Are we ready to be wrong? Extended peer community for quality science-advice in uncertainty

Futures 166 (2025) 103520 Available online 30 November 2024 0016-3287/© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Are we ready to be wrong? Extended peer community for quality science-advice in uncertainty Min Hyung Kim a,b , Dorothy Jane Dankel c,* a Universidad de C´ ordoba, Spain b Basque Centre for Climate Change (BC3), Spain c SINTEF Ocean, Climate and Sustainability, Norway ARTICLE INFO Keywords: Inclusive decision-making Epistemic injustice Epistemic diversity Epistemic authority Science-advice in uncertainty Post-normal science Extended peer community Uncertainty Stakeholder engagement ICES ABSTRACT This paper delves into the challenges of achieving inclusion within science-advice institutions, particularly focusing on the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). It explores the normative and practical implications of broadening the epistemic space to incorporate diverse ways of knowing in uncertain contexts. Traditional science-advice often relies on strict quantification and institutionalized expertise, limiting the recognition of alternative perspectives. The study proposes an alternative view rooted in post-normal science, advocating for the adoption of an extended peer community model. Despite ICES’s efforts to enhance stakeholder engagement through its Stakeholder Engagement Strategy, gaps remain in effectively valuing epistemic diversity. By analyzing a historical case involving the revision of fishing quotas for Northeast Atlantic mackerel, the paper illustrates the limitations of strict quantification in addressing complex and uncertain problems. It recommends a participatory approach informed by postnormal science principles and incorporates the concept of “epistemic injustice” in Miranda Fricker’s work (Fricker, 2003, 2007) to the discussion to underscore the ethical imperative of inclusive decision-making. Ultimately, the paper advocates for post-normal science approaches to better address contemporary challenges in science-advice institutions when the problem is deeply uncertain and complex. 1. Introduction Today humanity has arguably entered a space where uncertainties in our understanding of the natural world and climate are at the heart of the problems. For example, the concurrent global challenges of climate change and biodiversity loss present an unprecedented and formidable context for contemporary geopolitical, economic, and environmental affairs. These interlinked crises form a complex, multifaceted predicament of planetary scale, significantly influencing international policy, resource management, and ecological stability in ways we have not before experienced. How should societies cope with these uncertain states of affairs? Should uncertainties be reduced or embraced? Scoones and Stirling argue that we are now in the sphere of “politics of uncertainty” (Scoones & Stirling, 2020). Scoones and Stirling (2020) write that, “In today’s complex, turbulent, interconnected, globalized world, uncertainty must be embraced as perhaps more central than ever" (Scoones & Stirling, 2020, p.2). There is a need for acknowledging uncertainty and putting it at “the center of the table” (Dankel et al., 2012). * Correspondence to: Thormøhlensgate 55, Bergen 5006, Norway. E-mail address: [email protected] (D.J. Dankel). Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Futures journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/futures https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2024.103520 Received 1 April 2024; Received in revised form 3 November 2024; Accepted 28 November 2024 Futures 166 (2025) 103520 2 Established scientific institutions typically prefer precise, measurable approaches. However, scientists struggle to adapt their conventional methods when dealing with complex, uncertain issues. These methods may not always be suitable for addressing inherently uncertain, intricate and real-world problems. In the midst of a turbulent institutional transition towards embracing uncertainty, critical reflexivity emerges as a crucial concept. While its meanings are diverse, reflexivity generally refers to the practice of critical reflection (D’Cruz et al., 2007). Guimar˜ aes Pereira and Saltelli (2017) suggest implementing this process through collaborative teamwork among researchers, particularly when applying scientific knowledge to policy-making. This paper acknowledges critical reflexivity as a means to identify, consider, and discuss alternatives to established conclusions and long-standing epistemic dominance of institutionalized knowledge, as well as explore new modes of engagement at the science-policy interface. In contexts of deep uncertainties and complexities, the traditional division between scientific and other forms of knowledge is no longer sufficient to maintain institutional credibility and ensure quality science advice. Instead, institutions and society must critically reflect on how to genuinely incorporate non-institutional ways of knowing when engaging stakeholders. This need to broaden the epistemic landscape forms the key background and central problem of our study. One way to critically reflect on the dilemma of maintaining credibility of institutional science-advice based on strict division between science and society, while pursuing social inclusion in tackling deeply uncertain issues, can be done through the lens of “postnormal science.” Post-normal science (Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1993; Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1994a, 1994b) provides a vantage point for ontological and philosophical reflections on the context and position of science and institutional science-advice in governance. According to Funtowicz and Ravetz (1994a), global environmental problems have characteristics where “… facts are uncertain, values are in dispute, stakes are high, and decisions urgent.” Funtowicz and Ravetz (1994b) argue that in this context, while traditional science is still valuable, there is a need for careful selection in how we approach each problem. They write: “… a simple, linear methodology based on the example of a “pure” science of laboratory research will not be likely to provide much guidance for solving the complex issues involved in such problems" (Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1994b, p. 1882). The normative aspects of post-normal problems in science-advice include ethics. Through a review of post-normal science literature, Kønig et al. (2017) identified five main tenants (forming the acronym “TRUST”) characteristically suited to ethically address post-normal problems as below: Transparency: the science-based advice is a well-defined process, with open access of data and methods and deep uncertainties are acknowledged and put up front Reflexivity: the participants in the science-based process should carve time and space to critically reflect on subjective decisions and the choice of methods and what knowledge is not “in the room” Uncertainty management: inherent uncertainty of complex problems needs to be communicated and