Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Environmental Sociology Volume 1
- The Cambridge Handbook of Environmental Sociology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Introduction
- Part I Theory in Environmental Sociology
- Part II The Economy and Environmental Sociology
- Part III Culture and Environmental Sociology
- Part IV Politics, Power, State
- 17 Conflicting Environmental Imaginaries in Post-Apartheid South Africa
- 18 The Growth in International Audit Culture: Achieving Agricultural Sustainability Inside a World of Measures?
- 19 Political Ecologies of State Land Management
- 20 Green Crime and the Treadmill of Production
- 21 Governing Science and Technology: From the Linear Model to Responsible Research and Innovation
- 22 The Paradox of Public Knowledge in Environmental Sociology
- 23 Relational Resilience and the Making of Diverse Worlds
- Part V Social Justice
- Index
- References
22 - The Paradox of Public Knowledge in Environmental Sociology
from Part IV - Politics, Power, State
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 November 2020
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Environmental Sociology Volume 1
- The Cambridge Handbook of Environmental Sociology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Introduction
- Part I Theory in Environmental Sociology
- Part II The Economy and Environmental Sociology
- Part III Culture and Environmental Sociology
- Part IV Politics, Power, State
- 17 Conflicting Environmental Imaginaries in Post-Apartheid South Africa
- 18 The Growth in International Audit Culture: Achieving Agricultural Sustainability Inside a World of Measures?
- 19 Political Ecologies of State Land Management
- 20 Green Crime and the Treadmill of Production
- 21 Governing Science and Technology: From the Linear Model to Responsible Research and Innovation
- 22 The Paradox of Public Knowledge in Environmental Sociology
- 23 Relational Resilience and the Making of Diverse Worlds
- Part V Social Justice
- Index
- References
Summary
The problem of public knowledge is rooted in the tension between technocracy and populism. Public knowledge is important to the proper functioning of democracy, but knowledge associated with the public is frequently dismissed and devalued in policy-making contexts. Because encounters between democracy and expertise are a common part of environmental politics and environmental discourse, the problem of public knowledge is endemic to environmental sociology. The first section of this chapter draws on political theory to explore how and why public knowledge is important for democracy. The second section draws on the philosophy of science as well as the broader field of science and technology studies (STS) to explore how and why public knowledge is devalued and dismissed. The last section briefly explores the flaws of participatory strategies that are commonly proposed as solutions to the problem of public knowledge, and concludes by suggesting that public knowledge is less contradictory if we treat “public” as a role rather than a group of people.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Environmental Sociology , pp. 362 - 378Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Allen, B. L. (2003). Uneasy Alchemy: Citizens and experts in Louisiana’s chemical corridor disputes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bäckstrand, K. (2004). Scientisation vs. civic expertise in environmental governance: Eco-feminist, eco-modern and post-modern responses. Environmental Politics, 13(4), 695–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, B. M. W., & Gregory, J. (2008). From journalism to corporate communication in post-war Britain. In Bauer, M. W. and Bucchi, M., (eds.) Journalism, Science and Society, pp. 45–64. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Beck, U. (1996). World risk society as cosmopolitan society? Ecological questions in a framework of manufactured uncertainties. Theory, Culture & Society, 13(4), 1–32.Google Scholar
Beierle, T. C., & Cayford, J. (2002). Democracy in Practice: Public participation in environmental decisions. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
Bonneuil, C., & Levidow, L. (2012). How does the World Trade Organization know? The mobilization and staging of scientific expertise in the GMO trade dispute. Social Studies of Science, 42(1), 75–100.Google Scholar
Brown, P., & Mikkelsen, E. J. (1997). No Safe Place: Toxic waste, leukemia, and community action. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Carrozza, C. (2015). Democratizing expertise and environmental governance: Different approaches to the politics of science and their relevance for policy analysis. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 17(1), 108–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casas-Cortés, M. I., Osterweil, M., & Powell, D. E. (2008). Blurring boundaries: Recognizing knowledge-practices in the study of social movements. Anthropological Quarterly, 81(1): 17–58.Google Scholar
