RIVM's communication strategy in challenging times : an embedded case-study research of rubber granulate infill and the “cheating-cigarette”

(1)

Master thesis Political Science: Public Policy and Governance

RIVM’s communication strategy in challenging times

An embedded case-study research of rubber granulate infill and the

“cheating-cigarette”

Name student: Thomas Nijenhuis Number student: 10543236

Supervisor: Mw. dr. A.M.C. (Anne) Loeber Second reader: Dhr. prof. dr. J. (John) Grin Institution: University of Amsterdam

Course: Contested knowledge and alternative facts. Reasons and power in politics and governance.

Date: 22-06-2018 Word count: 16043

(2)

2

Abstract

The traditional triangle between politics, science and media has changed to a more complex version. In the past, disciplinary science communicated their knowledge to top-down media and policy-makers, which in turn communicated this to citizens, forming a “simple” communication triangle. Nowadays, scientists face more challenges when communicating about their work. The puzzle in this thesis is: How do governmental expert agencies communicate about socially and politically contested issues, which are also technically complex, in such a manner that different target groups are served? This thesis focuses on the Dutch governmental expert agency: The National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM). It uses an embedded case design (Yin 2003), studying two cases within RIVM: the rubber granulate case and the “cheating cigarettes” case. I analyse RIVM’s communication strategy towards the scientific community, commissioners and the general public, to better understand the challenges that RIVM experts face in practice. In the theory chapter, four challenges that governmental expert agencies face are discussed: contested knowledge, the authority paradox, the uncertainty paradox and the independence issue. These concepts provide a framework through which RIVM’s communication strategy is analysed. I argue that the rise of these four challenges has made RIVM’s communication strategy more important and at the same time more difficult. Official policy documents and reports related to both cases are used as a source of data. Furthermore, four interviews with RIVM employees who are experts on one or two of the cases are conducted.

In the rubber granulate case, RIVM was expected to take people’s grievances into account, the Ministry wanted a clear risk assessment report of the case as soon as possible, citizens wanted RIVM to operate in an independent and socially engaged manner and RIVM was confronted with peer experts, who questioned the conclusions of RIVM’s risk assessment report. These sets of standards and expectations combined with contested knowledge, RIVM’s authority being questioned, scientific uncertainty and independence issues influenced RIVM’s communication about the case. It led to more efforts to involve citizens in the research process actively.

In the “cheating cigarette” case, RIVM was expected to communicate more actively and openly about the harmful effects of “cheating cigarettes” due to an increase in public interest in the topic. RIVM also faced issues with independence in this case; RIVM is restricted in its measurement methods by European legislation and dependent on Dutch policy-makers to take their advice into account. These sets of standards and expectations combined with independence issues affected RIVM’s communication strategy. RIVM used to communicate very little to the general public about the “cheating cigarette”. Due to an increasing public interest, RIVM experts decided to start communicating about the case more actively and openly.

Key words: Communication strategy, RIVM, Contested knowledge, Uncertainty paradox,

(3)

3

1. Introduction

In 2016, societal and political concern about rubber granulate arose in the Netherlands due to a broadcast by Zembla entitled, “Gevaarlijk spel” (Dangerous play) (RIVM 2017a). Zembla reported that rubber granulate contains high concentrations of hazardous substances. A suspicion of a causal relationship was established between playing sports on rubber granulate pitches and the incidence of leukaemia in children (ibid).Since this broadcast, questions have been raised about the health risks of hazardous substances in rubber

granulate. Since the broadcast, the topic received attention in papers, television and on the internet daily (Zembla 2016a). The scientific community, commissioners and the general public wanted answers about potential health risks of rubber granulate.

In the Zembla broadcast, scientists questioned existing research of IndusTox, a Dutch research institute. In 2006, they conducted research into rubber granulate and concluded that it is safe. Zembla called their findings into question because the study only took two and a half hours and only seven football players were involved in the research (Zembla 2016b). Furthermore, Martijn Berger, Professor at the University of Maastricht, argued that this research did not give an accurate picture of the actual health risks, because children and women were excluded from the research (Zembla 2017a). The experts in the broadcast argued that not enough research has been done on potential public health risks of playing football on rubber granulate pitches (Zembla 2016b). They cannot rule out that rubber granulate contains carcinogenic substances (Zembla 2016c) Furthermore, they argued that until clarity about health risks are clear, people should not play on those pitches (Zembla 2016b). Martin van den Berg, Professor of Toxicology, and Andrew Watterson, Professorof Health Effectiveness in Health Sciences, explained that only thorough epidemiological investigation can provide answers about the public health risks (Zembla 2016c).

As a result of this broadcast, commotion arose in Dutch society. Dozens of football games were cancelled (Zembla 2016d). Some football clubs decided to implement

precautionary measures such as having children play on grass pitches and adjusting

competition schedules (RIVM 2017a). Several football clubs prohibited their members from playing on rubber granulate pitches (Zembla 2016d). Some football clubs decided to switch to synthetic turf fields with cork (NOS 2016a). Sixteen football clubs completely excluded rubber granulate from their pitches (Zembla 2016e). These clubs did not want to wait for

(5)

5 future research (ibid). Some parents did not want their children to play on rubber granulate pitches anymore. A number of parents from the Leeuwarder football club Leovardia started a Facebook-page, called “Kom van dat gras af” (Get of that grass) (Zembla 2016a). The parent’s aim was to create a platform were parents could deliberate and share information about the topic (ibid).

The growing societal commotion was a reason for Edith Schippers, former Minister of Health, Welfare and Sport to instruct the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) to establish a risk assessment report of the case, as soon as possible. The Minister stated that she understood parents’ concerns and urged RIVM to provide them with answers as quickly as possible (Zembla 2016c). RIVM immediately started new and thorough research on the potential health risks of hazardous substances in rubber granulate (Zembla 2016d).

This case shows that there are multiple expectations of a governmental expert agency. Peer experts wanted thorough research, citizens wanted certain answers, and former Minister Schippers instructed RIVM to write a risk assessment report as soon as possible.

Governmental expert agencies have to conduct their research and communicate about their findings in a way that accommodates these expectations.

The puzzle in this thesis is: How do governmental expert agencies communicate about socially and politically contested issues, which are also technically complex, in such a manner that different target groups are served?

Communication by governmental expert agencies has become more complicated. Interaction between politics, science and media has become more complex than before (In ‘t Veld 2010: 5-11). In ‘t Veld (2010) describes how in the past, disciplinary science was used to solve “simple” policy problems. They communicated their knowledge to top-down media, which in turn communicated this to citizens. Scientists communicated their knowledge and policy solutions to the government as well. Science, government and media formed a “simple” communication triangle this way. Nowadays, the traditional triangle has changed to a more complex version:

‘The media are far from neutral or passive. The illusion that they are a neutral mirror of reality belongs to a forgotten past. We have already shed light on the relationships between politics and media. Media create realities, they also produce knowledge, and moreover report on citizens’

(6)

6

knowledge. They are the reporters on scientific findings but also competitors of scientists. The same goes for the relationships between media and citizens. This increasing complexity demands efforts in order to gain insight.’ (In ‘t Veld 2010: 9-10)

The triangle has become more complex due to societal changes, such as higher levels of education, the emergence of the world wide web and a more egalitarian society (In ‘t Veld 2010: 5-6). These changes have made knowledge more accessible to citizens than ever before. We live in a knowledge society, where knowledge is widely available to citizens. This has created an abundance of knowledge available to citizens (idem: 5). Citizens get their information from a wide range of sources, such as social media, “traditional” news outlets or opinion websites (idem: 5-6). This abundance of, often contradictory, knowledge has led to citizens questioning the authority of governmental expert agencies (Grundmann 2016: 29; Weingart 1999: 158). In contemporary society, knowledge claims by authorities are not self-evident anymore (Kunseler 2016: 2). Therefore, communicative competences of scientific experts have become more important, because special “translation” tasks

between experts and the public are needed (Fischer 2009: 192-193). Properly “translating” knowledge to citizens is necessary because their fundamental belief in the scientific expert’s authority has declined (Grundmann 2016: 29-30). This means that authority can be achieved through communication (Hajer 2009: 22-23). Thus, the communication strategy of

governmental expert agencies has become crucial to give their knowledge claims authority.

1.1 Research aim

The complex triangle has made communication more important for governmental expert agencies. In this thesis, I will focus on the Dutch governmental expert agency: RIVM. The choice for this governmental expert agency will be explained in the methodology chapter. The research aim of this thesis is to analyse RIVM’s communication strategy towards the scientific community, commissioners and the general public, in order to understand the challenges that RIVM experts face in practice. The research question reads:

How do RIVM experts in practice give shape to RIVM’s strategic communication about problematic issues, to comply with standards set by the scientific community, commissioners

(7)

7

and expectations of the general public andwhat can we learn from the rubber granulate case and “cheating cigarette” case?

Because I will specifically look at how RIVM brings its communication strategy into practice, the focus will be on two cases within RIVM, instead of the organisation in general. I will focus on the rubber granulate case, which was briefly discussed in the introduction, and the “cheating cigarette” case.

In the rubber granulate case, RIVM was asked by the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport to report on the potential health risks related to the use of rubber granulate pitches. RIVM faced communication difficulties in this case because their findings were called into question by citizens and peer experts (Zembla 2017b). Although RIVM reports showed that the dangers of playing sports on rubber granulate pitches are negligible, concerns were still voiced by the media and by the general public.

In the “cheating cigarettes” case, RIVM faced communication difficulties because the research they had to communicate about was bound by European measurement standards, even though they knew other research methods led to other, more accurate, findings. The quantities of tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide (“TNCO”) are determined by using the standard measurements set by the European Union (RIVM 2018h). RIVM is bound by international agreements on research methods for health risks. RIVM is only allowed to use this method for the research they communicate about, even though they know that these measurements are not sufficient.

The two cases are relevant because they share challenges in communication about complex technical issues and a sense of urgency because both cases are about public health risks. The cases are also different from each other; facing difficulties in different parts of the triangle, the rubber granulate case communication issues occurred primarily in relation to citizens and the media and in the “cheating cigarette” case primarily in relation to

international standards and citizens. Because the cases show us different parts of the

triangle, they provide us with a better picture of RIVM’s communication strategy in practice. To answer the research question, I will answer three sub-questions about each case:

(1) What is the problem issue in the case?

(2) How did RIVM experts communicate in practice in this case? (3) Which sets of standards are present in the case?

(8)

8 In the section “What is the problem issue in the case?” I will describe the case and the actors that are involved. This is a descriptive chapter to introduce the case and the problem definition.

In the section “How did RIVM experts communicate in practice in this case?” I will discuss RIVM’s communicative practices in both cases, to show what choices were made relating to the communication. The information in this section will primarily be based on interviews with respondents from RIVM and RIVM reports.

In the section “Which sets of standards are present in the case?” I will analyse the sets of standards and expectations of the actors involved in the case, as perceived by the respondents from RIVM. It will be discussed which set of standards and expectations commissioners, citizens, stakeholders and peer experts have in the case.

In the last sections of chapter four and five, I will analyse both cases using four theoretical concepts, which I will describe in the theory chapter.

The four sections will provide a picture of the communication strategies in both cases and the challenges RIVM experts face in the triangle. In the next paragraph, I will discuss the scientific relevance and the social relevance of this thesis.

1.2 Scientific relevance and social relevance

This study is scientifically relevant because it contributes to the existing literature. Previously research has been done on RIVM’s communication (Van der Sluis et al. 2003; Wardekker and Van der Sluis 2005; Wardekker et al. 2008). However, the approaches these studies take, differ from this thesis. Wardekker et al. (2008) discuss RIVM’s uncertainty communication, and Van der Sluis et al. (2003) and Wardekker and Van der Sluis (2005) discuss a guidance for uncertainty assessment and communication, to provide assistance to RIVM in assessing and communicating uncertainties in its environmental assessment

activities. In this thesis I will take a different approach: specifically looking at RIVM experts’ perception of RIVM’s communication, using an embedded case-study design and applying a theoretical framework that has not been used before to analyse RIVM’s communication. This new approach adds a couple of things. It allows for more insight into practitioners own perception of the communication issues they face in practice. The embedded case-study

(9)

9 design makes it possible to look at and compare two current cases. In previous research the focus was on one of the four theoretical concepts, I will combine them, adding one

comprehensive analysis (Kunseler and Tuinstra 2017; Van Asselt and Vos 2006; Van der Sluis et al. 2008; Wardekker et al. 2008). So, even though previous research about RIVM’s

communication strategy has been done, this thesis takes a different approach, making it scientifically relevant.

This study is also socially relevant because the rubber granulate case and the “cheating cigarette” case directly affected Dutch citizens. In both cases, social commotion arose because there were potential public health risks. Citizens were worried about their and other’s health. Both cases also involved complex technical issues. The communication of RIVM became crucial in these cases, having to accurately “translate” their findings to the worried general public (Fischer 2009: 192-193). Moreover, RIVM is a powerful institute in Dutch society. Governmental expert agencies play an increasingly important role in providing information about problems in the political arena (Weingart 1999: 155). RIVM is also able to put issues on the political agenda themselves sometimes (ibid). The political arena is one of contestation. In politics, scientific findings can be used to give weight to some ideas and contest others (Brown and Malone 2004: 108; Grundmann 2017: 30). The way scientific findings are communicated to politicians and the general public is important, therefore.

Analysing communication practices at RIVM can provide insight into strengths, weaknesses and possible improvement opportunities. To get a more accurate picture of RIVM’s triangle, it is relevant to discuss its institutional setting.

