Changing Knowledge, Local Knowledge, and Knowledge Gaps: STS Insights into Procedural Justice
Procedural justice, or the ability of people affected by decisions to participate in making them, is widely recognized as an important aspect of environmental justice (EJ). Procedural justice, moreover, requires that affected people have a substantial understanding of the hazards that a particular d...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Science, technology, & human values technology, & human values, 2013-03, Vol.38 (2), p.250-270 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 270 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 250 |
container_title | Science, technology, & human values |
container_volume | 38 |
creator | Ottinger, Gwen |
description | Procedural justice, or the ability of people affected by decisions to participate in making them, is widely recognized as an important aspect of environmental justice (EJ). Procedural justice, moreover, requires that affected people have a substantial understanding of the hazards that a particular decision would impose. While EJ scholars and activists point out a number of obstacles to ensuring substantial understanding—including industry's nondisclosure of relevant information and technocratic problem framings—this article shows how key insights from Science and Technology Studies (STS) about the nature of knowledge pose even more fundamental challenges for procedural justice. In particular, the knowledge necessary to inform participation in decision making is likely not to exist at the time of decision making, undermining the potential for people to give their informed consent to being exposed to an environmental hazard. In addition, much of the local knowledge important to understanding the consequences of hazards will develop only after decisions have been made, and technoscientific knowledge of environmental effects will inevitably change over the period during which people will be affected by a hazard. The changing landscape of knowledge calls into question the idea that consent or participation during one decision-making process can by itself constitute procedural justice. An STS-informed understanding of the nature of knowledge, this article argues, implies that procedural justice should include proactive knowledge production to fill in knowledge gaps, and ongoing opportunities for communities to consent to the presence of hazards as local knowledge emerges and scientific knowledge changes. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1177/0162243912469669 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1622293834</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>23474495</jstor_id><sage_id>10.1177_0162243912469669</sage_id><sourcerecordid>23474495</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c446t-b8230b9f99411a87257ef8973ec884b27a855864879a81be2fa8c1b9b10f6e4e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkd1LHDEUxYNUcKt990UYKAUfnJrPyU3fZNHVumBB-1iGTDYzO8tssiYzSP_7ZthFRSial5Dc3zk3uQehY4K_EyLlOSYFpZwpQnmhikLtoQkRguZABfmEJmM5H-sH6HOMK5wWUDZBf6ZL7ZrWNdmt80-dXTT2LJt7o7vXF9otXo7ZTG_ij-z-4T67cbFtln3MWtf77Ffwxi6GkLQ_h9i3xh6h_Vp30X7Z7Yfo99Xlw_Q6n9_NbqYX89xwXvR5lZ6CK1UrxQnRIKmQtgYlmTUAvKJSgxBQcJBKA6ksrTUYUqmK4Lqw3LJDdLr13QT_ONjYl-s2Gtt12lk_xHKcDVUMGP8YCooR9j4qMJZQYAHvo4xIAZxxkdCvb9CVH4JL4xkpJrgEShKFt5QJPsZg63IT2rUOf0uCyzHw8m3gSfJtZ6xjyq8O2pk2PuuoFDx9SiYu33JRN_ZV8__7nmz5Vex9ePFjXHKuBPsHoUm8vg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1313547821</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Changing Knowledge, Local Knowledge, and Knowledge Gaps: STS Insights into Procedural Justice</title><source>PAIS Index</source><source>SAGE Complete</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Ottinger, Gwen</creator><creatorcontrib>Ottinger, Gwen</creatorcontrib><description>Procedural justice, or the ability of people affected by decisions to participate in making them, is widely recognized as an important aspect of environmental justice (EJ). Procedural justice, moreover, requires that affected people have a substantial understanding of the hazards that a particular decision would impose. While EJ scholars and activists point out a number of obstacles to ensuring substantial understanding—including industry's nondisclosure of relevant information and technocratic problem framings—this article shows how key insights from Science and Technology Studies (STS) about the nature of knowledge pose even more fundamental challenges for procedural justice. In particular, the knowledge necessary to inform participation in decision making is likely not to exist at the time of decision making, undermining the potential for people to give their informed consent to being exposed to an environmental hazard. In addition, much of the local knowledge important to understanding the consequences of hazards will develop only after decisions have been made, and technoscientific knowledge of environmental effects will inevitably change over the period during which people will be affected by a hazard. The changing landscape of knowledge calls into question the idea that consent or participation during one decision-making process can by itself constitute procedural justice. An STS-informed understanding of the nature of knowledge, this article argues, implies that procedural justice should include proactive knowledge production to fill in knowledge gaps, and ongoing opportunities for communities to consent to the presence of hazards as local knowledge emerges and scientific knowledge changes.