Insights from the Contemporary Contradictions in Science–Society Relationship

  • Leandro Luiz Giatti


This chapter is conceived to explore a broad range of situations in which contemporary contradictions towards science–society relationships are posing demands and opportunities for cognitive inclusion and knowledge democracy. Regardless of any case or dilemma discussed, I propose to raise epistemological issues and current debates about inherent complexity in association with practical experiences that can testify possibilities and real relevance for participatory research approaches. For that matter, it is necessary to browse from the simple to the complex, as from the local multilayered problems to global conditionings related to unsustainability. Such a frame makes necessary reflexive discussions on inter- and transdisciplinarity associated with post-normal problems, and then ecology of knowledge is presented as a convergent alternative with dialogical and participatory research. In the interplay of contemporary threats and science misuse, some evidence of oppression can be recognized. Moreover, the nature of ruptures among society in terms of knowledge and power possession can be related to extreme circumstances, sometimes at the basis of disasters of cognitive exclusion.


Cognitive exclusion Transdisciplinarity Post-normal problems Ecology of knowledge Participatory research 


  1. Bartram, J., & Cairncross, S. (2010). Hygiene, sanitation, and water: Forgotten foundations of health. PLoS Medicine, 7, e1000367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bauman, Z. (1999). Modernidade e ambivalência. Rio de Janeiro: Zahar.Google Scholar
  3. Benessia, A., & De Marchi, B. (2017). When the earth shakes… and science with it. The management and communication of uncertainty in the L’Aquila earthquake. Futures, 91, 35–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2000). Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological Applications, 10, 1251–1262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, P. (1992). Popular epidemiology and toxic waste contamination: Lay and professional ways of knowing. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 33, 267–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brydon-Miller, M., Greenwood, D., & Maguire, P. (2003). Why action research? Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carrillo-Santisteve, P., & Lopalco, P. L. (2012). Measles still spreads in Europe: Who is responsible for the failure to vaccinate? Clinical Microbiology and Infection, 18, 50–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Christopher, S., Watts, V., McCormick, A. K. H. G., & Young, S. (2008). Building and maintaining trust in a community-based participatory research partnership. American Journal of Public Health, 98, 1398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Caldas M das GC. (2017). Vozes e silenciamento em Mariana: crime ou desastre ambiental. 2nd ed. BCCL/Unicamp, Campinas.Google Scholar
  10. Dankel, D. J., Vaage, N. S., & van der Sluijs, J. P. (2017). Post-normal science in practice. Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davies, M., & Martin, T. (2009). Mining market cycles and tailings dam incidents. In 13th International Conference on Tailings and Mine Waste, Banff, AB. Retrieved from
  12. de Alvarenga, A., de Souza Alvarez, A., Sommerman, A., & Philippi, A., Jr. (2015). Capítulo 2 Interdisciplinaridade e transdisciplinaridade nas tramas da complexidade e desafios aos processos investigativos. In A. Philippi Jr. & V. Fernandes (Eds.), Práticas da interdisciplinaridade no ensino e pesquisa (pp. 37–89). Barueri: Manole.Google Scholar
  13. de Freitas, C. M., de S. Porte, M. F., & Gomez, C. M. (1995). Acidentes químicos ampliados: um desafio para a saúde pública. Revista de Saúde Pública, 29, 503–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. De Marchi, B., & Ravetz, J. R. (1999). Risk management and governance: a post-normal science approach. Futures, 31, 743–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. de Sousa Santos, B. (2004). A universidade no século XXI: para uma reforma democrática e emancipatória da universidade. São Paulo: Cortez.Google Scholar
  16. de Sousa Santos, B. (2007). Para além do pensamento abissal: das linhas globais a uma ecologia de saberes. Novos estudos-CEBRAP, 79, 71–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. de Sousa Santos, B. (2009a). Una epistemología del sur: la reinvención del conocimiento y la emancipación social. México: CLACSO y Siglo XXI.Google Scholar
  18. de Sousa Santos, B. (2009b). Um discurso sobre as ciências (6th ed.). São Paulo: Cortez.Google Scholar
  19. de Toledo, R. F., & Giatti, L. L. (2014). Challenges to participation in action research. Health Promotion International, 30, 162–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. de Toledo, R. F., Giatti, L. L., & Pelicioni, M. C. F. (2012). Mobilização Social em Saúde e Saneamento em Processo de Pesquisa-ação em uma Comunidade Indígena no Noroeste Amazônico. Saúde e Sociedade, 21, 206–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Folke, C., Carpenter, S. R., Walker, B., et al. (2010). Resilience thinking: Integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecology and Society, 15, 20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge. Selected Interviews and Other Writings of Michel Foucault. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  23. Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (M. B. Ramos, Trans.; D. Macedo, introduction). 30th anniversary ed. New York: The Continuum International Publishing Group Inc.Google Scholar
