nuclear research; Science and Technology Studies; multi-disciplinary research
Abstract :
[en] Research on nuclear technologies has been largely driven by a detachment of the 'technical content' from the 'social context'. However, social studies of science and technology - also for the nuclear domain – emphasize that 'the social' and 'the technical' dimensions of technology development are inter-related and co-produced. In an effort to create links between nuclear research and innovation and society in mutually beneficial ways, the Belgian Nuclear Research Centre started fifteen years ago a ‘Programme of Integration of Social Aspects into nuclear research’ (PISA). In line with broader science-policy agendas (responsible research and innovation and technology assessment), this paper argues that the importance of such programmes is threefold. First, their multi-disciplinary basis and participatory character contribute to a better understanding of the interactions between science, technology and society, in general, and the complexity of nuclear technology assessment in particular. Second, their functioning as (self )critical policy supportive research with outreach to society is an essential prerequisite for policies aiming at generating societal trust in the context of controversial issues related to nuclear technologies and exposure to ionising radiation. Third, such programmes create an enriching dynamic in the organisation itself, stimulating collective learning and transdisciplinarity. The paper illustrates with concrete examples these claims and concludes by discussing some key challenges that researchers face while engaging in work of this kind.
Research center :
Spiral
Disciplines :
Social & behavioral sciences, psychology: Multidisciplinary, general & others Sociology & social sciences
Author, co-author :
Turcanu, Catrinel
Schröder, Jantine
Meskens, Gaston
Perko, Tanja
Rossignol, Nicolas ; Université de Liège > Département de science politique > Anal. et éval. des politiques publ.-Méthod. de sc. politique
Carlé, Benny
Hardeman, Frank
Language :
English
Title :
Like a bridge over troubled water – opening pathways for integrating social sciences and humanities into nuclear research
Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. dec. 1991, 50:179-211.
The Ethics of Technological Risk 2008, Routledge, London, Sterling. L. Asveld, S. Roeser (Eds.).
Barthe Y., Meyer M., Sundqvist G. Making technical democracy Real: the social and technical divide illustrated by European radwaste examples 2014, Report of the EU FP7 project on International Socio-Technical Challenges for implementing geological disposal. Available online from:, Date accessed: 02/06/15. http://www.insotec.eu/publications/topicalreports.
Beck U., Giddens A., Lash S. Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order 1994, Stanford University Press, Stanford.
Bergmans A., Elam M., Kos D., Polič M., Simmons P., Sundqvist G., Walls J. Wanting the Unwanted: Effects of Public and Stakeholder Involvement in the Long-term Management of Radioactive Waste and the Siting of Repository Facilities 2008, University of Antwerp, Belgium.
Bergmans A., Schröder J. Review of Initiatives Addressing Socio-technical Challenges of RWM & Geological Disposal in International Programmes 2012, Available online from:, Date accessed: 02/06/15. http://www.insotec.eu/publications/topicalreports.
Berkhout F. Normative expectations in systems innovation. Technol. Analysis Strategic Manag. 2006, 18(3/4):299-311.
Bijker W.E. The vulnerability of technological culture. Cultures of Technology and the Quest for Innovation 2006, 52-69. Berghahn Books, New York. H. Nowotny (Ed.).
Bijker W.E. Sociohistorical technology studies. Handbook of Science and Technology Studies 1995, 229-256. Sage, USA. S. Jasanoff, G.E. Markle, J.C. Petersen, T. Pinch (Eds.).
Shaping Technology/building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change 1992, MIT press. W.E. Bijker, J. Law (Eds.).
Blowers A., Lowry D., Solomon B. The International Politics of Nuclear Waste 1991, Macmillan, London.
Brooks H. The public concern in radioactive waste management. Proc. Manag. Wastes LWR Fuel Cycle, Denver, 11-16 July 1976 1976, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.
Buzelin H. Unexpected allies. Transl. 2005, 11(2):193-218.
Cresswell K., Worth A., et al. Actor-network theory and its role in understanding the implementation of information technology developments in healthcare. BMC Med. Inf. Decis. Mak. 2010, 10(1):67.
de la Bruhèze A. Political Construction of Technology. Nuclear Waste Disposal in the United States, 1945 - 1972 1992, Universiteit Twente, Enschede.
Ethics, Culture and Role of the Expert 2001, Open Report of the Belgian Nuclear Research Centre SCK•CEN BLG 858, Mol, Belgium. G. Eggermont (Ed.).
Eggermont G., Feltz B. Ethics and Radiological Protection 2008, Academia Bruylandt.
European Economic and Social Committee 2012 Interdisciplinary Study - Synthesis Report 2012, http://www.eesc.europa.eu/?i=portal.en.events-and-activities-symposium-on-nuclear-fission-papers.28610.