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0162-2439</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1552-8251</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/0162243912469669</identifier><identifier>CODEN: STHVDQ</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications</publisher><subject>Activism ; Activists ; Citizen participation ; Communities ; Community power ; Decision Making ; Decisions ; Environment ; Environmental hazards ; Environmental justice ; Environmental problems ; Environmental technology ; Hazards ; Health hazards ; Human ecology and demography ; Indigenous knowledge ; Industry ; Informed Consent ; Justice ; Knowledge ; Landscape ; Local Knowledge ; Participation ; Procedural Justice ; Production ; Retirement communities ; Science ; Science and technology ; Social Justice ; Social values ; Sociology ; Sociology of knowledge and ethics ; Sociology of knowledge and sociology of culture ; Sociology of law and criminology ; Sociology of law and justice ; Sociology of science ; Technology ; Traditional knowledge</subject><ispartof>Science, technology, & human values, 2013-03, Vol.38 (2), p.250-270</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2013 SAGE Publications</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2012</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC. Mar 2013</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c446t-b8230b9f99411a87257ef8973ec884b27a855864879a81be2fa8c1b9b10f6e4e3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/23474495$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/23474495$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>309,310,314,776,780,785,786,799,21799,23910,23911,25119,27844,27903,27904,33754,43600,43601,57995,58228</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=27541337$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ottinger, Gwen</creatorcontrib><title>Changing Knowledge, Local Knowledge, and Knowledge Gaps: STS Insights into Procedural Justice</title><title>Science, technology, & human values</title><description>Procedural justice, or the ability of people affected by decisions to participate in making them, is widely recognized as an important aspect of environmental justice (EJ). Procedural justice, moreover, requires that affected people have a substantial understanding of the hazards that a particular decision would impose. While EJ scholars and activists point out a number of obstacles to ensuring substantial understanding—including industry's nondisclosure of relevant information and technocratic problem framings—this article shows how key insights from Science and Technology Studies (STS) about the nature of knowledge pose even more fundamental challenges for procedural justice. In particular, the knowledge necessary to inform participation in decision making is likely not to exist at the time of decision making, undermining the potential for people to give their informed consent to being exposed to an environmental hazard. In addition, much of the local knowledge important to understanding the consequences of hazards will develop only after decisions have been made, and technoscientific knowledge of environmental effects will inevitably change over the period during which people will be affected by a hazard. The changing landscape of knowledge calls into question the idea that consent or participation during one decision-making process can by itself constitute procedural justice. An STS-informed understanding of the nature of knowledge, this article argues, implies that procedural justice should include proactive knowledge production to fill in knowledge gaps, and ongoing opportunities for communities to consent to the presence of hazards as local knowledge emerges and scientific knowledge changes.</description><subject>Activism</subject><subject>Activists</subject><subject>Citizen participation</subject><subject>Communities</subject><subject>Community power</subject><subject>Decision Making</subject><subject>Decisions</subject><subject>Environment</subject><subject>Environmental hazards</subject><subject>Environmental justice</subject><subject>Environmental problems</subject><subject>Environmental technology</subject><subject>Hazards</subject><subject>Health hazards</subject><subject>Human ecology and demography</subject><subject>Indigenous knowledge</subject><subject>Industry</subject><subject>Informed Consent</subject><subject>Justice</subject><subject>Knowledge</subject><subject>Landscape</subject><subject>Local Knowledge</subject><subject>Participation</subject><subject>Procedural Justice</subject><subject>Production</subject><subject>Retirement communities</subject><subject>Science</subject><subject>Science and technology</subject><subject>Social Justice</subject><subject>Social values</subject><subject>Sociology</subject><subject>Sociology of knowledge and ethics</subject><subject>Sociology of knowledge and sociology of culture</subject><subject>Sociology of law and criminology</subject><subject>Sociology of law and justice</subject><subject>Sociology of science</subject><subject>Technology</subject><subject>Traditional knowledge</subject><issn>0162-2439</issn><issn>1552-8251</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkd1LHDEUxYNUcKt990UYKAUfnJrPyU3fZNHVumBB-1iGTDYzO8tssiYzSP_7ZthFRSial5Dc3zk3uQehY4K_EyLlOSYFpZwpQnmhikLtoQkRguZABfmEJmM5H-sH6HOMK5wWUDZBf6ZL7ZrWNdmt80-dXTT2LJt7o7vXF9otXo7ZTG_ij-z-4T67cbFtln3MWtf77Ffwxi6GkLQ_h9i3xh6h_Vp30X7Z7Yfo99Xlw_Q6n9_NbqYX89xwXvR5lZ6CK1UrxQnRIKmQtgYlmTUAvKJSgxBQcJBKA6ksrTUYUqmK4Lqw3LJDdLr13QT_ONjYl-s2Gtt12lk_xHKcDVUMGP8YCooR9j4qMJZQYAHvo4xIAZxxkdCvb9CVH4JL4xkpJrgEShKFt5QJPsZg63IT2rUOf0uCyzHw8m3gSfJtZ6xjyq8O2pk2PuuoFDx9SiYu33JRN_ZV8__7nmz5Vex9ePFjXHKuBPsHoUm8vg</recordid><startdate>20130301</startdate><enddate>20130301</enddate><creator>Ottinger, Gwen</creator><general>Sage Publications</general><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>WZK</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20130301</creationdate><title>Changing Knowledge, Local Knowledge, and Knowledge Gaps: STS Insights into Procedural