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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Science, technology, & human values technology, & human values, 2013-03, Vol.38 (2), p.250-270
1. Verfasser: Ottinger, Gwen
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, &amp; 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&amp;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, &amp; 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, &amp; 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, &amp; 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