The Extended Peer Community

The perspective of Funtowicz and Ravetz on post normal science [59] � characterized by conflicting values and deep uncertainties � is useful in moving forward on messes and wicked problems. When the stakes are high and uncertainties are large, Funtowicz and Ravetz point out that there is demand by the public to participate and assess quality, which they refer to as the extended peer community. The extended peer community consists not only of those with traditional institutional accreditation that are creating the technical work, but also those with much broader expertise that are capable of doing quality assessment and control on that work. New information technologies and the open knowledge movement are facilitating the rapid diffusion of information and sharing of expertise, giving hitherto unrealized power to the peer communities, although this requires increased public availability of data, documentation of methods, and journal articles. Arguing from consensus to enforce conclusions does not work with the extended peer community. What is needed are serious attempts to engage the extended peer community with the modes of expert reasoning used to reach those conclusions [45].

Notes:

An argument for open science that we should bring climate change science to the public to appeal on science not consensus.

Folksonomies: science communication peer review scicomm

Taxonomies:
/science (0.460526)
/law, govt and politics (0.190594)
/art and entertainment/visual art and design/drawing (0.177264)

Keywords:
extended peer community (0.982480 (negative:-0.249220)), climate change science (0.615263 (negative:-0.221274)), post normal science (0.602077 (neutral:0.000000)), traditional institutional accreditation (0.591990 (neutral:0.000000)), New information technologies (0.581898 (positive:0.529668)), open knowledge movement (0.581444 (positive:0.529668)), peer communities (0.555176 (negative:-0.208437)), deep uncertainties (0.536390 (negative:-0.577611)), science not consensus (0.528914 (negative:-0.221274)), Community An argument (0.522898 (negative:-0.221274)), unrealized power (0.514579 (negative:-0.208437)), wicked problems (0.513602 (negative:-0.577611)), open science (0.513287 (negative:-0.221274)), broader expertise (0.506477 (positive:0.668817)), rapid diffusion (0.504869 (positive:0.529668)), Ravetz point (0.504254 (positive:0.324550)), expert reasoning (0.501599 (negative:-0.277167)), technical work (0.500407 (neutral:0.000000)), quality assessment (0.499842 (positive:0.668817)), journal articles (0.499058 (neutral:0.000000)), public availability (0.495547 (negative:-0.235768)), conclusions (0.447612 (negative:-0.277167)), Funtowicz (0.437398 (positive:0.324550)), messes (0.433624 (negative:-0.577611)), stakes (0.424099 (neutral:0.000000)), demand (0.419632 (positive:0.324550)), modes (0.419591 (negative:-0.277167)), perspective (0.419073 (neutral:0.000000)), attempts (0.418695 (negative:-0.277167)), values (0.417715 (negative:-0.577611))

Entities:
Extended Peer Community:Organization (0.941875 (negative:-0.221274)), climate change:FieldTerminology (0.305182 (negative:-0.221274)), Funtowicz:Person (0.282648 (neutral:0.000000)), Ravetz:Person (0.269072 (neutral:0.000000))

Climate change: no consensus on consensus

Periodicals>Journal Article: Webster, P.J. and Curry, J. A. (2013), Climate change: no consensus on consensus, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, Retrieved on 2014-04-21

Folksonomies: climate change consensus