  24. Freitas, M., Alves, E., Santo, M., & Portella, S. (2016). O desastre da Samarco/VALE/BHP: Análise crítica de alguns discursos, racionalidades e percepções. Ciência e Cultura, 68, 51–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25, 739–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Garcia, L. C., Ribeiro, D. B., Oliveira Roque, F., et al. (2017). Brazil’s worst mining disaster: Corporations must be compelled to pay the actual environmental costs. Ecological Applications, 27, 5–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Giatti, L. L. (2013). Uma contribuição à ciência pós-normal: aplicações e desafios da ampliação da comunidade de pares em contextos socioambientais e de saúde. São Paulo: Universidade de São Paulo.Google Scholar
  28. Giatti, L. L. (2015). O paradigma da ciência pós-normal: participação social na produção de saberes e na governança socioambiental e da saúde. São Paulo: Annablume.Google Scholar
  29. Giatti, L. L., Landin, R., & de Toledo, R. F. (2014). Aplicabilidade da ecologia de saberes em saúde e ambiente e sua permeabilidade na produção acadêmica. Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, 19, 4091–4102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Giatti, L. L., Rocha, A. A., de Toledo, R. F., et al. (2007). Condições sanitárias e socioambientais em Iauaretê, área indígena em São Gabriel da Cachoeira, AM. Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, 12, 1711–1723. Scholar
  31. Gibbons, M. (1999). Science’s new social contract with society. Nature, 402, C81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., et al. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  33. Gluckman, P. (2014a). Evidence based policy: A quixotic challenge. Address given at the invitation of the science policy research unit. Brighton, UK: University of Sussex.Google Scholar
  34. Gluckman, P. (2014b). The art of science advice to government. Nature, 507, 163–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hall, B. (2015). Beyond epistemicide: Knowledge democracy and higher education. Available in: (accessed 14 September 2019).
  36. Hansson, S. O. (2017). Science denial as a form of pseudoscience. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 63, 39–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hochman, G. (2011). Vacinação, varíola e uma cultura da imunização no Brasil. Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, 16, 375–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hoffman, A. J. (2015). How culture shapes the climate change debate. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Hulme, M. (2007). The appliance of science. The Guardian, 14, 9.Google Scholar
  40. Israel, B. A., Schulz, A. J., Parker, E. A., & Becker, A. B. (2008). Critical issues in developing and following community-based participatory research principles. In M. Minkler & N. Wallerstein (Eds.), Community-based participatory research for health (pp. 47–62). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  41. Jacobi, P. R. (2015). Meio ambiente, riscos e aprendizagem social. Revista Cadernos de Pesquisa: Pensamento Educacional 10:346–364.Google Scholar
  42. Jacques, P. J., Dunlap, R. E., & Freeman, M. (2008). The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism. Environmental Politics, 17, 349–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Jasanoff, S. (1988). The Bhopal disaster and the right to know. Social Science & Medicine, 27, 1113–1123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Johnson, S. (2008). O mapa fantasma. Rio de Janeiro: Zahar.Google Scholar
  45. Klinke, A., & Renn, O. (2012). Adaptive and integrative governance on risk and uncertainty. Journal of Risk Research, 15, 273–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kuhn, T. A. (1992). A estrutura das revoluções científicas. Perspectiva: São Paulo.Google Scholar
  47. Lang, D. J., Wiek, A., Bergmann, M., et al. (2012). Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: Practice, principles, and challenges. Sustainability Science, 7, 25–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Leff, E. (2017). Power-knowledge relations in the field of political ecology. Ambiente & Sociedade, 20, 225–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2, 34–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Linkov, I., Trump, B. D., Anklam, E., et al. (2018). Comparative, collaborative, and integrative risk governance for emerging technologies. Environment Systems and Decisions, 38, 170–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. List, D. (2006). Action research cycles for multiple futures perspectives. Futures, 38, 673–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lucero, J. E., Wright, K. E., & Reese, A. (2017). Trust development in CBPR partnerships. In N. Wallerstein, B. Duran, J. G. Oetzel, & M. Minkler (Eds.), Community-based participatory research for health: Advancing social and health equity (p. 61). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  53. Macaia, A. A. S., Takahashi, M. A. C., Maeda, S. T., et al. (2018). Laboratório de Mudança: uma metodologia formative, participative e sistêmica para criação e transformação de sistemas de atividade. In R. F. de Toledo et al. (Eds.), Pesquisa Participativa em Saúde: Vertentes e Veredas. São Paulo, Brasil: Instituto de Saúde.Google Scholar
  54. Manoj, B. S., & Baker, A. H. (2007). Communication challenges in emergency response. Communications of the ACM, 50, 51–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Martins, B. S. (2016). Revisitando o desastre de Bhopal: os tempos da violência e as latitudes da memória. Sociologias, 18, 116–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mayr, E. (2005). Biologia, ciência única. São Paulo: Editora Companhia das Letras.Google Scholar
  57. Morin, E. (2010). Ciência com consciência (14th ed.). Bertrand: Rio de Janeiro.Google Scholar