Choudry, A. (2015). Learning Activism: The intellectual life of contemporary social movements. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Collins, H., & Evans, R. (2002). The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science, 32(2), 235–296.Google Scholar
Collins, H., Weinel, M., & Evans, R. (2010). The politics and policy of the Third Wave: New technologies and society. Critical Policy Studies, 4(2), 185–201.Google Scholar
Corburn, J. (2007). Community knowledge in environmental health science: Co-producing policy expertise. Environmental Science & Policy, 10(2), 150–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curtis, A., Ross, H., Marshall, G. R., et al. (2014). The great experiment with devolved NRM governance: lessons from community engagement in Australia and New Zealand since the 1980s. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 21(2), 175–199.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (1927). The Public and Its Problems: An essay in political inquiry. New York: Henry Holt and Company.Google Scholar
Dotson, T. (2015). Technological determinism and permissionless innovation as technocratic governing mentalities: Psychocultural barriers to the democratization of technology. Engaging Science, Technology, and Society, 1, 98–120.Google Scholar
Epstein, S. (1996). Impure Science: AIDS, activism, and the politics of knowledge (Vol. 7). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, S. (2011). Misguided boundary work in studies of expertise: Time to return to the evidence. Critical Policy Studies, 5(3), 323–328.Google Scholar
Escobar, A. (1998). Whose knowledge, whose nature? Biodiversity, conservation, and the political ecology of social movements. Journal of Political Ecology, 5(1), 53–82.Google Scholar
Fischer, F. (2000). Citizens, Experts, and the Environment: The politics of local knowledge. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Frickel, S., Gibbon, S., Howard, J., et al. (2010). Undone science: charting social movement and civil society challenges to research agenda setting. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 35(4), 444–473.Google Scholar
Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25(7), 739–755.Google Scholar
Funtowicz, S., & Strand, R. (2007). Models of science and policy. In Traavik, T. and Lim, L. C., (eds.) Biosafety First: Holistic approaches to risk and uncertainty in genetic engineering and genetically modified organisms, pp. 263–278. Oslo, Norway: Tapir Academic PressGoogle Scholar
Gieryn, T. F. (1999). Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the line. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gouldson, A. (2004). Risk, regulation and the right to know: Exploring the impacts of access to information on the governance of environmental risk. Sustainable Development, 12(3), 136–149.Google Scholar
Gunderson, Ryan. (2014). Habermas in environmental thought: Anthropocentric Kantian or forefather of ecological democracy? Sociological Inquiry, 84(4), 626–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, J., Lennox, S., & Lennox, F. (1974). The public sphere: An encyclopedia article (1964). New German Critique, (3), 49–55.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (2006). Political communication in media society: Does democracy still enjoy an epistemic dimension? The impact of normative theory on empirical research. Communication Theory, 16(4), 411–426.Google Scholar
Harding, S. (1992). Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is “strong objectivity?” The Centennial Review, 36(3), 437–470.Google Scholar
Heath, J. (2015). Methodological Individualism. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2015 Edition). Retrieved December 31, 2018, from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2015/entries/methodological-individualism/Google Scholar
Hess, D. J. (2004). Medical modernisation, scientific research fields and the epistemic politics of health social movements. Sociology of Health & Illness, 26(6), 695–709.Google Scholar
Irwin, A. (1993). Citizen Science: A study of people, expertise and sustainable development. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Irwin, A. (2014). From deficit to democracy (re-visited). Public Understanding of Science, 23(1), 71–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jamison, A. (2010). Climate change knowledge and social movement theory. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1(6), 811–823.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S. (ed.). (2004). States of Knowledge: The co-production of science and the social order. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Katz, J. (2002). The Silent World of Doctor and Patient. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1980). The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes: Volume 1: Philosophical papers (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lewenstein, B. V. (1992). The meaning of “public understanding of science” in the United States after World War II. Public Understanding of Science 1 (1): 45–58.Google Scholar