Fisher E., Mahajan R.L. Midstream modulation of nanotechnology in an academic research laboratory. ASME 2006 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition 2006, 189-195. American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
Fucks I. La culture de sÛreté selon une démarche compréhensive. Une contribution à la gouvernance des risques dans des systèmes complexes 2004, University of Liège, Belgium, PhD thesis.
Funtowicz S.O., Ravetz J.R. Science for the Post-Normal age. Futures 1993, 25(7):739-755.
Geertz C. The Interpretation of Cultures 1973, Basic Books, New-York.
Hackett E.J., Amsterdamska O., Lynch M., Wacjman J. The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies 2008, The MIT Press, London.
Hamalainen R.P. Factors or values - how do parliamentarians and experts see nuclear power. Energ. Policy 1991, 19(5):464-472.
He G.Z., Mol A.P.J., Zhang L., Lu Y. Public participation and trust in nuclear power development in China. Renew. Sust. Ener. Rev. 2013, 23:1-11.
Hecht G. The Radiance of France: Nuclear Power and National Identity after World War II 2009, MIT Press, Massachusetts/London.
Hedemann-Jensen P. Protective actions in the late phase-intervention criteria and decision-making. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 2004, 109(1-2):45-51.
Henriqson É., Schuler B., van Winsen R., Dekker S.W.A. The constitution and effects of safety culture as an object in the discourse of accident prevention: a foucauldian approach. Saf. Sci. 2014, 70(0):465-476.
Hommels A., Mesman J., Bijker W.E. Vulnerability in Technological Cultures: New Directions in Research and Governance 2014, MIT Press.
IAEA Socio-economic and Other Non-radiological Impacts of the Near Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste 2002, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna: Austria, IAEA-TECDOC-1308.
IAEA Establishment of Uranium Mining and Processing Operations in the Context of Sustainable Development 2009, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna: Austria, Nuclear Energy Series No. NF-T-1.1.
IAEA Stakeholder involvement throughout the life cycle of nuclear facilities 2011, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna: Austria, Nuclear Energy Series NG-T-1.4.
ICRP Application of the commission's recommendations for the protection of people in emergency exposure situations. ICRP publication 109. Ann. ICRP 2009, 39(1).
ICRP Radiological Protection in Geological Disposal of Long-lived Solid Radioactive Waste 2013, ICRP Publication 122, Annals of the ICRP 42(3).
Jasanoff S., Kim S.-H. Containing the atom: sociotechnical Imaginaries and nuclear power in the United States and South Korea. Minerva 2009, 47(2):119-146.
Jasanoff S. States of Knowledge: the Co-production of Science and the Social Order 2004, Routledge, New York.
Handbook of Science and Technology Studies 1995, Sage, USA. S. Jasanoff, G.E. Markle, J.C. Petersen, T. Pinch (Eds.).
Kasperson R.E., Renn O., Slovic P., Brown H.S., Emel J., Goble R., Kasperson J.X., Ratick S. The social amplification of risk - a conceptual framework. Risk Anal. 1988, 8(2):177-187.
Keulartz J., Schermer M., Korthals M., Swierstra T. Ethics in technological culture: a programmatic proposal for a pragmatist approach. Sci. Technol. Hum. Val. 2004, 29(1):3-29.
Kleinman D.L., Vallas S.P. Science, capitalism, and the rise of the 'knowledge worker': the changing structure of knowledge production in the United States. Theor. Soc. 2001, 30:451-492.
Knorr Cetina K. Laboratory studies: the cultural approach to the study of science. Handbook of Science and Technology Studies 1995, 140-167. Sage, USA. S. Jasanoff, G.E. Markle, J.C. Petersen, T. Pinch (Eds.).
Laes E., Chayapathi L., Meskens G., Eggermont G. Kernenergie (On)besproken. Geschiedenis Van Het Maatschappelijk Debat over Kernenergie in België 2007, ACCO, Leuven (in Dutch).
Lagadec P. La question des plans: entre points d'appui et pièges stratégiques. Cah. Rech. CNRS(2009-40) 2009, 74. (in French), ouvertes.fr/file/index/docid/422147/filename/2009-40.pdf. https://hal.archives.
Latour B. We Have Never Been Modern 1993, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Martell M., Van Berendoncks K. Integrating societal concerns into research and development (R&D) on geological disposal at the national level 2014, Report of the EU FP7 project on International Socio-Technical Challenges for implementing geological disposal. Available online from:, Date accessed: 02/06/15. http://www.insotec.eu/publications/topicalreports.