  58. Nederland, C., & Groupe, U. R. D. (2013). Reaching resilience: Handbook 2.0 for aid practitioners and policymakers in disaster risk reduction, climate change adaptation and poverty reduction. CARE Nederland.Google Scholar
  59. Nowotny, H. (2004). The potential of transdisciplinarity. In H. Dunin-Woyseth & M. Nielsen (Eds.), Discussing transdisciplinarity: Making professions and the new mode of knowledge production, the Nordic reader (pp. 10–19). Oslo: Oslo School of Architecture.Google Scholar
  60. Pachauri, R. K., Mayer, L., & Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Eds.). (2015). Climate change 2014: Synthesis report. Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.Google Scholar
  61. Querol, M. A. P., Jackson Filho, J. M., & Cassandre, M. P. (2011). Change laboratory: uma proposta metodológica para pesquisa e desenvolvimento da Aprendizagem Organizacional. Administração: Ensino e Pesquisa, 12, 609–640.Google Scholar
  62. Ravetz, J. (2004). The post-normal science of precaution. Futures, 36, 347–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Raynaut, C. (2011). Interdisciplinaridade: mundo contemporâneo, complexidade e desafios à produção e à aplicação de conhecimentos. Interdisciplinaridade em ciência, tecnologia & inovação (pp. 143–208). Barueri: Manole.Google Scholar
  64. Renn, O. (2008). Risk governance: Coping with uncertainty in a complex. World London: Earthscan Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. San Sebastián, M., & Hurtig, A. K. (2005). Oil development and health in the Amazon basin of Ecuador: The popular epidemiology process. Social Science & Medicine, 60, 799–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Schatzki, T. (2015). Spaces of practices and of large social phenomena (p. 24). Montreal: Espaces Temps.Google Scholar
  67. Snow, J. (1999). Sobre a maneira de transmissão do cólera.Google Scholar
  68. Strand, R. (2017). Post-normal science. In Routledge Handbook of Ecological Economics (pp. 288–298). Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Thiollent, M. (2011). Metodologia da Pesquisa-Ação (18th ed.). São Paulo: Cortez.Google Scholar
  70. Tsukahara, T. (2017). Commentary: New currents in science: The challenge of quality, examining the discrepancies and incongruities between Japanese techno-scientific policy and the citizens’ science movement in post-3/11 Japan. Futures, 91, 84–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Valencio, N. (2016). Elementos constitutivos de um desastre catastrófico: os problemas científicos por detrás dos contextos críticos. Ciência e Cultura, 68, 41–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Van den Hove, S. (2000). Participatory approaches to environmental policy-making: The European commission climate policy process as a case study. Ecological Economics, 33, 457–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Vormittag, E. D. M. P. A., Araujo, D., Oliveira, M. A. D., & Gleriano, J. S. (2018). Health evaluation of the Barra Longa population affected by the disaster in Mariana County. Ambiente & Sociedade, 21, e01222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R., & Kinzig, A. (2004). Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social–ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 9, 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wallerstein, N., & Duran, B. (2010). Community-based participatory research contributions to intervention research: the intersection of science and practice to improve health equity. American Journal of Public Health, 100 Suppl 1, S40–S46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Wallerstein, N., & Duran, B. (2017). Theoretical, historical, and practice roots of CBPR. In N. Wallerstein, B. Duran, J. G. Oetzel, & M. Minkler (Eds.), Community-based participatory research for health: Advancing social and health equity (p. 17). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  77. Wallerstein, N., Giatti, L. L., Bógus, C. M., et al. (2017). Shared participatory research principles and methodologies: Perspectives from the USA and Brazil—45 years after Paulo Freire’s “Pedagogy of the Oppressed”. Societies, 7, 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wals, A. E. (2007). Social learning towards a sustainable world: Principles, perspectives, and praxis. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Wanderley, L. J., Mansur, M. S., Milanez, B., & Pinto, R. G. (2016). Desastre da Samarco/Vale/BHP no Vale do Rio Doce: aspectos econômicos, políticos e socio ambientais. Ciência e Cultura, 68, 30–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Wildemeersch D (2007) Social learning revisited: Lessons learned from north and south. In Wildemeersch D, Wals AEJ Social learning towards a more sustainable world Wageningen University Press, Wageningen, 99–116.Google Scholar
  81. Willey, R. J., Crowl, D. A., Lepkowski, W. (2005). The Bhopal tragedy: its influence on process and community safety as practiced in the United States. Journal of loss prevention in the process industries 18:365–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. World Health Organization—WHO. (2018). Europe observes a 4-fold increase in measles cases in 2017 compared to previous year (p. 6). Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  83. Xavier, L. Y., Jacobi, P. R., Turra, A. (2018). On the advantages of working together: Social Learning and knowledge integration in the management of marine areas. Marine Policy 88:139–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leandro Luiz Giatti
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Public HealthUniversity of São PauloSão PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations