Participation in Knowledge Increases Agency

Valdemar Kallunki
03.11.2021

Science and knowledge are the main drivers of societal change. New solutions based on economic interests, or the operational development of key institutions, largely rely on researched information. Despite this, the large-scale utilisation of scientific information is not self-evident. Demands for societal change are often confronted by a mix of fact and fiction. The challenge is the social nature of man, where significance is mostly built through our peers, not through knowledge. Knowledge relating to social life is not just answers to ‘what’ and ‘how’ questions, but reactions to ‘with whom’ or ‘at whose expense’ assumptions, that are thrown in the game to provoke reactions.

Despite the triumph of scientific knowledge having produced a world of societal good, it also causes confusion at the individual level. A person seeking health information has to face conflicting research-based claims. Expertise is the subject of over-consumption in the media. Scientific disputes are not left to be hashed out by researchers, but are conveyed to the citizenry. Although controversial scientific knowledge gains most of its value through some degree of consensus, the media and the public choose their knowledge in the midst of the controversy.

Crises in modern society are also crises in knowledge utilisation. Knowledge-based decision-making based on trustworthy information is a central problem in new and unforeseen situations. An even bigger challenge is to get the population to act in accordance with the knowledge. The governance approach easily emphasises communication, although inclusion in the decision-making process that concerns one’s own safety – whenever possible – could warrant better reactions. Soft means of influence still have weak traditions in public administration.

The starting point for preparedness should be based in the citizens’ versatile relationship to knowledge. In addition to the scientific knowledge, people are affected by knowledge that by Dave Elder-Vass is categorised as follows: self-perceiving knowledge (sensations and emotions), empirical knowledge (observations), practical knowledge (functionality), supplied knowledge (that the individual has no direct contact with) and debated knowledge (accepted as a result of a dispute). What is critical for knowledge-based preparedness is the way in which we can strengthen an individual’s ability to receive knowledge that differs from their expectations, as well as the way in which we manage to differentiate between contested and debated forms of knowledge. Without a model for information cooperation between the citizens and governance, the citizens’ individual knowledge structures are prone to increase the heterogeneity of reactions.

In complex crises that involve the citizens, a positive path to change is realised through the inclusion of people to the knowledge. A citizen that has been included in the production or distribution of knowledge is more likely to change their behaviour in accordance with said knowledge than a citizen that has been a passive recipient of such knowledge. The need for methodological development is highlighted by the limited extent to which current forms of citizen crowdsourcing or involvement, such as citizen initiatives or hearings, can be applied to matters of national preparedness.

Valdemar Kallunki, Director, Laurea School of Applied Sciences