Justice</title><author>Ottinger, Gwen</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c446t-b8230b9f99411a87257ef8973ec884b27a855864879a81be2fa8c1b9b10f6e4e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Activism</topic><topic>Activists</topic><topic>Citizen participation</topic><topic>Communities</topic><topic>Community power</topic><topic>Decision Making</topic><topic>Decisions</topic><topic>Environment</topic><topic>Environmental hazards</topic><topic>Environmental justice</topic><topic>Environmental problems</topic><topic>Environmental technology</topic><topic>Hazards</topic><topic>Health hazards</topic><topic>Human ecology and demography</topic><topic>Indigenous knowledge</topic><topic>Industry</topic><topic>Informed Consent</topic><topic>Justice</topic><topic>Knowledge</topic><topic>Landscape</topic><topic>Local Knowledge</topic><topic>Participation</topic><topic>Procedural Justice</topic><topic>Production</topic><topic>Retirement communities</topic><topic>Science</topic><topic>Science and technology</topic><topic>Social Justice</topic><topic>Social values</topic><topic>Sociology</topic><topic>Sociology of knowledge and ethics</topic><topic>Sociology of knowledge and sociology of culture</topic><topic>Sociology of law and criminology</topic><topic>Sociology of law and justice</topic><topic>Sociology of science</topic><topic>Technology</topic><topic>Traditional knowledge</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ottinger, Gwen</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><jtitle>Science, technology, & human values</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ottinger, Gwen</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Changing Knowledge, Local Knowledge, and Knowledge Gaps: STS Insights into Procedural Justice</atitle><jtitle>Science, technology, & human values</jtitle><date>2013-03-01</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>38</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>250</spage><epage>270</epage><pages>250-270</pages><issn>0162-2439</issn><eissn>1552-8251</eissn><coden>STHVDQ</coden><abstract>Procedural justice, or the ability of people affected by decisions to participate in making them, is widely recognized as an important aspect of environmental justice (EJ). Procedural justice, moreover, requires that affected people have a substantial understanding of the hazards that a particular decision would impose. While EJ scholars and activists point out a number of obstacles to ensuring substantial understanding—including industry's nondisclosure of relevant information and technocratic problem framings—this article shows how key insights from Science and Technology Studies (STS) about the nature of knowledge pose even more fundamental challenges for procedural justice. In particular, the knowledge necessary to inform participation in decision making is likely not to exist at the time of decision making, undermining the potential for people to give their informed consent to being exposed to an environmental hazard. In addition, much of the local knowledge important to understanding the consequences of hazards will develop only after decisions have been made, and technoscientific knowledge of environmental effects will inevitably change over the period during which people will be affected by a hazard. The changing landscape of knowledge calls into question the idea that consent or participation during one decision-making process can by itself constitute procedural justice. An STS-informed understanding of the nature of knowledge, this article argues, implies that procedural justice should include proactive knowledge production to fill in knowledge gaps, and ongoing opportunities for communities to consent to the presence of hazards as local knowledge emerges and scientific knowledge changes.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>Sage Publications</pub><doi>10.1177/0162243912469669</doi><tpages>21</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0162-2439 |
ispartof | Science, technology, & human values, 2013-03, Vol.38 (2), p.250-270 |
issn | 0162-2439 1552-8251 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1622293834 |
source | PAIS Index; SAGE Complete; Sociological Abstracts; Jstor Complete Legacy; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | Activism Activists Citizen participation Communities Community power Decision Making Decisions Environment Environmental hazards Environmental justice Environmental problems Environmental technology Hazards Health hazards Human ecology and demography Indigenous knowledge Industry Informed Consent Justice Knowledge Landscape Local Knowledge Participation Procedural Justice Production Retirement communities Science Science and technology Social Justice Social values Sociology Sociology of knowledge and ethics Sociology of knowledge and sociology of culture Sociology of law and criminology Sociology of law and justice Sociology of science Technology Traditional knowledge |
title | Changing Knowledge, Local Knowledge, and Knowledge Gaps: STS Insights into Procedural Justice |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-26T09%3A57%3A59IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Changing%20Knowledge,%20Local%20Knowledge,%20and%20Knowledge%20Gaps:%20STS%20Insights%20into%20Procedural%20Justice&rft.jtitle=Science,%20technology,%20&%20human%20values&rft.au=Ottinger,%20Gwen&rft.date=2013-03-01&rft.volume=38&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=250&rft.epage=270&rft.pages=250-270&rft.issn=0162-2439&rft.eissn=1552-8251&rft.coden=STHVDQ&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/0162243912469669&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E23474495%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1313547821&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=23474495&rft_sage_id=10.1177_0162243912469669&rfr_iscdi=true |