1.3 RIVM’s Institutional setting

In this thesis, I will analyse the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the

Environment (RIVM). It is therefore relevant to look at RIVM’s objectives and its institutional setting to get an accurate picture of the context in which it operates.

RIVM is a knowledge institute at the centre of Dutch society. It provides governmental authorities and other parties with advice on, among other things, the environment, sustainability, safety, infectious diseases, vaccination, nutrition and

(10)

10 several sources to promote public health, consumer safety, and protection of the

environment (RIVM 2018a). Furthermore, RIVM conducts studies and gives

recommendations to assist policy-makers, regulatory authorities, researchers, the general public and politicians (ibid).

RIVM is primarily commissioned and funded by the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport and the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment. RIVM also carries out assignments for the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy and the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment, regional governments and non-profit organisations (RIVM 2018b; RIVM 2018d). Moreover, RIVM collaborates with various Dutch universities and research bodies, municipalities, provinces and municipal public health services (RIVM 2018e). Furthermore, RIVM’s activities are not limited to national boundaries; RIVM carries out assignments for the European Commission for example. RIVM has to operate within the existing international framework of the Netherlands, created by the Dutch membership of the European Union and its adoption of international agreements, such as the

implementation of European legislation governing the use of chemicals and implementation of the International Health Regulations (RIVM 2018f).

Thus, RIVM has to operate in a complex institutional setting. It is funded and commissioned by two Dutch Ministries, it has to assist and advice many actors, it

collaborates with many different national and international organisations, and it is bound to international agreements and Dutch legislation.

In the next paragraph, I will outline how the research set-up is structured.

1.4 Readers’ guide

Firstly, I will describe in the methodology section how my research is set up. I will explain the case-selection and the methods of data collection I will use.

Secondly, in the theory chapter, I will discuss the concepts knowledge, authority, uncertainty and independence. These concepts provide a framework through which I will structure my analysis.

Thirdly, I will analyse RIVM’s communication strategy by focusing on the rubber granulate case and the “cheating cigarettes” case. By analysing documents about the cases and semi-structured in-depth interviews with RIVM experts, I will answer my sub-questions.

(11)

11 Lastly, I will reflect on the limitations of this thesis in the reflection chapter, and I will give some consideration into future research about this subject in the discussion chapter.

(12)

12

2. Methodology

In this methodology chapter, I will explain the selection of the methods used in this thesis. This is important because these methods will help to understand how information is gathered in this research and how the data will be analysed in relation to the theory, discussed in the theory chapter.Firstly, there will be a brief description of the research strategy in this thesis. Secondly, the research design will be discussed. Lastly, the research methods will be explained.

In this methodology chapter, the first aspect that requires attention is the research strategy. Because I am interested in the views of RIVM experts, a qualitative research strategy that is sensitive to how participants interpret their social reality is a suitable strategy (Bryman 2012: 41). Thus, the research strategy of this research will be qualitative.

As mentioned earlier, the research aim of this thesis is to analyse RIVM’s

communication strategy towards the scientific community, commissioners and the general public, in order to understand the challenges that RIVM experts face in practice. In this thesis, I will focus on practitioners in the field. Therefore, I will use an in-depth case-study research design. As Flyvbjerg argues:

‘The advantage of the case study is that it can “close in” on real-life situations and test views directly in relation to phenomena as they unfold in practice.’ (Flyvbjerg 2006: 235).

In addition, case studies allow a researcher to accomplish high levels of conceptual validity (George and Bennett 2005: 19). This is relevant for this thesis because my analysis strongly builds on theoretical concepts. They provide a framework through which I will structure my analysis. Accurate measuring these concepts is therefore important.

As mentioned earlier, I will study the Dutch governmental expert agency: RIVM. RIVM often works on cases involving socially and politically contested issues. Because of the scientific nature of many public health risks and environmental issues RIVM also usually has to communicate about technically complex matters. RIVM has to serve many different target groups, often at once. These things combined make RIVM an excellent case to study for communication about contested issues.

To answer my research question and sub-questions, I will use an embedded case design (Yin 2003). I will conduct research into two cases within RIVM: the rubber granulate

(13)

13 case and the “cheating cigarettes” case. This means that within a single case (RIVM),

attention is also given to two subunits, the rubber granulate case and the “cheating cigarettes” case (idem: 42). The chosen cases should vary from each other on relevant dimensions (Seawright and Gerring 2008: 294). The reason for using these cases is that they both faced communication challenges related to the triangle. The two cases are relevant on the one hand because they share challenges in their communication strategy, yet, on the other hand, are different in a couple of ways. Facing difficulties in different parts of the triangle; in the rubber granulate case communication issues occurred primarily in relation to citizens and the media and in the “cheating cigarette” case the issue primarily was in

relation to international standards and citizens. Because the cases play out in different parts of the triangle, they provide us with a better picture of what RIVM’s communication looks like in practice.

To gather the information necessary to analyse these cases I will conduct interviews, and I will analyse documents for supplementary information. Below I will explain my data collection in further detail.

RIVM documents and reports related to both cases will be used as a source of data. These documents provide the basic insights into the cases. However, researchers cannot learn through documents only how an organisation actually operates in real life (Atkinson and Coffey 2011: 79). This means that the use of other sources of data is necessary for understanding an organisation and its activities (Bryman 2012: 555). Therefore, to acquire a better understanding of the cases, I will interview four RIVM employees, who work on one or two of the cases. I contacted the first respondent, and through a so-called snowball-effect, I was able to interview the other three respondents. The first respondent is involved in both cases. There are two interviews with RIVM employees who are experts in the field of rubber granulate. These three respondents wished to be anonymous (see appendix:

interviews). Furthermore, there is an interview with Reinskje Talhout, an expert in the field of tobacco and drugs (RIVM 2018i).

Because the interviewee’s point of view is important to my research, all interviews will take the form of qualitative semi-structured interviews. This type of interview is characterised by a list of specific questions to be covered, further, the interviewer can add new questions during the interview if necessary (Bryman 2012: 471). This means that there is a lot of room for the interviewee’s point of view (ibid). Therefore, the semi-structured

(14)

14 interview is a lot more flexible than a structured interview and provides the researcher with rich, detailed answers (idem: 470-471). Before conducting the interviews, an interview guide with several questions was established to form a starting point for the interviews (See Appendix: interview guide).

I will analyse my data usingfour concepts, which I will describe in the theory chapter, They form a framework through which I will structure my analysis. These concepts are sensitising concepts (Blumer 1954: 7). Blumer states: ‘Whereas definitive concepts provide prescriptions of what to see, sensitising concepts merely suggest directions along which to look’

(ibid). In this thesis, the sensitising concepts provide a framework to approach the rubber granulate case and the “cheating cigarette” case.