Martell M., Kos D., Bergmans A. Investigating the Potential for Integrating Social Aspects in Technical Research and Development (R&D) in Geological Disposal. Report of the EU FP7 Project on International Socio-technical Challenges for Implementing Geological Disposal 2014, Available online from:, Date accessed: 02/06/15. http://www.insotec.eu/publications/topicalreports.
Meskens G. The trouble with justification - getting straight on the science and politics of nuclear energy. Energy Strategy Rev. 2013, 1(4):233-242.
NRC Nuclear Power Plant Licensing Process 2004, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, U.S.A, NUREG/BR-0298, Rev.2.
Nussbaum M.C. Not for Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities 2012, Princeton University Press Princeton, N.J.,Woodstock.
OECD Stakeholders and Radiological Protection: Lessons from Chernobyl 20 Years after 2006, Nuclear Energy Agency. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, NEA 6170.
Owen R., Macnaghten P., Stilgoe J. Responsible research and innovation: from science in society to science for society, with society. Sci. Public Policy 2012, 39:751-760.
Perko T. Radiation risk perception: a discrepancy between the experts and the general population. J. Environ. Radioact. 2014, 133:86-91.
Perko T. Modelling Risk Perception and Risk Communication in Nuclear Emergency Management: an Interdisciplinary Approach 2012, Universiteit Antwerpen, Antwerpen: Belgium, PhD Thesis.
Perko T. Importance of risk communication during and after a nuclear accident. Integr. Environ. Assesement Manag. 2011, 7(3):388-392.
Perko T., Thijssen P., Turcanu C., Van Gorp B. Insights into the reception and acceptance of risk messages: nuclear emergency communication. J. Risk Res. 2014, 17(9):1207-1232.
Perko T., Cantone M.C., Prezelj I., Tomkiv Y., Galego E., Melekhova E.M., Turcanu C., Byrkina E.M., Pershina J.A., Oughton D.H., Lammers P., Veronese I. Media reporting on the Fukushima Nuclear Accident in European Countries 2014, European Commission, Brussels, Belgium, PREPARE(WP6)-(14)01.
Perko T., Tomkiv Y., Oughton D.H., Cantone M.C., Gallego E., Prezelj I., Byrkina E. Units related to radiation exposure and radioactivity in mass media: the Fukushima case study in Europe and Russia. Rad. Prot. Dosim. 2014, 164(1-2):154-159.
Perko T., Turcanu C. Reporting on Fukushima. Nucl. Eng. Int. 2013, 58(704):38-40.
Perko T., van Gorp B., Turcanu C., Thijssen P. Communication in nuclear emergency preparedness: a closer look at information reception. Risk Anal. 2013, 33(11):1987-2001.
Perko T., Turcanu C., Carlé B. Media reporting of nuclear emergencies: the effects of transparent communication in a minor nuclear event. J. Conting. Crisis Manag. 2012, 20:52-56.
Perko T., Zeleznik N., Turcanu C. Is knowledge important? empirical research on nuclear risk communication in two countries. Health Phys. 2012, 102(6):614-625.
Perko T., Turcanu C., Schröder J., Carlé B. Risk Perception of the Belgian Population. Results of the Public Opinion Survey in 2009 2010, Open Report of the Belgian Nuclear Research Centre, Mol: Belgium, BLG-1070.
Petty E.R., Cacioppo J.T. The elaboration Likehood model of persuasion. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1986, 19:123-192.
Pfotenhauer S.M., Jones C.F., Saha K., Jasanoff S. Learning from Fukushima 2012, Issues in Science and Technology, Spring Issue.
Pinch T.J., Bijker W.E. The social construction of facts and artefacts: or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Soc. Stud. Sci. 1984, 14(3):399-441.
Price V., Zaller J. Who gets the news? alternative measures of news reception and their implications for research. Public Opin. Quart. 1993, 57:133-164.
Purvis-Roberts K.L., Werner C.A., Frank I. Perceived risks from radiation and nuclear testing near Semipalatinsk, Kazakhstan: a comparison between physicians, scientists, and the public. Risk Anal. 2007, 27(2):291-302.
Rossignol N., Claisse F. Formal incident reporting system: putting solidarity on trial. Conference of the European Association for the Study of Science and Technology (EASST). Torun, Poland, 17-19 September 2014 2014.
Rossignol N., Delvenne P., Turcanu C. Rethinking vulnerability analysis and governance with emphasis on a participatory approach. Risk Anal. 2014, (available online).
Rossignol N., Turcanu C., Fallon C., Zwetkoff C. How are you vulnerable? Using participation for vulnerability analysis in emergency planning. J. Risk Res. 2014, (available online).