Longino, H. E. (2002). The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, H. E. (2006). Philosophy of science after the social turn. In Galavotti, M. C. (ed.) Cambridge and Vienna: Frank P. Ramsey and the Vienna Circle, pp. 167–177. Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
Markoff, J. (2015). Waves of Democracy: Social movements and political change. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Miller, T. R. (2013). Constructing sustainability science: emerging perspectives and research trajectories. Sustainability Science, 8(2), 279–293.Google Scholar
Minkler, M., & Wallerstein, N. (eds.). (2011). Community-Based Participatory Research for Health: From process to outcomes. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Morello-Frosch, R., Brody, J. G., Brown, P., et al. (2009). Toxic ignorance and right-to-know in biomonitoring results communication: A survey of scientists and study participants. Environmental Health, 8(1), 6. https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/1476-069X-8-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Offe, C. (1985). New social movements: Challenging the boundaries of institutional politics. Social Research, 52(4): 817–868.Google Scholar
Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M. (2011). Merchants of Doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing USA.Google Scholar
Orsini, M., & Smith, M. (2010). Social movements, knowledge and public policy: The case of autism activism in Canada and the US. Critical Policy Studies, 4(1), 38–57.Google Scholar
Ottinger, G. (2010). Buckets of resistance: Standards and the effectiveness of citizen science. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 35(2), 244–270.Google Scholar
Pallett, H., & Chilvers, J. (2013). A decade of learning about publics, participation, and climate change: Institutionalising reflexivity? Environment and Planning A, 45(5), 1162–1183.Google Scholar
Pellizzoni, L. (2003). Knowledge, uncertainty and the transformation of the public sphere. European Journal of Social Theory, 6(3), 327–355.Google Scholar
Pellizzoni, L. (2010). Environmental knowledge and deliberative democracy. In Gross, M. and Heinrichs, H. (eds.) Environmental Sociology: European perspectives and interdisciplinary challenges, pp. 159–182. Dordrecht: Springer,CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phadke, R. (2005). People’s science in action: The politics of protest and knowledge brokering in India. Society and Natural Resources, 18(4), 363–375.Google Scholar
PielkeJr, R. A. (2007). The Honest Broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Prior, L. (2003). Belief, knowledge and expertise: The emergence of the lay expert in medical sociology. Sociology of Health & Illness, 25(3), 41–57.Google Scholar
Reed, M. S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biological Conservation, 141(10), 2417–2431.Google Scholar
Sarzynski, A. (2015). Public participation, civic capacity, and climate change adaptation in cities. Urban Climate, 14, 52–67.Google Scholar
Schlosberg, D. (2004). Reconceiving environmental justice: Global movements and political theories. Environmental Politics, 13(3), 517–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, P. C. (2000). New environmental theories: Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stringer, L. C., Dougill, A. J., Fraser, E., et al. (2006). Unpacking “participation” in the adaptive management of social–ecological systems: a critical review. Ecology and Society, 11(2): 39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitley, R. (1985). Knowledge producers and knowledge acquirers. In Shinn, T. and Whitley, R. P. (eds.) Expository Science: Forms and functions of popularization, pp. 3–28. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Wynne, B. (1992). Misunderstood misunderstanding: Social identities and public uptake of science. Public Understanding of Science, 1(1), 281–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wynne, B. (1996). A reflexive view of the expert–lay knowledge divide. In Lash, S., Szerszynski, B., and Wynne, B. (eds.) Risk, Environment and Modernity: Towards a new ecology, pp. 44–83. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Wynne, B. (2001). Creating public alienation: Expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs. Science as Culture, 10(4), 445–481.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wynne, B. (2013). Rationality and Ritual: Participation and exclusion in nuclear decision-making. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Yearley, S. (2010). Science and the environment in the twenty-first century. In Redclift, M. R. and Woodgate, G. (eds.) The International Handbook of Environmental Sociology, pp. 212–225. Northhampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
Ziman, J. M. (1968). Public Knowledge: An essay concerning the social dimension of science (Vol. 519). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar