local knowledge [22]. But they have also been praised when they base their
expertise on empirical knowledge [28] and when they coproduced knowledge along
beyond disciplinary and scientific boundaries [29]. In fact, authors have noted, in
many recent disasters, experts have been the beneficiaries of their own expertise
[30–32].
The difficulty to deploy the entangled interactions and co-dependencies that
composed the what is usually referred as “the” disaster, has been one of the many
research programs tackled by researchers in Anthropology, Disaster Studies, and
more recently, in Sciences and Technology Studies (STS).
5 Social scientists have
greatly improved the granular understanding of the risk and disaster life-cycle
(before, during, after) insisting on the importance of culturally situated knowledge
and exposing tensions between political and scientific expertise, cultural production
and regimen of governance [34–38].
Studied through the frame of socially constituted and culturally meaningful
practices, contemporary social sciences have enabled researchers to create an index
of adaptation—or often mal-adaptation—between human and non-human facing
disasters. These studies have tackled questions coming from very different disciplinary fields, from the physical, engineering, social, and political sciences to the
humanities, using multiple methodological approaches anchored in diverse epistemologies within academia [17, 39], (Guarnieri, Sato, Pecaud, this issue), and
beyond when engaging with the more operational level of technical expertise [40,
41], this volume) and policy-making [42, 43].
Questions related to the threat of potential disasters, which come together under
the concept of “risk,” have become an extensive field of research, in which the
seminal work of Beck [44] has been both celebrated and criticized [22, 45–48].
Following these trends, studies of risk that lacked empirical evidences—as it has
been the case for Beck at the time of his first publication—were sharply criticized.
As Latour [47] noted, “like most sociologists, Beck suffers from anthropology
blindness” (p. 453). More specifically, Boudia and Jas [45] acknowledged that
researchers reacted strongly to the publication of Beck’s book, documenting what
seems to have been blind spots in the book, namely, citizen science, public participation in scientific research (PPSR), and the role of concerned individuals in
shaping the definition of risk. Indeed, in more than 50 years of fieldwork [49–53],
6
social scientists working on risk and disaster studies have shown that, when
examined in detail, the conditions for the emergence of a risk and the characterization of a disaster, rather than being a homogeneous set of concepts, practices, and
methods, have “been continually fraught with internal tensions” [55].
The Tōhoku Earthquake, Tsunami, and nuclear disaster of 2011 echoed this
complexity [56, 57], (this volume) and has been broadly studied and commented
5
STS can be defined as an “interdisciplinary field that examines the creation, development, and
consequences of science and technology in their cultural, historical, and social contexts” [33].
6
And this not mentioning the work done by United nation agencies in collaboration with social
scientists see for instance Cabasse et al. [54].
340
C. Mazel-Cabasse
expertise on empirical knowledge [28] and when they coproduced knowledge along
beyond disciplinary and scientific boundaries [29]. In fact, authors have noted, in
many recent disasters, experts have been the beneficiaries of their own expertise
[30–32].
The difficulty to deploy the entangled interactions and co-dependencies that
composed the what is usually referred as “the” disaster, has been one of the many
research programs tackled by researchers in Anthropology, Disaster Studies, and
more recently, in Sciences and Technology Studies (STS).
5 Social scientists have
greatly improved the granular understanding of the risk and disaster life-cycle
(before, during, after) insisting on the importance of culturally situated knowledge
and exposing tensions between political and scientific expertise, cultural production
and regimen of governance [34–38].
Studied through the frame of socially constituted and culturally meaningful
practices, contemporary social sciences have enabled researchers to create an index
of adaptation—or often mal-adaptation—between human and non-human facing
disasters. These studies have tackled questions coming from very different disciplinary fields, from the physical, engineering, social, and political sciences to the
humanities, using multiple methodological approaches anchored in diverse epistemologies within academia [17, 39], (Guarnieri, Sato, Pecaud, this issue), and
beyond when engaging with the more operational level of technical expertise [40,
41], this volume) and policy-making [42, 43].
Questions related to the threat of potential disasters, which come together under
the concept of “risk,” have become an extensive field of research, in which the
seminal work of Beck [44] has been both celebrated and criticized [22, 45–48].
Following these trends, studies of risk that lacked empirical evidences—as it has
been the case for Beck at the time of his first publication—were sharply criticized.
As Latour [47] noted, “like most sociologists, Beck suffers from anthropology
blindness” (p. 453). More specifically, Boudia and Jas [45] acknowledged that
researchers reacted strongly to the publication of Beck’s book, documenting what
seems to have been blind spots in the book, namely, citizen science, public participation in scientific research (PPSR), and the role of concerned individuals in
shaping the definition of risk. Indeed, in more than 50 years of fieldwork [49–53],
6
social scientists working on risk and disaster studies have shown that, when
examined in detail, the conditions for the emergence of a risk and the characterization of a disaster, rather than being a homogeneous set of concepts, practices, and
methods, have “been continually fraught with internal tensions” [55].
The Tōhoku Earthquake, Tsunami, and nuclear disaster of 2011 echoed this
complexity [56, 57], (this volume) and has been broadly studied and commented
5
STS can be defined as an “interdisciplinary field that examines the creation, development, and
consequences of science and technology in their cultural, historical, and social contexts” [33].
6
And this not mentioning the work done by United nation agencies in collaboration with social
scientists see for instance Cabasse et al. [54].
340
C. Mazel-Cabasse