Thus, I will study the Dutch research institute, RIVM. I will use an embedded case design, looking at two cases within RIVM: the rubber granulate case and the “cheating cigarettes” case. In the thesis, RIVM documents, RIVM reports and semi-structured interviews will be used as sources of data to answer my research question. The sensitising concepts which I will discuss in the theory chapter are the framework through which I will structure my analysis.

(15)

15

3. Theory

There is a puzzle for governmental expert agencies. How do governmental expert agencies communicate about socially and politically contested issues, which are also technically complex, in such a manner that different target groups are served? The complex triangle between media/citizens, scientist and policymakers raises interesting questions about the communication between these actors. In this theory chapter, I will describe four sensitising concepts to provide a framework through which I will look at this puzzle.

3.1 Knowledge and authority

We live in a “knowledge society”: citizens are more knowledgeable than ever before (Grundmann 2016: 30). Because the state has weakened and more citizens have academic degrees, an increase of local knowledge has emerged (ibid; Adams 2004: 29). Many people in contemporary societies are highly educated and earn their money as “knowledge

workers”, citizens are interested in issues that were left to the scientist a few decades ago (ibid). Furthermore, we live in an “information society”. Through the internet, every citizen can distribute their knowledge and search for information others put on the world wide web (In ‘t Veld 2010: 5). A large part of the distributed knowledge is not endorsed by institutional authorities, as it was before (Grundmann 2016: 30). The developments have led to new generally accepted forms of expertise. These new forms of expertise have led to a decrease of scientific expertise’s authority (ibid). The “self-evident” authority of scientific advisers has come under scrutiny by the general public, they face scientific research more sceptically (Kunseler 2016: 2). Appeals to scientific expertise have become more questionable as a result of technical and environmental catastrophes which have been blamed on a failure of scientific foresight (Grundmann 2017: 29). Mistakes in the past contributed to mistrust nowadays.

As a result, new ways of knowledge production were needed to comply with societies demand for different types of knowledge. Governmental scientific advisers

attempt to initiate more reflexive and interactive practices (Kunseler 2016: 1). Kunseler and Tuinstra describe reflexive sciences as follow:

‘Under a reflexive logic practitioners reflect upon frames of reference including disciplinary, institutional and cultural routines, norms and beliefs. They acknowledge the limits of scientific

(16)

16

prediction and control prevalent under a modernist logic, and come to grips with a socially contingent understanding of knowledge in society.’ (Kunseler and Tuinstra 2017: 3).

Even though a range of new reflexive approaches is gaining support, the modernist belief in objective science and scientific autonomy, where science and politics are seen as separate worlds, is still dominant in scientific advice agencies. Reflexive conceptions are partly taken on by governmental expert agencies in their research but are not implemented at their core (ibid). Kunseler (2016: 2) states further: ‘Even when reflexive principles are mobilized, they

seem not to replace but to “add-on” to modernist ideals.’ Nevertheless, the need for

reflexive approaches increases because the modernists assumed authority of science has decreased (Grundmann 2016: 29-30) Therefore we see a re-emergence of ideas and values from the public policy debate, which had been marginalized for decades (Adams 2004: 34). Knowledge is increasingly viewed as constructed rather than objective (ibid).

There is a rise in contested knowledge issues (Van der Sluis et al. 2008). This is especially the case for governmental expert agencies because they have to operate in multi-level and multi-actor environments where policy issues are marked by different values and political pressure (Kunseler and Tuinstra 2017: 2-3).

The result is that the very reliance on experts to adjudicate social conflicts tends to undercut the authority of expertise in general (Epstein 1996: 6). The rise of contested knowledge issues contributed to a problematic paradoxical situation. Contested knowledge has reinforced a need for authoritative, objective knowledge, which citizens can rely on. This has made societies more knowledge dependent (Grundmann 2016: 29-31). While at the same time public scepticism about the objectivity of scientific expertise has undermined its authority (Kunseler and Tuinstra 2016: 2). Therefore, expert agencies have to deal with the so-called authority paradox: societies need objective scientific advice, but such advice is only to be acquired from expert agencies whose objectivity and authority are contested (idem: 1).

To sum up, the re-emergence of the reflexive logic and the rise of the knowledge society brings about new challenges for RIVM experts: contested knowledge, and the authority paradox. The concepts contested knowledge and the authority paradox are building blocks through which I will answer my research question. In the next paragraph, I will describe another relevant building block for my analysis: uncertainty.

(17)

17

3.2 Uncertainty

In the previous paragraph, I described that scientific experts had lost their role as

undisputed providers of objective and unbiased knowledge. As a result of that, there has been a rise of reflexive knowledge in the last three decades (Braun and Kropp 2010: 774). Another problem that governmental expert agencies face is uncertainty in scientific knowledge, while the general public demands specific and fast scientific answers to societal issues. Many risks, which require societal choices and decisions, are characterised by complexity and uncertainty (Renn et al. 2011: 244). Scientific knowledge holds inevitable uncertainties and ambiguities because new concepts and findings create uncertainty by challenging established theories and “ways of doing things” (Kunseler 2016: 3; Van Asselt and Vos 2006: 3). This continuing process of challenging, reworking and fine-tuning theories is at the core of scientific research (idem 3-4). Not all uncertainties can be solved with more measurements. More knowledge does not automatically mean less uncertainty and vice versa. New information might decrease, but could also increase uncertainty (idem: 4). Time restraints also play a role in uncertainty issues. Governmental expert agencies are required, especially in health risk issues, to produce reports in a short given time (Van der Sluis et al. 2008: 1-2). At some point, governmental expert agencies have to report their conclusions because the general public demands specific answers. Therefore governmental expert agencies need to make, sometimes, decisions before definitive supporting evidence are available (idem: 1).

A paradoxical situation has emerged in relation to knowledge generated by governmental expert agencies. On the one hand, experts face limitations due to the

uncertainty of scientific knowledge when trying to provide answers to societal risks. On the other hand, policy-makers and citizens increasingly demand clear answers to contested and complex issues (Van Asselt and Vos 2006: 5). This so-called uncertainty paradox means that governmental expert agencies cannot provide decisive evidence on uncertain risks, while policy-makers, politicians and the general public demand unambiguous answers from governmental expert agencies (ibid).

The uncertainty paradox has made RIVM’s communication strategy more relevant. Communication of uncertainties can lead to a better awareness of the phenomenon of uncertainty and its implications for policy-makers and the general public (Wardekker et al.

(18)

18 2008: 627).

The concept uncertainty paradox is also a building block through which I will answer my research question. In the next chapter, I will describe the last relevant building block for my analysis: the independence issue.