Schröder J. Internal Exchange WASTE-pisa-myrrha: Radioactive Waste Management: Geological Disposal - Partitioning & Transmutation. Report Session 3 (19/03/13): Identified Pregnant Themes, Issues and Research Questions 2014, Internal Report of the Belgian Nuclear Research Centre, Mol: Belgium, SCK•CEN I 440.
Schröder J. Geological disposal of radioactive waste: a long-term socio-technical experiment. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2015, 10.1007/s11948-015-9650-4.
Schröder J. Radioactive waste management: the relation between geological disposal and advanced nuclear technologies. ICEM2013-96271, Pp. V001T02A026 in: Proceedings of the ASME 2013 15th International Conference on Environmental Remediation and Radioactive Waste Management, 8-12 September 2013, Brussels 2015.
Schröder J., Bergmans A. Public acceptability of the nuclear technology. Nuclear Fuel Cycle Science and Engineering 2012, Woodhead Publishing Limited, Cambridge. I. Crossland (Ed.).
Sismondo S. Science and technology studies and an engaged program. Handbook of Science and Technology Studies 2008, 13-32. Sage, USA. S. Jasanoff, G.E. Markle, J.C. Petersen, T. Pinch (Eds.).
Sjöberg L., Drottz-Sjöberg B.M. Knowledge and risk perception among nuclear power plant employees. Risk Anal. 1991, 11(4):607-618.
Skarlatidou A., Cheng T., Haklay M. What do lay people want to know about the disposal of nuclear waste? a mental model approach to the design and development of an online risk communication. Risk Anal. 2012, 32:1496-1511.
Solomon B., Andrén M., Strandberg U. Three decades of social science research on high-level nuclear waste: achievements and future challenges. Risk Hazards Crisis Pub. Policy 2010, 1(4):13-47.
Song Y., Kim D., Han D. Risk communication in South Korea: social acceptance of nuclear power plants (NPPs). Pub. Relat. Rev. 2013, 39(1):55-56.
Stirling A. Opening up' and 'closing down': power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Sci. Technol. Hum. Val. 2008, 33(2):262-294.
Till J.E. The Radiological Assessment Process. Radiological Risk Assessment and Environmental Analysis 2008, 1-30. Oxford University Press, New York. J.E. Till, H.A. Grogan (Eds.).
Trettin L., Musham C. Is trust a realistic goal of environmental risk communication?. Environ. Behav. 2000, 32(3):410-426.
Turcanu C., Olyslaegers G., Camps J., Rossignol N. Report of the First Meeting of the Belgian Stakeholder Panel within the FP7 Project PREPARE 2015, External Report of the Belgian nuclear Research Centre, Mol, Belgium, SCK•CEN ER-280.
Turcanu C., Perko T. The SCK•CEN Barometer 2013. Perceptions and Attitudes towards Nuclear Technologies in the Belgian Population 2014, Open Report of the Belgian Nuclear Research Centre, Mol, Belgium, BLG-1097.
Turcanu C., Perko T. Decision making for installations with risks: who wants to be involved?. Sra-europe Conference (Society for Risk Analysis), Stuttgart, Germany, 6-8 June 2011 2011.
Turcanu C., Perko T., Schröder J. The SCK•CEN Barometer 2011-Perception and Attitudes towards Nuclear Technologies in the Belgian Population 2011, Open Report of the Belgian Nuclear Research Centre, Mol, Belgium, BLG-1082.
Turcanu C., Carlé B., Hardeman F., Bombaerts G., Van Aeken K. Food safety and acceptance of management options after radiological contaminations of the food chain. Food Qual. Pref. 2007, 18(8):1085-1095.
Vandecasteele C., Hardeman F., Pauwels O., Bernaerts M., Carlé B., Sombré L. Attitude of a group of Belgian stakeholders towards proposed agricultural countermeasures after a radioactive contamination: synthesis of the discussions within the Belgian EC-FARMING group. J. Environ. Radioact. 2005, 83:319-332.
van de Poel I. Nuclear energy as a social experiment. Ethics Policy Environ. 2011, 14(3):285-290.
Voss J.-P., Bauknecht D., Kemp R. Reflexive Governance for Sustainable Development 2006, Edward Elgar Publishing.
Vyncke B. The Effect of the Mass Media Channel on the Belgian Risk Perception of the 2011 Fukushima Nuclear Accident 2014, Centre For Media Studies, Leuven, KULeuven, Belgium, Master thesis.
Weinberg A. Social institutions and nuclear energy. Science 1972, 177(4043):27-34.
Wynne B. Sheepfarming after chernobyl: a case study in communicating scientific information. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 1989, 31(2):10-39.
Wynne B. Uncertainty and environmental learning. Reconceiving science and policy in the preventive paradigm. Glob. Environ. Change 1992, 2(2):111-127.
Zaller J. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion 2006, Cambridge University Press, New York.
