Scientific Knowledge, Controversy and Public Decision Making. Martin, B., Richards, E., Jasanoff, S., Markle, G. E., Petersen, J. C., & Pinch, T. In Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, pages 506–26. SAGE, Newbury Park, CA, January, 1995. abstract bibtex Martin and Richards identify four distinct approaches: positivist, group politics, constructivist, and social structural. After describing each of the four and briefly applying them to controversies over fluoridation and vitamin C and cancer, the authors compare them across different areas (epistemology, focus of analysis, conceptual tools, closure, partisanship of the analyst, and decision-making). Martin and Richards note that most analysts don't fall entirely within any of these 'ideal types' and that certain analyses are more appropriate for certain situations than others. In the final section, they exploit this tension by providing two ways that the four approaches could be integrated for a more nuanced and comprehensive analysis than any one approach could individually accomplish. [Nitin and Chad, STS 901 - Fall 2006]
@incollection{martin_scientific_1995,
address = {Newbury Park, CA},
title = {Scientific {Knowledge}, {Controversy} and {Public} {Decision} {Making}},
abstract = {Martin and Richards identify four distinct approaches: positivist, group politics, constructivist, and social structural. After describing each of the four and briefly applying them to controversies over fluoridation and vitamin C and cancer, the authors compare them across different areas (epistemology, focus of analysis, conceptual tools, closure, partisanship of the analyst, and decision-making). Martin and Richards note that most analysts don't fall entirely within any of these 'ideal types' and that certain analyses are more appropriate for certain situations than others. In the final section, they exploit this tension by providing two ways that the four approaches could be integrated for a more nuanced and comprehensive analysis than any one approach could individually accomplish. [Nitin and Chad, STS 901 - Fall 2006]},
booktitle = {Handbook of {Science} and {Technology} {Studies}},
publisher = {SAGE},
author = {Martin, Brian and Richards, Evelleen and Jasanoff, Sheila and Markle, Gerald E. and Petersen, James C. and Pinch, Trevor},
month = jan,
year = {1995},
pages = {506--26},
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"rNJW49gJgmwKgwEYW","bibbaseid":"martin-richards-jasanoff-markle-petersen-pinch-scientificknowledgecontroversyandpublicdecisionmaking-1995","author_short":["Martin, B.","Richards, E.","Jasanoff, S.","Markle, G. E.","Petersen, J. C.","Pinch, T."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"incollection","type":"incollection","address":"Newbury Park, CA","title":"Scientific Knowledge, Controversy and Public Decision Making","abstract":"Martin and Richards identify four distinct approaches: positivist, group politics, constructivist, and social structural. After describing each of the four and briefly applying them to controversies over fluoridation and vitamin C and cancer, the authors compare them across different areas (epistemology, focus of analysis, conceptual tools, closure, partisanship of the analyst, and decision-making). Martin and Richards note that most analysts don't fall entirely within any of these 'ideal types' and that certain analyses are more appropriate for certain situations than others. In the final section, they exploit this tension by providing two ways that the four approaches could be integrated for a more nuanced and comprehensive analysis than any one approach could individually accomplish. [Nitin and Chad, STS 901 - Fall 2006]","booktitle":"Handbook of Science and Technology Studies","publisher":"SAGE","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Martin"],"firstnames":["Brian"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Richards"],"firstnames":["Evelleen"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Jasanoff"],"firstnames":["Sheila"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Markle"],"firstnames":["Gerald","E."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Petersen"],"firstnames":["James","C."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Pinch"],"firstnames":["Trevor"],"suffixes":[]}],"month":"January","year":"1995","pages":"506–26","bibtex":"@incollection{martin_scientific_1995,\n\taddress = {Newbury Park, CA},\n\ttitle = {Scientific {Knowledge}, {Controversy} and {Public} {Decision} {Making}},\n\tabstract = {Martin and Richards identify four distinct approaches: positivist, group politics, constructivist, and social structural. After describing each of the four and briefly applying them to controversies over fluoridation and vitamin C and cancer, the authors compare them across different areas (epistemology, focus of analysis, conceptual tools, closure, partisanship of the analyst, and decision-making). Martin and Richards note that most analysts don't fall entirely within any of these 'ideal types' and that certain analyses are more appropriate for certain situations than others. In the final section, they exploit this tension by providing two ways that the four approaches could be integrated for a more nuanced and comprehensive analysis than any one approach could individually accomplish. [Nitin and Chad, STS 901 - Fall 2006]},\n\tbooktitle = {Handbook of {Science} and {Technology} {Studies}},\n\tpublisher = {SAGE},\n\tauthor = {Martin, Brian and Richards, Evelleen and Jasanoff, Sheila and Markle, Gerald E. and Petersen, James C. and Pinch, Trevor},\n\tmonth = jan,\n\tyear = {1995},\n\tpages = {506--26},\n}\n\n","author_short":["Martin, B.","Richards, E.","Jasanoff, S.","Markle, G. E.","Petersen, J. C.","Pinch, T."],"key":"martin_scientific_1995","id":"martin_scientific_1995","bibbaseid":"martin-richards-jasanoff-markle-petersen-pinch-scientificknowledgecontroversyandpublicdecisionmaking-1995","role":"author","urls":{},"metadata":{"authorlinks":{}},"html":""},"bibtype":"incollection","biburl":"https://bibbase.org/zotero/tombarbereau","dataSources":["4vyWhX2DzTXjE3FSu"],"keywords":[],"search_terms":["scientific","knowledge","controversy","public","decision","making","martin","richards","jasanoff","markle","petersen","pinch"],"title":"Scientific Knowledge, Controversy and Public Decision Making","year":1995}