3.3 Independence

Governmental expert agencies operate in a complex institutional setting; they are dependent on several external actors. These agencies operate in complex institutional settings where they are funded and commissioned by governmental authorities. The notion that scientists remain disinterested in the advisory process and only communicate objective knowledge has been increasingly questioned (Weingart 1999: 156). The independence of governmental expert agencies has been called into question because of their internal power struggles and the fact that they are inclined to produce scientific outcomes in line with government interests, because of their dependent position towards them (Brown and Malone 2004: 108). Often, politicians and businesses use scientific findings to promote their agenda (ibid). This political way of using scientific data causes suspicion about their

independence. It makes citizens distrust the governmental expert agencies’ research (Grundmann 2017: 30).

On the one hand, modernistic beliefs of “value-free” and objective science are problematized after the reflexive turn in science and society, as discussed in previous chapters. On the other hand, the modernistic belief of independence and impartially is strongly institutionalised in governmental expert agencies (Kunseler 2016: 2). Although the legitimacy of governmental expert agencies is frequently publicly challenged for their political bias, lack of social accountability and epistemic flaws, operating independent is still reflected in the statutory status of governmental expert agencies (ibid).

“Value-free” science that is based on impartiality and objectivity are problematized after the democratic turns in science and politics (ibid). Because of these developments more intertwinement between scientific experts, citizens, stakeholders and other parties has occurred and therefore a new role for governmental expert agencies “within society” has emerged (ibid). It raises challenges for governmental expert agencies independence. Kunseler & Tuinstra (2017:2) show that The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency’s (PBL) credibility has been called into question on several occasions when errors

(19)

19 became evident or PBL was accused of an ideological bias. It illustrates that Dutch

governmental expert agencies can expect more potential credibility issues because uncertainties and value disputes continue to grow (ibid).

Thus, several concepts have been discussed in this theory chapter. New challenges arose for governmental expert agencies: contested knowledge issues, the authority paradox, the uncertainty paradox and difficulties with operating independently. On the basis of these four concepts, I will analyse RIVM’s communication strategy in both cases.

(20)

20

4. Rubber granulate infill

In chapter four and five, I will analyse RIVM’s communication strategy by focusing on the rubber granulate case and the “cheating cigarettes” case. The findings will be deduced from interviews with the respondents and RIVM reports. Respondent I,II and IV wanted to be anonymous. I have invented the following names: Respondent I: Rob, Respondent II: Loes and Respondent IV: Anne (Appendix: interviews). Furthermore, on the basis of the four challenges described in the theory chapter, I will analyse RIVM’s communication strategy in both cases.

4.1 The problem issue

In the Netherlands, there are about 2,000 synthetic turf football pitches, of which 90 per cent have rubber granulate infill (RIVM 2017a). Recently, concerns about rubber granulate have increased in the Netherlands due to a broadcast by Zembla on 5 October 2016 entitled, “Gevaarlijk spel” (Dangerous play) (ibid). Zembla reported that rubber granulate contains high concentrations of hazardous substances and a relationship was discussed between playing sports on rubber granulate pitches and the incidence of leukaemia in children.

Zembla claimed that there had been insufficient research on the health risks of playing

sports on rubber granulate pitches (ibid). Since the broadcast, concerns rose in Dutch society about the potential health risks. Some parents no longer wanted their children to play on rubber granulate pitches; some football clubs decided to implement precautionary measures, such as having children play on grass pitches and adjusting competition schedules (ibid). The growing societal commotion was a reason for Edith Schippers former Minister of Health, Welfare and Sport to instruct RIVM to establish a clear risk assessment report of the rubber granulate case, preferably as soon as possible. After two months, RIVM presented the risk assessment report, concluding that the health risks of playing on rubber granulate pitches are negligible (NOS 2016b). However, some citizens, peer experts, such as Martin van den Berg (Professor toxicology), and journalists (Zembla) remained sceptical about RIVM’s findings. Primarily, the forceful certainty with which RIVM presented its findings in the media was criticised. In Zembla’s follow-up broadcast on 15 February 2017 entitled, “Gevaarlijk spel – het vervolg” (Dangerous play – the sequel), Jos Kleinjans (Professor of Toxicology) and Martin van den Berg (Professor of Toxicology) questioned RIVM’s firm

(21)

21 conclusions. Furthermore, they argued that more research is needed in this case (Zembla 2017b). This case brought about challenges for RIVM. How did the challenges mentioned above affected RIVM’s communication activities considering? In the next paragraph, I will focus on RIVM’s communication strategy and communication activities in the rubber granulate case.

4.2 RIVM experts communication in practice

In 2014, RIVM published the report “Roadmap RIVM2020 Three years in” in which it

acknowledged that Dutch society has changed, and therefore RIVM experts have to operate at the heart of society (RIVM 2017b). Its changed role in society that RIVM discusses in its report is similar to the trend Kunseler describes, as discussed in the theory chapter: where more intertwinement between scientific experts, citizens, stakeholders and other parties has occurred (Kunseler 2016: 2). The “self-evident” authority of scientific advisers has come under scrutiny by the critical knowledge society (ibid). Due to this scrutiny, Anne felt that their communication strategy had to become in a more deliberative egalitarian approach:

‘The theme in “Roadmap RIVM2020 Three years in” was: we must come out of our ivory tower and operate at the heart of society. So that products and reports also reach other target groups than the Ministry. We used to “throw our reports over the fence”. However, we do not produce reports for the Ministry; we want to reach other groups within society. But we also want to know: do we research the right subjects? Do we ask the right questions? You want to know what kind of experiences they face. And we readjust our communication to this target groups so that they understand our messages.’ (Anne RIVM expert).

The report “Roadmap RIVM2020 Three years in” had an impact on RIVM’s communication strategy. It led to a rise of reflexive practices by RIVM studies (Anne RIVM expert). However, this is not visible in every single case. RIVM does not have one communication strategy (Loes RIVM expert). RIVM experts have to deal with a broad range of cases, different

questions and different actors within cases (ibid). It is therefore hard for RIVM to establish a singular communication strategy. Furthermore, the media and societal pressure have an essential impact on RIVM’s research agenda (Rob RIVM expert). This leads to unexpected cases, where RIVM experts have to operate quickly and where there is no time to reach a well thought out communication strategy beforehand. Therefore, RIVM looks at every case

(22)

22 separately to see what kind of methods are necessary. This ad hoc approach to RIVM’s communication strategy was also discussed by the respondents:

‘There are many different risk assessment cases. We do not have one communication strategy. It depends on the questions that arise and which actors are involved.’ (Loes RIVM expert).

‘Now I work on the infectious disease control, and there you might notice things when looking at them: “oh right, we have to do something about it”. You did not think of those problems in advance. I think we should think more strategically: “These are the steps that we take in this case”. It is difficult because the media can suddenly report an issue. I think that we need more social scientists to create a more strategic approach.’ (Anne RIVM expert).