managed Sustainability: the core value of post-normal science, as scientific knowledge needs to contribute to sustainable development, as well as sustainable institutional practices of working with science Transdisciplinarity: an acknowledgement of complexity and the role of disciplined and non-disciplined ways of knowing (Kønig et al., 2017) Post-normal science is increasingly recognized and applied in situations where traditional scientific methods are insufficient due to high levels of complexity, uncertainty and stakeholder involvement (Dankel et al., 2017). The post-normal science approach is particularly relevant in addressing contemporary global challenges such as climate change (Ravetz, 2011) and adaptation (Bremer, 2017) and biodiversity and nature conservation (Francis & Goodman, 2010), to name only a few examples. However logical the tenents of post-normal science may be, post-normal science is also “uncomfortable science” that challenges scientific institutions and scientific hegemony in the face of high systems uncertainty, high stakes and urgent decisions (Saltelli, 2023). It can also tackle shortcomings of evidence-based policy, discussed by Saltelli and Giampietro (2017). Considering that the complex, global problems we are faced which continue to grow, while no amount of data or models can provide any ready-made nor accurate single solution, it is timely to critically reflect on what is ethical in the way we (or we decide to) know together to handle the uncertain and complex issues that require urgent decisions. 1.1. Institutionalized epistemic authority: Simplification of complexity by quantification Overallocation of epistemic authority to a particular way of knowing raises both ethical and practical concerns. First, the modern scientific knowledge may possess the hegemonic power in the epistemic space through different processes of institutionalizations as Brown (1993) argues. In situations where institutionalized knowledge takes a dominant position, for example in the form of advice from a scientific institution, engaging diverse actors’ voice can be systematically difficult. It can create unbalanced power relations, that marginalize or silence other modes and languages of knowing. Second, this continuous tendency to heavily rely on the institutionalized knowledge would mean risking poor policy options for decisions. Bremer (2017) argues that in the case of climate change adaptation, relying heavily on the scientific way of understanding can be too narrow for issues that also require diverse meanings and interpretations to be considered as well (Bremer, 2017, p. 73). Epistemic authority has been often in form of quantification granted to the institution’s scientists and experts for science-advice; and quantification of complex and uncertain issues require ethical considerations (Saltelli, 2020). Quantification can drastically simplify a complex reality with deep uncertainties. Mau (2019) in his book The Metric Society: On the Quantification of the Social writes: “Quantification reduces a complex and confusing world to the standardized language of numbers, in which there are clear proportional relations between large and small (or more and less). … Numbers, in short, are associated with precision, one-to-one correspondence, simplification, verifiability and neutrality.” (Mau, 2019, p. 13) In addressing complex policy issues that fall under ’post-normal M.H. Kim and D.J. Dankel Futures 166 (2025) 103520 3 science,’ we need to critically reconsider our approach. The common practice of seeking a single, definitive answer, often expressed through excessively precise numerical values, may not be appropriate or effective. Conversely, expanding the epistemic space to include diverse voices is deemed appropriate and necessary for post-normal science problems. Stakeholder engagement holds significant value in fostering deliberation and incorporating a diverse range of knowledge perspectives, which enriches epistemic diversity. This becomes especially crucial when dealing with inherently uncertain and complex scientific problems that defy linear solutions, an inherent phenomenon for natural renewable resource management. We argue that relying solely on precise numerical data can restrict the appreciation of epistemic diversity by creating a rigid framework that limits the exploration of alternative viewpoints, in the contexts of post-normal science conditions. By fixating on numerical values, there’s a risk of setting predefined boundaries within the epistemic space, particularly when engaging stakeholders. In this paper, we exemplify many of the aforementioned phenomena, the problematic of quantitative advice to manage exploitation of renewable resources with stakeholder engagement, through a case from a well-known and well-established large science-advice institution in Europe. 1.2. The institutional context of ICES The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) is responsible for annually assessing the size of fish stocks and providing scientific advice on sustainable fishing practices. Established in 1902, ICES is the world’s oldest inter-governmental science institution. Through decades of collaboration, ICES has earned a reputation for scientific excellence and expertise in data collection and analysis spanning from the ocean floor to the sea surface (Rozwadowski, 2002). It operates with expert working groups and employs around 80 staff at its Secretariat in Copenhagen. ICES’s 20 member countries support its work financially and contribute national experts to relevant working groups, emphasizing a science-based approach to fisheries management. 1 ICES is based on the values and aims of providing “credible science” as mentioned in the Principle 7 of the Ten Principles of ICES advice (Ballesteros & Dickey-Collas, 2021, p.13). In the process of knowledge production and application to its social role of giving science advice, there are two important bodies in the institution: the Science Committee (SCICOM) and the Advisory Committee (ACOM). ACOM is the advisory branch of ICES that produces and delivers the scientific advice, usually in fish stock quotas, to ICES clients. The more than 100 working groups in SCICOM produce scientific knowledge for ICES clients, but do not formally provide policy advice. The boundary is drawn between the science and policy, and this boundary is institutionalized on the rational of being credible (Ballesteros & Dickey-Collas, 2021). In sum, credibility of its advice is overall an essential factor for the ICES’s raison d’ˆ etre, while its advice has to be applicable for the users. The work undertaken by ICES reflects the characteristics of today’s complex world: interconnectedness, high-stakes decisionmaking, and inherent uncertainties related to the natural world and climate. There is growing literature that stresses the importance of not minimizing or overlooking uncertainties but rather valuing them and integrating them into discussions. For example, Scoones and Stirling (2020) argue convincingly for embracing uncertainty as a fundamental aspect of navigating this intricate landscape. Similarly, Dankel et al. (2012) advocate