| Abstrakt: |
We take up the challenge of publicly accountable deliberation processes for building integrity of knowledge claims in situations of controversy. We characterise knowledge quality appraisal (KQA) in a perspective of 'post normal science' (PNS), and propose the structuring of KQA as a process of deliberative multi-criteria and multi-actor evaluation, with a 4-dimensional framework (what, who, why and how) for 'extended peer community' dialogue. Turning to the question, to what extent can such procedures be effective, we insist that implementing a robust KQA procedure in situations of societal controversy can, both in theory and in practice, be only imperfect at best. Nonetheless, deliberative KQA methods can be motivated, on epistemological as well as moral grounds, in support of (utopian) ideals of inclusive, open, convivial, and humane societies. |