Thus, RIVM wants to assume a new role at the heart of society. Therefore, RIVM intends to alter its communication strategy as well, to be more deliberative and egalitarian. However, the respondents show there is no singular communication strategy, because of the broad range of cases at RIVM and the time-sensitive nature of some of them. The new role “within” society affected RIVM’s communication activities in the rubber granulate case. RIVM experts have been active in several communication activities in this case. RIVM send out a survey among a representative group of citizens, RIVM experts answered questions that people directly asked them, RIVM produced an analysis of media coverage and RIVM consulted various international agencies that are also currently investigating the potential health risks of rubber granulate (RIVM 2017a). Furthermore, RIVM experts shared their research results in several TV shows and provided information on RIVM’s website, such as short film clips of samplings (Loes RIVM expert).

In the research process, RIVM experts have also organised a social and scientific advisory group. RIVM was advised by an appointed scientific advisory group consisting of experts from universities and knowledge institutes (RIVM 2017a). The scientific advisory group aimed to test the scientific quality and accuracy of the rubber granulate research. The scientific advisory group supports RIVM experts in all stadia of its research: they discuss what approach to take, how to uphold the quality throughout the research, and how to interpret and present the results (RIVM 2018g). In addition, RIVM set up a social advisory group. The group assembled four times during the research. RIVM established the social advisory group to keep social stakeholders updated on the progress of the research. This advisory group consisted of representatives from organisations that were involved in

(23)

23 various ways in the rubber granulate case: the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport (VWS), the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment (IenM), the Office for Risk Assessment and Research of the Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (NVWA), The Association of GGDs (Community Health Services), Trade Association Sports and Culture Technique (BSNC), Association of Sports and Municipalities (VSG), Royal Dutch Football Association (KNVB), the (trade) associations of tyre companies and tyre recycling VACO and RecyBEM and the Human Environment and Transport Inspectorate (ILT) (RIVM 2017a). Loes argues that the social advisory group gave people a place to express their grievances:

‘People knew: “I can ask my questions the next Wednesday, and I can hear thoughts and opinions from other social stakeholders.” We created a place where people could ask questions and could share information.’ (Loes RIVM expert).

Lastly, RIVM held two focus groups. The groups consisted of people who had approached RIVM with questions and concerns about the potential health risks of rubber granulate (RIVM 2017a). On November 22 and 24, 2016 two focus groups with citizens were organised by RIVM. The first night five participants were present, the second night seven participants were present. The citizens that actually participated in the focus groups were about a third of the people that were approached by RIVM experts (RIVM 2016). From RIVM, two

observers, one expert and a panel chairman were present. The focus groups aimed to learn about people’s concerns, to answer some of their questions and to explain their research to them (ibid).

The communication activities show that RIVM experts have involved citizens in the research process actively.

I have outlined the problem issue of rubber granulate and RIVM’s communication practices in this case. In the next paragraph, I will analyse the sets of standards by commissioners, citizens and scientists that are present in the rubber granulate case. The sets of standards will be deduced from interviews with the respondents.

4.3 Target groups

The scientific community, commissioners and the general public had different expectations from RIVM: this brought about multiple sets of standards RIVM had to take into account.

(24)

24 Media, such as Zembla, were influential actors in this case. A broadcast by Zembla on 5 October 2016 entitled, “Gevaarlijk spel” (Dangerous play) was the catalyst of RIVM’s

research about rubber granulate. Media, such as Zembla influence RIVM’s research agenda. However, not only dependency but also a level of distrust plays a role in this interaction.

‘You can see RIVM’s dependence on media and its distrust of them’, Rob stated (Rob RIVM expert). Furthermore, Rob argues that on the one hand, RIVM wants to communicate in an open and transparent manner to the media, on the other hand, RIVM has to deal with media logic:

‘You can doubt the quality of Zembla’s investigative reporting, but at least they succeed at increasing public attention on subjects and therefore determine RIVM’s research agendas. I think that this also establishes our communication activities. Due to Zembla, many questions were asked. I think that RIVM experts tended to give clear answers to these questions. We had to deal with media logic in the rubber granulate case. Zembla knew in advance what kind of story they wanted to present to the public. There was a bias in cutting out certain fragments of videos to prove their point. Should we, therefore, decide to ignore their media requests? Should we as RIVM produce clips on our own? On the one hand, RIVM wants to act reflexively, act in the public arena and play a role in society. On the other hand, this is difficult, because Zembla wants to make a scripted story. Is that the arena you want to participate in? Or should we set up a different approach? It is a complex issue.’ (Rob RIVM expert)

In the Zembla broadcast Martin van den Berg, Professor of Toxicology, was one of the experts who disagreed with the norms that RIVM uses in their research. Rob argues that media, such as Zembla, deliberately use certain experts with certain opinions instead of others:

‘We know that this case is contested. Therefore we know as well that media, and especially Zembla, want to hear the opinion of an expert who has a different view oftheuncertainties in the case. Martin van den Berg, Professor in Toxicology, argued: “They shouldn’t use a norm for a mixture, it should be a norm for consumer products. I think that you should not expose children on those rubber granulate pitches”. In contested knowledge issues such as these, you can predict these scripts.’ (Rob

(25)

25 Eventually, RIVM chooses to participate in the Zembla broadcast. RIVM Director, Els van der Schie appeared in “Gevaarlijk spel” as well as “Gevaarlijk spel – het vervolg”. Respondent Rob explained how this decision came about:

‘The choice to put Els van der Schie in front of the camera was made because she is an authority figure. Next time we should deliberate more when making such a decision. Els van der Schie was not an expert on this case. You can question the decision to put her in the broadcast. I would advocate putting an expert in front of the camera. Someone who knows more about the case and who can react more flexibly to abrupt turns.’ (Rob RIVM expert)

As Rob explained, the interaction between RIVM and Zembla has been difficult. They distrusted Zembla to represent RIVM’s views accurately in their broadcast. Nevertheless, they were also dependent on Zembla to communicate to and gain trust from citizens (Rob RIVM expert). The Zembla broadcast caused great public and political concern. Due to the unexpected broadcast, RIVM experts came under political and social pressure to give clear answers on the safety risks of rubber granulate. Respondent Loes explained that the broadcast abruptly led to many questions from the general public about the case (Loes RIVM expert). Former Minister Schippers, therefore, entrusted RIVM to study the case and to establish a risk assessment report within eight weeks. RIVM decided to scale up to be able to produce a risk assessment report on such short time notice and simultaneously communicate to parents, sportsmen and other concerned citizens:

‘The Minister wanted clarity about the case as soon as possible. At that moment, RIVM chose to “scale up”, which means that people within RIVM were taken off their regular tasks to speed up the rubber granulate process. I think that the time pressure created a capacity issue. Do we have enough people to answer calls from concerned citizens? Do we have enough people to produce an accessible website for people who want to find information?’ (Loes RIVM expert)

‘There was a lot of pressure on RIVM and director Els van Schie to come up with a clear answer. It was not an option to say: “we have to study this case a year longer, or maybe ten years longer”. Parents wanted clear advice because they wanted to know if they could let their children play on rubber granulate pitches.’ (Anne RIVM expert)