for acknowledging uncertainty and making it a central focus. As societies grow more aware of the complexities and uncertainties surrounding environmental issues, they increasingly recognize the importance of inclusive decision-making processes. This has led to a greater emphasis on incorporating diverse perspectives in both policy decisions and advisory processes. However, this shift presents its own challenges. Traditionally, there has been a heavy reliance on advice from established scientific institutions. Now, there’s a move towards broadening the scope of knowledge considered, including insights from a wider range of scientific disciplines as well as non-scientific communities. This transition, while potentially beneficial, is not without its difficulties. The challenge lies in effectively integrating these varied knowledge sources – from traditional scientific expertise to local and indigenous knowledge – into coherent and actionable advice. This expanded “epistemic space” offers richer insights but also requires new approaches to knowledge synthesis and decision-making. Critical reflexivity on these issues is vital for ensuring the credibility of institutional science advice. This reflexivity serves as the primary motivation for our study, as we aim to investigate the complexities surrounding uncertainty, stakeholder engagement, and the provision of science advice. 1.3. Post-normal science as an ethical lens We base our discussion in this paper on the ways and the perspectives that post-normal science can provide on how to re-examine what quality and credible science-advice is on questions where science and technical expertise selected by the institution alone cannot provide the full picture nor an answer. We bring a central theme of post-normal science, the Extended Peer Community. We aim to illustrate how current ICES science-advice case can learn from the extended peer community for two reasons 1) quality of knowledge; 2) ethical and normative reasons, to discuss the ethics of knowing in deep uncertainties on environmental challenges. Here, our initial ethical questions emerge: To what extent are we ready to accept and credibly value the epistemic diversity in our current institutions and systems? As governmental rhetoric communicates more inclusiveness and public engagement in decision-making, are we ready to value non-expert deliberations and participation to the fullest? If so, if we know at the time of decision making that the number can possibly be wrong, are we then ready to be wrong? Are scientists and governing institutions willingly placing the authority 1 https://www.ices.dk/about-ICES/who-we-are/Pages/Who-we-are.aspx M.H. Kim and D.J. Dankel Futures 166 (2025) 103520 4 and power to an annual precise number for the sake of managing a fishery, and in doing so, avoiding chaos and complexity? And what does this mean from the ethical perspective to over-simplify known ecological complexities as single numbers with precision on which no single expert and non-expert knowledge can know precisely? “Are we ready to be wrong?” is not a rhetorical question on our part. We intend this question as an ethical one, with normative consequences. We draw inspiration from the concept of being “wrong” from the famous quote attributed to statistician George Box “All models are wrong, some are useful.” further exemplified in Saltelli and Funtowicz (2014). 2. The science and advice behind fishing quotas For many years, especially in the later part of the twentieth century, scientists worldwide have been working to assess fish stocks. This is because it’s crucial to manage fishing in a sustainable way. Countries in the North Atlantic, with access to fast computing and advanced sonar technology on research vessels, have played a significant role in this effort. To assess fish stocks, scientists use both independent data collected directly by scientific vessels at sea and data from fishing vessels themselves. They analyze information like the amount and types of fish caught, along with their sizes and ages, to understand the health of specific fish populations. This process is akin keeping a detailed record of a small part of a constantly changing ocean ecosystem. The assessments look back in time to estimate the size of fish stocks, while also making predictions about future catch quotas. These assessments are done annually for the most important fish stocks, and their recommendations are eagerly awaited by fishing stakeholders in Europe and North America. Thus, the annual advice for fisheries represents a classic post-normal science example of high systems uncertainty, high decision stakes, and high urgency (Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1993). 2.1. The problem: the scientific advice for the fishing quota for Northeast Atlantic mackerel We now exemplify a post-normal problem and shed light on the intriguing issue surrounding the credibility and impartiality of knowledge provided by the ICES through its science advice concerning Northeast Atlantic mackerel. This species holds significant economic value in Europe and plays a central role in the Northeast Atlantic ecosystem. Annually, scientists analyze data collected on the mackerel stock to assess its size and condition, informing recommendations for setting total allowable catches. This process aligns with the EU Common Fisheries Policy, 2 which mandates managing fish stocks at maximum sustainable yield. The science behind assessing Atlantic mackerel is challenged by epistemic uncertainty due to the fish stock’s large size and dynamic distribution, making it difficult to comprehensively survey. 3 In September 2018, ICES advised a catch quota of 318,403 tonnes for Northeast Atlantic mackerel in 2019, leading to significant concerns within the European catch and production industries. Norwegian fishers’ associations requested a halt to the advice, 4 citing uncertainties in stock estimates, particularly regarding the influence of tag data: “The industry is aware of the great uncertainty in this year’s stock estimate, and sees it as particularly serious that the tag data series has such a large effect on the stock assessment, without ICES being able to explain what is the cause 5 ”. Despite industry objections formulated in a letter to the Institute of Marine Research, ICES disseminated the advice, which represented a 42 % reduction from the previous year. Responding to industry and governmental concerns, ICES conducted a formal scientific review, leading to a revision of the advice in May 2019 to 770,358 tonnes (ICES, 2019a), a drastic increase of 140 % within eight months. This case highlights the challenges and uncertainties inherent in scientific advice for fisheries management. To address stakeholder concerns about the declining trust in mackerel stock assessment and advice, ICES organized a workshop with managers, industry representatives, and scientists. The workshop aimed to develop a research roadmap to enhance the evidence base for ICES advice on managing fisheries in the Northeast Atlantic. Among the seven key recommendations produced, six of them relate directly to strengthening the “normal science” paradigm of quantitative modelling, but one recommendation stands out as potentially opening the door to a post-normal ethical lens (emphasis added): “6. Build mechanisms to incorporate industry sampling of biological information into the formal stock assessment process and develop approaches for formalizing the flow of industry perceptions of 2 https://oceans-and-fisheries.ec.europa.eu/policy/common-fisheries-policy-cfp_en 3 https://www.ices.dk/news-and-events/news-archive/news/Pages/Northeast-Atlantic-mackerel.aspx 4 “Fiskebåt, Norges Fiskarlag, Pelagisk Forening, and Sjømannsforbundet are requesting that the quota advice for mackerel in 2019 be halted. The industry is aware of the significant uncertainty in this year’s stock estimate and considers it particularly serious that the tagging data series has such a large impact on the stock assessment, without ICES being able to explain the cause. In a letter to the Institute of Marine Research, the organizations therefore request that the quota advice be halted. The letter points out that ICES does not have a sufficient basis to provide advice for mackerel in 2019.” Original: «Fiskebåt, Norges Fiskarlag, Pelagisk Forening, og Sjømannsforbundet ber om at kvoterådet på makrell for 2019 stanses. Næringen er kjent med den store usikkerheten i årets bestandsestimat, og ser det som spesielt alvorlig at merkedataserien har så stor effekt på bestandsvurderingen, uten at ICES er i stand til å forklare hva som er årsaken. I et brev til Havforskningsinstituttet ber derfor organisasjonene om at kvoterådet stanses. I brevet blir det vist til at ICES ikke har et godt nok grunnlag for å gi råd for makrell i 2019.» https://www.facebook.com/NorgesFiskarlag/photos/a.336633879715609/ 1952882824757365/?type=3 5 Translated from the original Norwegian: «Næringen er kjent med den store usikkerheten i årets bestandsestimat, og ser det som spesielt alvorlig at merkedataserien har så stor effekt på bestandsvurderingen, uten at ICES er i stand til å forklare hva som er årsaken» . https://www.fiskeribladet.no/ nyheter/-denne-usikkerheten-kan-vi-ikke-leve-mer-med/8–1-62542 M.H. Kim and D.J. Dankel Futures 166 (2025) 103520 5 the stock’s state into the assessment process” (ICES, 2019b). 2.2. ICES epistemological challenge: inclusion while preserving credibility of scientific knowledge In light of increasing challenges the organization has undergone institutional reforms to enhance stakeholder involvement, recognizing that the legitimacy of ICES advice is crucial (Ballesteros & Dickey-Collas, 2021, 2023). In 2021, the ICES Workshop on Stakeholder Engagement Strategy (WKSHOES, ICES, 2021) acknowledged the critical importance of stakeholder engagement in addressing environmental challenges and understanding human impacts and values. Subsequently, in January 2023, the first version of “ICES Stakeholder Engagement Strategy. ICES Guidelines and Policies” (ICES, 2023) was published. This document outlines the mission, strategy, goals, scope, actors and their roles as well as key aspects of the procedures of the engagement (ICES, 2023). ICES now considers stakeholder engagement essential in addressing evolving common challenges. Nevertheless, ICES (2023) also acknowledges a valid concern on how to maintain the credibility of its science advice: “ICES recognizes the essential nature of stakeholder engagement for addressing environmental challenges and understanding human impacts and values. Nonetheless, there are valid concerns that if stakeholder engagement is done incorrectly, it could compromise the actual or perceived objectivity of ICES science and its independence” (ICES, 2023, p.2). This pursuit of objectivity has been crucial in establishing and maintaining its reputation as a leading authority on marine science and advice. In other words, while ICES values input from various stakeholders, it’s aware of the need to balance this engagement with preserving its long-standing reputation for impartial, expert science advice (Ballesteros & Dickey-Collas, 2023). On the current state of stakeholder engagement in ICES, Ballesteros and Dickey-Collas write: “The stakeholders’ willingness to influence the process is the common ground, yet their influence and decision-making in the process vary greatly” (Ballesteros & Dickey-Collas, 2023, p.8). This is because ICES remains as the gate-keeper and holder of power in deciding who is able to engage in ICES science and advice. Goals for incorporating a wider range of knowledge and ensuring independence of advice are outlined in the ICES Advisory Plan (ICES, 2019a), emphasizing stakeholder engagement to develop current and future advice products. Despite these efforts, the conventional definition of credibility remains a core attribute for ICES’s perceived quality science-advice, leading to some parts of the advice process still being closed to stakeholders. In facing the complexities of ‘how’ to engage the diverse actors, the stakeholder engagement strategy of ICES in the report (ICES, 2023) highlights the importance of predetermined different positions scientists and other actors have; the scientists are considered a particular type of stakeholder (ICES, 2023). The report states: “ICES defines stakeholders as those who affect or are affected by a decision, process, or action of ICES, including scientists and knowledge providers operating within ICES network. Because of the central role that scientists in the network play in framing and conducting the work of ICES, scientists have a unique role as “internal stakeholders” from within the organization, and this strategy generally reserves the word “stakeholders” to denote all other stakeholders” (ICES, 2023, p.1). The ICES Stakeholder Engagement Strategy aims to ensure clear roles and responsibilities within the ICES network, while also striving to increase opportunities for diverse resource users and citizens to engage. Avoiding implicit bias and promoting diversity and inclusion are crucial considerations in this process (ICES, 2023). 3. Discussion Learning from the story of the ICES mackerel stock advice and observing the institutional progress of developing an initial stakeholder engagement strategy reviewed in the previous section, we identify key challenges and dilemmas that institutions of science advice face today. In the case, on one hand, ICES pursues the credibility of science for its science advice to its clients (Ballesteros & Dickey-Collas, 2021). On the other hand, ICES pursues inclusiveness and knowledge co-production through stakeholder engagement (ICES, 2023). How can these two pursuits be achieved concurrently when continually faced with post-normal problems of deep uncertainty? And for whom is ICES science and advice credible, legitimate, and salient? Through the case-specific storyline we provide in this paper, we assert that the precise numbers monopolizing the ‘right to know’ for science advice for decision-making on complicated and deeply uncertain problems concerning both society and nature, can pose risks in many ways. Quantification, especially through unwarranted hyper-precision, of deeply uncertain systems can threaten the