmade
mind mapping after interviewing and analysing documents, the interest is to see what is at
the centre of the controversy, what is hot and controversial, what is marginal and one-sided.
These findings yield pictures or maps, which inform about the distribution of the controversial
issue in relation to place (cf. the Controversy Space Explorer), to social networks (the
Manchester parametric modelling), to non-knowledge respectively matters of concern (the
Risk Cartography or Debategraph), to frames (cf. cosmologies in the Risk Cartography).
These visualisations allow publics, enrolled actors or concerned people to situate themselves
and other players in relation to each other and to the topical issue.
Figure 4: Distribution in the Space Explorer Interface
32
4.2
Development
Much effort is invested in the building of chronologies in the exemplary case studies ruled out
in Paris, Manchester, Lausanne, Brighton and Munich (cf. also the evaluative work of Verena
Paravel when gathering the chronology-tools in demoscience). In order to give interpretations
where an issue is coming from and which may be crucial turning points such chronologies reassamble actors, technologies, legislation, attention cycles and other aspects in timesensitive networks and sometimes link them to further or deeper information. When deciding
on the format of such chronologies a selection takes place about which are the aspects resp.
dimensions that shape the underlying origin stories, path-dependences and the further
potential trajectories. These selections may also proof to be misleading. The interest to map
a controversy’s development is to make the pubic engage in the (historical) directions and
movements of an issue’s development in itself and in between spheres. Thereby the
contingency and the internal structure of an issue’s constructions can made public as well as
decisive linkages and hazards.
Figure 5: Convincing timeline visualization taken from the demoscience-collection
4.3
44
Involvement
The main effort when mapping controversies is on collecting documents about the various
bits and parts entangled to a controversial issue. Guided by questions like
„Which entities are involved?“, „How are the entities made present (visualised,
symbolised, narrated) in the controversy?”, “Which techniques, strategies and formats shape
the involvement of entities and their presentations?“ the mapping oriented research tries to
explore which entities, arguments, materials, convictions etc. get associated and dissociated
into the issue’s development. Therefore the demoscience-collection as well as Tommaso
44
http://www.timerime.com/timeline/172405
33
Venturini’s (WP1) “How to do”45 offer a lot of help. Once the work is done, these efforts result
again in questions on how to articulate all the reassembled materials and to make them
accessible for a broader public via the internet. Therefore important visualisation decisions
have to be taken which decide whether a controversy is mapped more or less flat, openended, dynamic, hierarchical, word- or picture-driven. Which size is given to the various
detected entities and by which taxonomies and statistical operations do you legitimate these
design decisions? Furthermore, the chosen way to give articulation to all the reassembled
parts will shape the public’s ideas about who and what is crucial or of minor importance and
who and what should be represented in future hearings and decision-makings. Moreover, a
crucial investment has to be made to guarantee, that the controversy mapping stays up to
date. For instance, an EU commissioner present at the Venice event was no more interested
in the risk cartography after browsing it enthusiastically when he learned that the last update
was eight months old. So articulation of involvement is merely a question of translation and
of political relevance. This can be illustrated by Francois Melard’s (WP 6) experience that
some actors left the mapping experiment when feeling to be less strong in visualisation than
others.
Figure 6: High and low involvement in Risk Cartography
4.4
What is at stake?
Especially when the stakes are high and the controversy is about the distribution of
resources and future power, it can become very delicate to decide on how – in which words,
pictures, and arrangements – a hot controversial issue can be articulated in a mapping. Our
own experience is that legal questions of copyright and commercial interests may impend the
articulations so that involved actors try to determine what can be mapped in which way. The
same applies for the story given on how and why the controversy stirred up. Once the
science studies leave the sure realm of books and articles to engage into the much more
45
http://www.ideaedi.it/2008/index.php?page=controversy-mapping
34
open ended Web 2.0-world, we experience huge pressure on the accounts and wordings. So
controversy mapping is object to these driving forces and may prove to be driven by more
political expectations and motivations.
4.5
Knowledge Claims
The later reflections lead to decisions on how to articulate various and competing knowledge
claims and on how proof is made visible and accessible. In the American usage the word
controversy suggests that an issue is less contentions due to a scientific debate but merely
as result of an ideological or spiritual conflict. Nevertheless the motivation of all controversymapping is just to make proof more solid and relative. To sustain a thinking in versions and a
reflexive handling of scientific controversies it aims at stabilizing proof by linking it to the up
to now “missing masses”46. Therefore we need more articulating criteria which may help to
find adapted mapping strategies enabling to allow differentiation between more or less robust
knowledge claims and interpretations. The Munich team follows very much the conviction
that this can best be realised by a linking-manoeuvre: linking statements, citations and
matters of concern to the other involved entities as institutions, materials, further actors,
resources, science bibliometrics etc. may contribute to detect better and less good
arguments. Therefore much more research is needed to evaluate different modes of
knowledge and information visualisation (Cf. “Visual Literacy”) and to allow a deeper usage
of the ICT technologies for argumentation mapping.
4.6
General summary for future controversy-mapping
The coordination-and-support-project draws to its end; nevertheless some of the motivating
questions are still open and necessitate further and more extensive research. As is evident,
all mapping/ articulating/ representing is intervening. But up to now we witness many
shortcomings and restrictions of all technical example building evaluated by WP 1 and WP 2
which partly relate to technology, partly to our limited understandings of what the purpose of
mapping should and could be. We need much more information and experience of the
possibilities and limitations of mapping approaches, once problems of compatibility do no
longer play the major role. What are advantages and disadvantages of various mapping
tools, specific mapping approaches and underlying mapping strategies and how can the
above outlined criteria of articulation be evaluated more systematically?
46
Latour, B. 1992: Where Are the Missing Masses? In: From Wiebe E. Bijker and John Law, eds.,
Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press, 1992), pp. 225–258.
35
5
References
Camacho-Hübner, E. / November, V. 2009: Spatial Dimensions of the Controversy.
Macospol Deliverable 4a
36