Anne and Loes describe a set of expectations from the general public. The Zembla broadcast caused public concern. Political pressure arose to get clear answers on the potential safety

(26)

26 risks of rubber granulate quickly. The Minister of Health, Welfare and Sport instructed RIVM to study the case and to come up with a risk assessment report within two months. Quick and unambiguous results were expected from RIVM experts (Anne RIVM expert; Loes RIVM expert). Time pressure and public concern also influenced the methods RIVM used in its research (Rob RIVM expert). Rob argues that the societal and political pressure did not limit RIVM experts to use reflexive methods, rather it created new opportunities:

‘There is a rise of societal demand to combine citizens’ and stakeholders’ grievances with modernistic research approaches, but we were not used to these kinds of situations. We had to explore how we would manage this, and we also had to take the commissioners on board. There were time pressure and societal controversy. Therefore we had the pressure necessary to use more reflexive science because we had to involve stakeholders. People found it relevant to know citizens’ perceptions on this topic. On the one hand, you had the pressure that created more reflexive science, on the other hand, we had little time to learn and to map out the process. Pressure makes cases “fluid”. Suddenly there are opportunities to combine a risk assessment report with reflexive research such as discourse-analysis and a Quick Scan on citizens’ perceptions. The time to learn during the process was limited because we had to operate in a short timeframe and we had never experienced such great

controversy. The process is a result of various forces of legal frameworks, external factors, internal factors and time pressure that determined our actions. Commotion is effective because then we are forced to operate differently. I think that you should see the communication activities in the light of the pressure to finish a report at short notice.’ (Rob RIVM expert).

Rob describes the societal expectation to take people’s grievances into account when doing research. RIVM tried to achieve this by setting up focus groups to involve concerned parents (Anne RIVM expert).

RIVM experts have asked the focus groups what type of role they would like RIVM to take on in the rubber granulate case. The groups wanted RIVM to operate independently and in a “activistic” manner:

‘Citizens said: “Join us on the barricades, stand up for a good cause, do not get influenced too much by ‘The Hague, tell the truth”.’ (Anne RIVM expert).

Furthermore, the participants wanted RIVM to give “their own opinion” without being influenced by economic and political interests: ‘Show us that you are not only technical but also socially involved.’ (RIVM 2016). The participants made a plea for more independent research;

(27)

27 they did not want involvement from the motor tyre industries in the research. However, RecyBEM already participated in the societal advisory group. Participants further plead for more involvement in the process: ‘Why aren’t parents participating in the societal advisory groups? Why do you not ask citizens what you should examine?’ (ibid).

The demand for a clear and unambiguous message was also voiced in the focus groups. The participants criticised the way RIVM communicated in the process:

‘RIVM has communicated sentences such as: “You can play on rubber granulate pitches, but not with it”. That were cryptic sentences. Parents found those kinds of statements out of touch with reality. They stated: “Children eat rubber granulate for fun. When they come home, the rubber granulate is everywhere. Children constantly play on those pitches”.’ (Anne RIVM expert: 39-40).

‘We stated: “We think that rubber granulate is not dangerous for public health, but if you want to do something, take a shower after playing sports”. That was a complete message, but somehow the action (take a shower) and the message (rubber granulate is safe) got disconnected. So, the message changed into: “Take a shower!”. That was one of the reasons why people had needless concerns.’

(Rob RIVM expert).

Thus, there were various expectations and demands from the actors involved according to RIVM experts. The Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport wanted a clear risk assessment report of the case as soon as possible, there was a societal expectation to take people’s grievances into account with more reflexive research, citizens wanted RIVM to operate in an independent and socially engaged manner and RIVM was confronted with peer experts, such as Martin van den Berg, Professor in Toxicology, who questioned the conclusions of RIVM’s risk assessment report. In the next paragraph, I will analyse the case based on the literature discussed in the theory chapter.

4.4 Authority issues, uncertainty issues, knowledge contestation and independence issues.

Knowledge and Authority

There is a rise in contested knowledge issues (Van der Sluis et al. 2008). This is especially the case for governmental expert agencies because they operate in a context where policy issues are marked by different values and political pressure (Kunseler and Tuinstra 2017:

(28)

2-28 3). The rubber granulate case can be seen as an example of a contested knowledge issue. RIVM’s risk assessment report’s conclusion “rubber granulate is safe” was called into

question frequently:citizens were still concerned about rubber granulate, Zembla distrusted RIVM’s research and peer experts, such as Martin van den Berg, urged RIVM to use different methods. As mentioned in the theory chapter, in the knowledge society citizens are highly interested in issues and want to get involved, instead of leaving it up to scientists

(Grundmann 2016: 30). In the rubber granulate case citizens were eager to get involved. In the focus groups, participants called to get parents involved in the societal advisory groups and thought RIVM should ask citizens what to examine(RIVM 2016). In the theory chapter, I discussed, based on Grundmann’s argument, that new forms of generally accepted

knowledge have emerged. This knowledge is not endorsed by authorities, as it was before, but comes from new sources of information citizens use. These newly accepted forms of expertise have led to a decrease of scientific expertise’s authority (Grundmann 2016: 30). In their broadcast, Zembla questioned the methods RIVM used and the results it published. Experts with differing opinions about the case were brought on to present an alternative to RIVM’s knowledge about rubber granulate (Zembla 2017b). Peer expert Martin van den Berg, Professor in Toxicology, did not agree with RIVM’s “negligible risk level” and children’s risk assessment. He advocated for RIVM to apply the precautionary principle on children’s risk assessment (Voormolen 2016). Thus, RIVM’s conclusions about rubber granulate were scrutinised and not simply accepted. This is in line with the image Grundmann paints of declining authority of governmental expert agencies.

As mentioned in the theory section, the authority paradox means that societies need objective scientific advice, yet, such information is only to be acquired from expert agencies whose objectivity and authority are contested (Kunseler and Tuinstra 2016: 1). In the rubber granulate case you can see this authority paradox (Rob RIVM expert). Citizens who

participated in the focus groups wanted clear and objective answers. However

simultaneously, they questioned RIVM objectivity: ‘Do not operate to close to the Ministries, show your reliability and autonomy.’ (RIVM 2016).

RIVM experts have applied reflexive, deliberative methods, because their modernistic findings were not taken for granted in this case (Anne RIVM expert). As mentioned in the theory chapter, we see a re-emergence of conceptions and values from the public debate (Adams 2004: 34). There is a growing need for reflexive science because

(29)

29 the assumed modernist authority has decreased (Grundmann 2016: 29-30). RIVM aims in the report “Roadmap RIVM2020 Three years in” to communicate more with citizens, politicians and policymakers (RIVM 2017b). It has to operate “within society” and cannot deliver reports in a top-down way anymore (ibid). However, RIVM has 1500 employees, with various backgrounds and working on a broad range of cases. It is therefore hard to define which direction RIVM aims in general and what kind of role RIVM wants to play in Dutch society. In the rubber granulate case, however, respondents saw a clear trend towards more reflexive science. RIVM experts embraced these reflexive methods, yet there were still signs of a disconnection between modernistic and reflexive methods (Rob RIVM expert).