quality of knowledge (Hauge, 2011). Quantification through highly technical models, as used in the mackerel stock assessment and advice, can (intentionally or unintentionally) close doors to other potentially valuable knowledge to be considered. It could also mean opportunities lost to better understanding and framing of the problem from diverse angles. In the case, it could be on diverse factors to consider before assessing the stock, or how the quota should be decided, or should not decided at all, at that specific time. Most importantly, it can cause a low acceptance level from the stakeholders and societies of the advice provided or the relevant decisions made. The mackerel advice, like all fish stock advice provided by ICES, is de facto a well-defined technocratic procedure. Technocratic path-dependency (Clarke & Flannery, 2020) can conceivably damage the social trust and institutional reputation as a credible knowledge provider under uncertainty and complexity. Due to these possibilities, we contend that it is critical to have an open governance and institutional reflection based on the future of institutional advice’s credibility. If ICES as an institution is ready to initiate a discussion on how to deal with uncertainty and stakeholder engagement concurrently, we strongly advocate for a post-normal ethical lens. We characterize the annual quota-setting process as a post-normal problem for several reasons as follows. First, fish stock assessment inherently involves significant uncertainty, influenced by multiple feedback M.H. Kim and D.J. Dankel Futures 166 (2025) 103520 6 loops encompassing known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns (high systems uncertainty). Second, the livelihoods of thousands of fishermen and fishing companies hinge on these quotas, creating high-stakes decisions that demand urgent resolution. Third, the health and sustainability of marine ecosystems rely on maintaining robust fish stocks, amplifying the significance of these decisions amidst the backdrop of high systems uncertainty and stakes. If a critical mass of scientists and leadership within ICES recognizes this backdrop, a critical first step is extending the peer community to meet the collective challenge of post-normal science. 3.1. Extended Peer Community in an ICES context To deal with post-normal conditions, Funtowicz and Ravetz put forward the concept of the Extended Peer Community (Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1993). Post-normal science advocates for ethics of knowing, as outlined by Funtowicz and Ravetz in their concept of extended peer communities (Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1993), further expanded upon by Healy (Healy, 1999). According to Funtowicz and Ravetz (1997), beyond the ethical values the extended peer community aims to refine the scientific studies and adapt them to local contexts (Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1997). An Extended Peer Community in practice is a group of individuals who are committed to share their knowledge and their ways of knowing in participatory discussions in a post-normal context. In other disciplinary traditions, this can be similar to the characterization of “Mode 2 science” (Nowotny et al., 2003) the goals of “group model building” (Vennix, 1999) and transdisciplinary work (see Carew & Wickson, 2010). But central to post-normal science are the ethical norms (and universal values) of transparency, robustness, uncertainty management, sustainability, and transdisciplinarity (Kønig et al., 2017), a focus on the quality of knowledge (Sluijs et al., 2008), and an epistemic acknowledgement of the acute limits of science (Saltelli & Funtowicz, 2014). Funtowicz and Ravetz (1997, p.175) elucidate that the extended peer community plays a crucial role in ensuring the quality of knowledge and advice in post-normal science environmental issues. They clarify that advocating for the extension of peer communities is not merely driven by a generalized desire for increased democracy in society. Instead, their epistemological analysis of post-normal science, grounded in the practical imperative of quality assurance, reveals the necessity of expanding peer communities and facts. This expansion is deemed essential for enhancing the effectiveness of science in addressing the novel challenges posed by complex environmental problems (Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1997). Furthermore, the extended peer community can help the scientific research to better understand the tacit knowledge and thus achieve “extended facts” (Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1997, p.174). In this process, they explain: “It may be argued that they lack theoretical knowledge and are biased by self-interest; but it can equally well be argued that the experts lack practical knowledge and have their own unselfconscious forms of bias" (Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1997, p.174). A notable example is the previously introduced 2018 Northeast Atlantic mackerel scientific fishing quota advice, which underwent revision in 2019 after stakeholder criticism. The process of generating a precise but incomprehensible accuracy of the six-digit number, despite stakeholder concerns, highlights a disconnect between scientific expertise and stakeholder engagement. In such contexts, institutionalized science and quantitative modeling can result in monopolizing epistemic space, sidelining stakeholder input and tacit knowledge. This was corroborated by a stakeholder participating in the ICES Workshop on a Research Roadmap for Mackerel (2019) who stated there is: “… a need to hear the voices from the sea.” (ICES, 2019a, 2019b) Experiences with events such as the replacement of the scientific advice for Northeast Atlantic mackerel outlined above, underline the need for ICES to critically reflect and spell out in simple terms how stakeholder engagement should occur in practice. In January 2023, when ICES released the “ICES Stakeholder Engagement Strategy”, it was the first of its kind for this institution, and designed to support the increasing need for stakeholder participation in complex marine research (ICES, 2023). ICES recognizes specific goals for extending the peer community i) to increase legitimacy, ownership, and accountability for the creation of knowledge; and ii) to facilitate knowledge exchange and collaboration when addressing operational, tactical, and strategic challenges, thus enhancing innovation and social learning (ICES, 2023). The document lays out the different rationale, principles, roles and duties of societal stakeholders and marine researchers, but does not go into details that could be helpful for the specific quantitative case for scientific advice on fish quotas. It is important to clarify the different stages of science and advice production of ICES and dissemination to understand the complexity of the role of science at the science-policy interface. There are three main steps: 1) ICES generates knowledge, 2) ICES gives advice, and 3) ICES advice is used by its member countries. One could argue that, considering fisheries science