LIST OF PANELS

The place of knowledge in the policymaking process has been extensively studied by the social sciences. The objective of the panel is to consider, conversely, the place of ignorance in policymaking, i.e. the fact that certain kinds of issues are systematically left out of consideration by policymakers, while other actors consider they should deserve attention. This question is not entirely new in political science: several authors, from different research traditions, have addressed “agenda denial” as a counter-process to agenda-setting or the processes of invisibilisation of social problems. However, there has recently been a growing amount of literature on the question of the social production of ignorance within the framework of Science & Technology Studies. Several authors have insisted on its political nature by integrating it into the “new political sociology of science” (Frickel & Moore, 2006). This literature has described the social mechanisms which make it possible to understand why certain types of knowledge are not produced or not considered worthy: logics proper to academic circles, rules in force in institutional arenas of expertise and the uneven social and spatial distribution of certain nuisances which more strongly affect populations who are very unlikely to complain. Taking into account this literature, this panel aims at providing an opportunity to discuss the role of ignorance in the policymaking process from a methodological and case study standpoint. In order to do so, empirical papers employing qualitative or quantitative methods are welcome. Ideally, the panel will be divided into three sections. First, we expect papers which focus on the structural, technical and institutional mechanisms which produce ignorance. For example, some papers could revisit in this perspective some subjects such as the manufacturing of official statistics and public indicators, or the problem-definition processes in the public sphere. A second set of papers would deal with the strategic uses of ignorance by the policymakers and all the actors who try to influence the policymaking process. These strategies may consist in efforts to deny, or at least play down, certain bodies of knowledge and standpoints, or, on the contrary, in ignorance claims. For instance, some papers could study the way ignorance – e.g. the uneven circulation of information – is deliberately organised in some public institutions. Third, papers addressing specific methodological questions on assessing the role of ignorance are very welcome. What materials and types of surveys are used to demonstrate the production of ignorance or its strategic use? How can we assign intentionality to actors or organisations, or, conversely, determine that some actions or consequences were unintentional? From what evidence can we determine that an issue was rejected, ignored or undervalued? Though these papers could discuss extensively methodological issues, all the papers presented in the panel are expected to address them.

The place of knowledge in the policymaking process has been extensively studied by the social sciences. Many works have addressed the role of states in the development of new kinds of knowledge, such as statistics (Desrosières, 1998) or regulatory sciences (Jasanoff, 1990). In a general way, they have emphasized the growing importance of expertise in the making and legitimation of public policies (Fischer, 1990). The objective of the panel is to consider, conversely, the place of ignorance in  policymaking, i.e. the fact that certain kinds of issues are systematically left out of consideration by policymakers, while other actors consider they should deserve attention. This question is not entirely new in political science: several authors, from different research traditions, have addressed “agenda denial” as a counter-process to agenda-setting (Cobb & Ross, 1997), the processes of invisibilisation of social problems (Gilbert & Henry, 2012), or even “the politics of misinformation” (Edelman, 2001). However, there has recently been a growing amount of literature on the question of the social production of ignorance within the framework of Science & Technology Studies. Several authors have insisted on its political nature by integrating it into the “new political sociology of science” (Frickel & Moore, 2006). This literature has described the social mechanisms which make it possible to understand why certain types of knowledge are not produced or not considered worthy: logics proper to academic circles, rules in force in institutional arenas of expertise and the uneven social and spatial distribution of certain nuisances which more strongly affect populations who are very unlikely to complain (Auyero & Swistun, 2009; Kleinman & Suryanarayanan, 2013). Taking into account this literature, this panel aims at providing an opportunity to discuss the role of ignorance in the policymaking process from a methodological and case study standpoint. In order to do so, empirical papers employing qualitative or quantitative methods are welcome. Ideally, the panel will be divided into three sections. First, we expect papers which focus on the structural, technical and institutional mechanisms which produce ignorance, seen as the unintentional result of said mechanisms. For example, some papers could revisit in this perspective some subjects such as the manufacturing of official statistics and public indicators, or the problem-definition processes in the public sphere. A second set of papers would deal with the strategic uses of ignorance by the policymakers and all the actors who try to influence the policymaking process. These strategies may consist in efforts to deny, or at least play down, certain bodies of knowledge and standpoints, or, on the contrary, in ignorance claims. For instance, some papers could study the way ignorance – e.g. the uneven circulation of information – is deliberately organised in some public institutions (McGoey, 2012). Third, papers addressing specific methodological questions on assessing the role of ignorance are very welcome. What materials and types of surveys are used to demonstrate the production of ignorance or its strategic use? How can we assign intentionality to actors or organizations, or, conversely, determine that some actions or consequences were unintentional? From what evidence can we determine that an issue was rejected, ignored or undervalued? Though these papers could discuss extensively methodological issues, all papers presented in the panel are expected to address them. References Auyero, J., Swistun, D. (2009). Flammable: Environmental suffering in an Argentine shantytown. New York: Oxford University Press. Cobb, R. W., Ross, M. H., Eds. (1997). Cultural strategies of agenda denial: Avoidance, attack, and redefinition, Lawrence (KS) : University Press of Kansas. Desrosières, A. (1998) The politics of large numbers: A history of statistical reasoning. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press. Edelman, M. (2001). The Politics of misinformation. New York: Cambridge University Press. Fischer, F. (1990). Technocracy and the politics of expertise. Newbury Park (Calif.): Sage. Frickel, S., Moore, K. (Eds.) (2006). The new political sociology of science?: Institutions, networks, and power. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Gilbert, C., Henry, E. (2012). Defining social problems: Tensions between discreet compromise and publicity. Revue française de sociologie 53 (1), 31–54. Jasanoff, S. (1990). The fifth branch: Science advisers as policymakers. Cambridge (Mass.), Harvard University Press. Kleinman, D. L., Suryanarayanan, S. (2013). Dying bees and the social production of ignorance. Science, Technology & Human Values, 38, 492–517. McGoey, L. (2012). The logic of strategic ignorance. The British Journal of Sociology 63, 553–576.