Respondent Anne argues that she is unsure about what kind of impact focus groups have on the research, citizens and RIVM. RIVM experts have struggled to integrate focus groups in the research (Anne RIVM expert). Focus groups with citizens are not new for RIVM experts. The E-cigarette case is an example where focus groups were used (Rob RIVM expert). Respondent Anne argues that it would be wise to integrate focus groups more

systematically in their research so that RIVM experts can communicate more with citizens:

‘Suddenly there was the rubber granulate case, and we thought: “We have to do something with citizens”. I think it is wise to be more systematic the next time. We should also in calmer times explain to citizens how scientific research is set up. We could explain more about how we deal with uncertainties in our research and how we make our considerations. Eventually, focus groups do not change the conclusions of our risk assessment report, at best parents are better informed about our research. We can explain in focus groups what we measure and what not, and why. Yet, I do not know what made it into concrete recommendations eventually. I think that the focus groups have influenced the choice of language, how it is written. I noticed that people appreciated the focus groups. They liked it that we were interested. Yet, it is a challenge to fit in a focus group in an ongoing process. A summary of the evenings is doable, but, what is the focus groups’ impact? Is it just communication? Or is it also an attachment to a target group? I struggle with how to fit these methods into the final product.’ (Anne RIVM expert)

As the quote shows, it was difficult for Anne to combine reflexive and modernistic sciences in the rubber granulate case. Moreover, there was uncertainty about whether citizens wanted the reflexive practices published on the RIVM website, or that citizens just wanted to know if rubber granulate pitches are safe or not (Rob RIVM expert). In practice, it turned out that the reflexive and modernistic approaches were disconnected in the process.

(30)

30 Eventually, the disconnection between the two approaches made consistent communication to the general public difficult (Anne RIVM expert). In the focus groups, RIVM experts

clarified that scientific findings always have uncertainties. In those two meetings, RIVM experts communicated that a definite answer about whether rubber granulate pitches are safe or not could not be given. However, after the risk assessment report, RIVM

communicated that rubber granulate pitches were safe:

‘You can see on our website expressions of advisory groups and focus groups, but you can probably not find a precise attachment of surveys or discourse-analysis. It is hard to denote perceptions and to combine reflexive scientific elements with modernistic exposure research. They are two different approaches, and you can still see a disconnection between them. But you need them both; classical science exists for a reason.’ (Rob RIVM expert)

‘Something went wrong in the process. In the focus groups, we prepared citizens that we cannot produce complete answers. We comprehensively explained that we could not research every aspect of the case. And in the end, the answer of the research was: “rubber granulate pitches are safe”. This statement contradicts our communication in the focus groups. We have learned from this mistake, next time we have to involve citizens more in the process. Some citizens were confused, because of our opposing communication. I don’t know exactly how the risk assessment report is done, but I do know that the report is written in “beta-language”.’ (Anne RIVM expert)

The aim of the focus groups was to get citizens more involved in the process, but because of the inconsistent communication some citizens found it confusing (Anne RIVM expert) Thus, contested knowledge played a role in this case. RIVM’s conclusions were called into question by citizens, media and peer experts. Citizens who participated in the focus groups wanted clear and objective answers from RIVM. Yet, they questioned RIVM objectivity, leading to an authority paradox. RIVM experts made use of reflexive, deliberative methods because their modernistic findings were not sufficient to convince the general public. Yet there was a disconnection between modernistic and reflexive methods. Eventually, the disconnect made consistent communication to the general public hard.

Uncertainty paradox

As mentioned in the theory section, the uncertainty paradox means that scientific results are in essence uncertain, however, policy-makers, politicians and the general public demand

(31)

31 governmental expert agencies to deliver clear results (Van Asselt and Vos 2006: 5). In the rubber granulate case this paradox was visible:

‘We chose to say that rubber granulate is safe. That was a controversial decision. The question is: can you decide whether children can safely play sports, yes or no? In practice that is not crystal clear, there are many uncertainties. The message should be: These are our results, and although we cannot be sure that the pitches are safe, we think that it is safe enough to play on these pitches. There was an internal dispute whether we should state 0 (not safe) and 1 (safe) in our message. It is hard to see who exactly decided to say that the rubber granulate pitches were safe. There were complex group dynamics, not everybody agreed with that decision. We can state safe or not safe, but it is science, and therefore uncertain. Some people within RIVM argued that we had to communicate the existing uncertainties, and some people thought that the process went well. There was a dispute within RIVM, and the uncertainty paradox was the cause of that. I have tried to explain the uncertainty paradox to concerned people. It is well-known that people are tempted to give clear answers, while scientifically speaking people shouldn’t give those answers.’ (Rob RIVM expert)

Different respondents thought differently about how to deal with uncertainty and how to communicate about this to the general public. Loes did not see the same difficulties Rob saw in communicating about uncertainties in research to the general public. Loes argued that people would understand this if explained well:

‘The uncertainty paradox is not unique to the rubber granulate case. It happens in many cases. If you explain the uncertainty paradox, the majority of the people will understand it.’ (Loes RIVM expert)

Independence issue

As mentioned in the theory chapter, more intertwinement between scientific experts, citizens, stakeholders and other parties has occurred (Kunseler 2016: 6). RIVM is not only intertwined with these groups but also dependent on them. Their independency is limited by their dependency on others for their position, their means of communication or

believability (Kunseler & Tuinstra: 2-3).

Media, such as Zembla influence RIVM’s research agenda. If a program such as

Zembla raises questions about a certain public health issue, RIVM often has to respond to

this (Loes RIVM expert). So RIVM is not able to establish their research agenda entirely independently. Former Minister Schippers, instructed RIVM to study the case and to

(32)

32 establish a risk assessment report within two months (Zembla 2016c; Zembla 2016d). In this case, the Minister determined what subject RIVM should do research into and what time frame RIVM had to do the research. Furthermore, RIVM depends on the Ministry for large parts of their funding (RIVM 2018b; RIVM 2018d). The respondents also felt dependent on citizens. RIVM aims to be a research institute within society, serving Dutch citizens with its knowledge (RIVM 2018c). They want citizens to see RIVM’s research as credible, therefore. To achieve this, RIVM made an effort trying to gain credibility from citizens. For example, using focus groups to take citizens along during the research process in order to make their findings more trustworthy to them.

Thus, RIVM depends on several actors in the rubber granulate case. RIVM depends on media, such as Zembla, the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport and citizens.

RIVM's communication strategy in challenging times : an embedded case-study research of rubber granulate infill and the “cheating-cigarette”

Master thesis Political Science: Public Policy and Governance