and management as a post-normal problem, stakeholder engagement within an Extended Peer Community should occur in each of these steps. In practice, we see these three steps as inherently intertwined. Caution is needed to prevent the stifling of stakeholder engagement by the technocratic management system of the complex statistical modelling. Instead it that requires interdisciplinary scientific deliberation and actively engaging diverse ways of knowing through the process. The Extended Peer Community represents a legitimate epistemological and normative opportunity to critically reflect on ‘how’ to engage in the age of inclusiveness on issues of post-normal science. This is in-line with the global call for just transitions for sustainability only if it is allowed to challenge and provide alternatives to the status quo. 3.2. Epistemic justice and its relation to extended peer communities Miranda Fricker introduced the term “epistemic injustice,” and it points to how prejudices can lead to injustice in how hearers perceive what speakers say in testimonial situations (Fricker, 2003). The author writes: “Either the prejudice results in the speaker’s receiving more credibility than she rationality deserves – credibility excess – or it results in her receiving less credibility than she rationally deserves – credibility deficit" (Fricker, 2003, p. 164). Fricker (2003) thus looks at the state of epistemic injustice, in contexts M.H. Kim and D.J. Dankel Futures 166 (2025) 103520 7 where it is potentially infringed by undesirable amount of credibility allocated to a particular person’s testimonial speeches from the hearer’s perspectives due to a socialized prejudices. We question what this can mean for the ethical consideration from both the normative perspective of inclusive governance and from the epistemic justice perspective (Fricker, 2007). We argue that the concept of “epistemic justice” (Fricker, 2003, 2007) can effectively bridge the extended peer community and the case study’s challenge of over-allocation of epistemic authority to the quantified institutionalized knowledge through ethical and justice perspective. Building on Fricker (2003)’s logic within the realm of post-normal science and ethics, the author’s conceptualization of “epistemic injustice” can provide a conceptual framework for being reflexive about how different ways of knowing - particularly regarding who is speaking or informing, can lead to “credibility excess” or “credibility deficit” during stakeholder engagement processes in environmental decision-making. This is especially critical for the development and implementation of stakeholder engagement strategies by institutions such as ICES. With a long history and identity as a objective knowledge provider, ICES faces growing challenges when handling issues that are inherently uncertain, impossible to be accurately predicted and complex due to diverse social stakes involved. Fricker’s term “epistemic injustice” (Fricker, 2003) helps to critically reflect on systematic "credibility excess" given to institutionalized knowledge often in numbers. Epistemic authority that is given automatically to the 6-digits number in the case of mackerel fishery quota setting example should be brought to examination for whether they deserve to monopolize the right to be the only credible knowledge to define what should be the institutional advice. Due to the credibility excess, or its dominance of epistemic space, a systematic credibility deficit can result in a marginalization of other ways of knowing. In a post-normal situation, the repercussions of marginalization and exclusion of alternative forms of knowledge can cause a high cost both on ethical terms (fairness) and quality of knowledge (Meisch, 2024). These alternative perspectives, which may not conform to the framework of institutionalized numerical data, are often overlooked when confronted with seemingly precise and objective language. Referring back to Fricker’s concept of “epistemic injustice” (Fricker, 2003) in testimonial cases, we can re-imagine epistemic injustice in an institutional setting. In such context, certain scientific and institutionalized knowledge tends to automatically gain an epistemic authority, thanks to past practices of knowledge production and application. In testimonial cases, there are prejudices concerned with the individual who speaks depending on the gender, race and accents among many that determine how hearers perceive what speakers say epistemically (Fricker, 2003). In the context of post-normal science, where no one person can assure one single form of information or knowledge to be the correct answer to solve the problem, there is a tendency to tilt towards the existing institutionalized knowledge often in form of quantification reported or delivered by a group of experts or institution(s) that already has the name-value or general credibility for pursuing objectivity. ICES and its expert groups have exactly this brand. For ICES, the delivery of the scientific advice often sparks contentious debates among stakeholders putting the credibility and legitimacy of ICES science and advice at stake. Fishers frequently hold divergent views on the state of fish stocks compared to scientists, leading to disagreements regarding the validity of the advice. This disparity is underscored by the lived experiences of fishermen at sea, which may differ from scientific assessments (Hauge, 2011; Lane, 1999), thereby potentially degrading their trust in ICES. And in the example of the model breakdown of the Northeast Atlantic mackerel advice in 2018 and revision in 2019, fishermen’s representatives vociferously argued that the model did not capture the stakeholders’ perception of the state of the stock 6,7 . Here we could label the ICES’s model and strict quantification as having a "credibility excess" while the fishermen as having a "credibility deficit" using Fricker (2003)’s concepts. Due to the high stakes of fisheries management, fishers have a high vested interest in the outcome of stock assessments from ICES, which are the basis for the quota advice that directly affects their business. The credibility and quality of an Extended Peer Community would also be dependent on balancing the vested interests and knowledge biases. For this, NUSAP (Numeral, Unit, Spread, Assessment, Pedigree) in post-normal science serves as a robust framework to balance vested interests while promoting inclusivity of diverse knowledge holders (Dankel et al., 2012; Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1990; Van Der Sluijs et al., 2005). This approach provides a structured method for evaluating and communicating the quality of scientific information, particularly in complex, high-stakes situations where traditional scientific methods may be insufficient. By breaking down information into its constituent parts (numbers, units, spread of uncertainty, qualitative assessments, and the pedigree or lineage of the information), NUSAP allows for a more transparent and comprehensive evaluation of knowledge claims. Science alone cannot “know” for sure and “be right” on how many fish are in the sea and how many should be harvested. Thus, as a post-normal problem, the only credible, legitimate and salient engagement outside of the science institution is through the application of an Extended Peer Community where different knowledge holders have legitimate ways to engage and critically reflect on the knowledge and evidence. In the example of fishery quota of mackerel exemplified in previous section, an Extended Peer community in practice will require involving the fishing industry more closely in the assessment process, but also in a communal critical reflection of the state of the art with a consequence of scrapping old stock assessment models with new ones or even new paradigms of fisheries management. This process could build trust and understanding between all parties involved in fisheries management. Fricker (2003, 2007)’s concept of "epistemic justice" can help explain and be more reflexive about the ethical value and on ‘how’ to engage stakeholders when putting extended peer community into practice, beyond its pragmatic value in achieving quality and actual fairness of knowledge in post-normal science contexts, as also described by Meisch (2024). 6 https://www.seafoodsource.com/news/supply-trade/irish-fishers-criticize-scientific-advice-as-eu-norway-and-faroes-agree-to-slash-2019mackerel-catch 7 https://fiskerforum.com/agreement-on-mackerel-for-2019/ M.H. Kim and D.J. Dankel Futures 166 (2025) 103520 8 4. Conclusions In our paper, we delve into the complex challenge faced by institutions like ICES, tasked with providing credible and impartial science advice while effectively engaging stakeholders and the public. Drawing from the ethical perspective of post-normal science, we highlight the limitations and social consequences of the traditional science advice practices, using the example of stock assessment and quota advice for Northeast Atlantic mackerel. Given the pervasive uncertainty inherent in quantified science advice, we support ICES’s new Stakeholder Engagement Strategy (ICES, 2023). We propose an institutional discussion within ICES rooted in post-normal science, leading to the emergence of Extended Peer Communities. These communities would provide a platform for diverse forms of knowledge to interact and be embraced. For this to be implemented in practice, Fricker (2003)’s concept of epistemic injustice will be a conceptual guidance in ‘how’ to engage, aiming a truly inclusive epistemic. While this approach may pose challenges, it aims to enhance social trust and bolster the credibility of institutional advice amid profound uncertainty. The Extended Peer Community serves as both an ethical lens and a practical tool for improving stakeholder engagement processes. By valuing diverse ways of knowing, it aims to elevate the credibility of institutional science advice. Drawing upon concepts of epistemic justice proposed by Miranda Fricker (2003, 2007), we emphasize the importance of reinforcing the quality assurance of extended peer community practices and upholding ethical values and justice. Furthermore, adopting a post-normal science ethical viewpoint can offer practical benefits in addressing epistemological and ontological questions faced by science-advice institutions amidst deep uncertainty. Unlike past modernist problem-solving methods, this approach encourages an ethos of transparency, reflexivity, uncertainty management, sustainability and transdisciplinarity (Kønig et al., 2017), and promotes a nuanced understanding of quality science advice in uncertain contexts. Our paper recommends, in case of ICES, redefining and expanding the notion of its “institutional advice” provided to include input from diverse stakeholders throughout the knowledge production process. To implement this approach, we suggest considering factors such as the scope and openness of stakeholder engagement processes, ensuring epistemic justice through dialogue and negotiation that allow critical reflexivity, and re-evaluating the path-dependent epistemic authority to foster inclusivity. By embracing the concept of the Extended Peer Community with tools like NUSAP, institutions can better navigate the tension between stakeholder engagement and maintaining the quality of knowledge production, thus promoting democratic ideals and effectively addressing uncertainties in ecological and natural resources management (Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1997; Van Der Sluijs et al., 2005). To tackle these obstacles, we propose a thorough examination within institutions to develop new, fair, and practical methods for engaging stakeholders, emphasizing extended peer communities, especially in navigating post-normal conditions. Our goal is to promote epistemic justice and maintain the integrity of knowledge production and communication processes, grounded in realizing epistemic justice (Fricker, 2003), which prioritize fairness and inclusivity in knowledge distribution and decision-making. In order to give post-normal science advice, we propose to engage stakeholders through the extended peer community in these stages: a) problem defining, framing and scoping process; b) method and deliberation; c) advice monitoring. Certainly, legitimizing a plurality of ways of knowing can pose challenges, particularly when decisions must be made urgently and uncertainties and stakes are high. However, amidst this complexity, there lies a unique opportunity for collaborative and synergistic approaches to knowing by respecting the epistemic diversity. Post-normal problems could potentially be addressed within an institutional framework that promotes the acceptance of uncertainty and values the diverse forms of knowledge available. This entails facilitating democratic participation and engaging diverse actors in the realm of understanding what cannot be fully known. Only by doing so can we genuinely embrace the notion of being “ready to be wrong” in our quest towards credible decision-making processes facing deep uncertainties and complexities. CRediT authorship contribution statement Min Hyung Kim: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Conceptualization. Dorothy Jane Dankel: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Validation, Supervision, Project administration, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Conceptualization. Declaration of Competing Interest None Acknowledgements We thank members of the ICES community for sharing insights that improved this manuscript. MHK’s work was supported by PRE2022-103053 funded by MICIU/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 and by FSE+; and by the María de Maeztu Excellence Unit 20232027 Ref. CEX2021-001201-M, funded by MICIU/AEI/10.13039/501100011033. DJD received funding from Research Council of Norway project nr. 295088 and NordForsk Project nr. 104492. M.H. Kim and D.J. Dankel Futures 166 (2025) 103520 9 References Ballesteros, M., & Dickey-Collas, M. (2021). The process in ICES of opening up to increased stakeholder engagement (1980–2020) [Report]. ICES Cooperative Research Reports (CRR). https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.8516 Ballesteros, M., & Dickey-Collas, M. (2023). Managing participation across boundaries: A typology for stakeholder engagement in the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. Marine Policy, 147, Article 105389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2022.105389 Bremer, S. (2017). Have we given up too much? On yielding climate representation to experts. Futures, 91, 72–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2017.01.008 Brown, R. H. (1993). Modern Science: Institutionalization of Knowledge and Rationalization of Power. The Sociological Quarterly, 34(1), 153–168. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1533-8525.1993.tb00135.x Carew, A. L., & Wickson, F. (2010). The TD wheel: A heuristic to shape, support and evaluate transdisciplinary research. Futures, 42(10), 1146–1155. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.futures.2010.04.025 Clarke, J., & Flannery, W. (2020). The post-political nature of marine spatial planning and modalities for its re-politicisation. Journal of Environmental Policy Planning, 22(2), 170–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2019.1680276 D’Cruz, H., Gillingham, P., & Melendez, S. (2007). Reflexivity, its meanings and relevance for social work: A critical review of the literature. The British Journal of Social Work, 37(1), 73–90. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcl001 Dankel, D. J., Aps, R., Padda, G., R¨ ockmann, C., van der Sluijs, J. P., Wilson, D. C., & Degnbol, P. (2012). Advice under uncertainty in the marine system. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 69(1), 3–7. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsr179 Dankel, D. J., Vaage, N. S., & van der Sluijs, J. P. (2017). Post-normal science in practice. Futures, 91, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2017.05.009 Francis, R. A., & Goodman, M. K. (2010). Post-normal science and the art of nature conservation. Journal for Nature Conservation, 18(2), 89–105. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jnc.2009.04.002 Fricker, M. (2003). Epistemic injustice and a role for virtue in the politics of knowing. Metaphilosophy, 34(1/2), 154–173. Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198237907.001.0001 Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1990). The NUSAP scheme: introduction. In S. O. Funtowicz, & J. R. Ravetz (Eds.), Uncertainty and quality in science for policy (pp. 115–122). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-0621-1_10. Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25(7), 739–755. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-3287(93)90022-L Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1994a). Uncertainty, complexity and post-normal science. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 13(12), 1881–1885. https://doi. org/10.1002/etc.5620131203 Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1994b). Uncertainty, complexity and post-normal science. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 13(12), 1881–1885. Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1997). Environmental problems, post-normal science, and extended peer communities. ´ Etudes et Recherches Sur Les Syst` emes Agraires et Lengyel D´ eveloppement, 169–175. Guimar˜ aes Pereira, ˆ A., & Saltelli, A. (2017). Post-normal institutional identities: Quality assurance, reflexivity and ethos of care. Futures, 91, 53–61. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.futures.2016.11.009 Hauge, K. H. (2011). Uncertainty and hyper-precision in fisheries science and policy. Futures, 43(2), 173–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2010.10.006 Healy, S. (1999). Extended peer communities and the ascendance of post-normal politics. Futures, 31(7), 655–669. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-3287(99)00025-7 ICES (2019). Advisory plan. https://doi.org/10.17895/ICES.PUB.5468. ICES. (2019b). Workshop on a research roadmap for mackerel (WKRRMAC) [Report]. ICES Scientific Reports. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.5541 ICES. (2021). Workshop on stakeholder engagement strategy (WKSHOES). https://doi.org/10.17895/ICES.PUB.8233 ICES. (2023). ICES Stakeholder Engagement Strategy. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.21815106.v1 Kønig, N., Børsen, T., & Emmeche, C. (2017). The ethos of post-normal science. Post-Normal Science in Practice, 91, 12–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. futures.2016.12.004 Lane, D. (1999). Fisheries-management science: A framework for the implementation of fisheries-management systems. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 56(6), 1059–1066. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmsc.1999.0548 Mau, S. (2019). The metric society: On the quantification of the social (S. Howe, Trans.). Polity Press. Meisch, S. P. (2024). Extended peer communities: Creating good and fair knowledges. Futures, 163, Article 103455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2024.103455 Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2003). Introduction: “Mode 2” revisited: The new production of knowledge. Minerva, 41(3), 179–194. Ravetz, J. R. (2011). Climategate and the maturing of post-normal science. Futures, 43(2), 149–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2010.10.003 Rozwadowski, H. M. (2002). The sea knows no boundaries: A century of marine science under ICES. International council for the exploration of the Sea in association with University of Washington Press, Seattle. Saltelli, A. (2020). Ethics of quantification or quantification of ethics? Futures, 116, Article 102509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2019.102509 Saltelli, A. (2023). What is post-normal science? A personal encounter. Foundations of Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-023-09932-x Saltelli, A., & Funtowicz, S. (2014). When all models are wrong. Issues in Science and Technology, 30(2) (Winter 2014). Saltelli, A., & Giampietro, M. (2017). What is wrong with evidence based policy, and how can it be improved? Futures, 91, 62–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. futures.2016.11.012 Scoones, I., & Stirling, A. (2020). Uncertainty and the politics of transformation. In I. Scoones, & A. Stirling (Eds.), The politics of uncertainty: Challenges of transformation (1 st ed., pp. 1–30). Routledge, Earthscan from Routledge. Sluijs, J. P. van der, Petersen, A. C., Janssen, P. H. M., Risbey, J. S., & Ravetz, J. R. (2008). Exploring the quality of evidence for complex and contested policy decisions. Environmental Research Letters, 3(2), Article 024008. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/3/2/024008 Van Der Sluijs, J. P., Craye, M., Funtowicz, S., Kloprogge, P., Ravetz, J., & Risbey, J. (2005). Combining quantitative and qualitative measures of uncertainty in modelbased environmental assessment: The NUSAP system. Risk Analysis, 25(2), 481–492. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00604.x Vennix, J. A. M. (1999). Group model-building: Tackling messy problems. System Dynamics Review, 15(4), 379–401. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1727 (199924) M.H. Kim and D.J. Dankel