Green Groups and Grey Areas: Scientific Boundary-Work, Nongovernmental Organisations, and Environmental Knowledge

Abstract

In this paper we examine the role of nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) in debates about environmental science and knowledge, using empirical evidence from in-depth interviews with a range of NGOs involved in the waste debate in the United Kingdom. We discuss theoretical issues of scientific boundary-work and the construction of expertise and socially distributed knowledge, and then apply these to our empirical evidence. Our conclusions are that NGOs continue to subscribe to the notion of the preeminent authority of science in environmental debates, but also work partly in a more diverse, highly networked world of knowledge production which requires them to be pragmatic and versatile in how they legitimate knowledge from various sources. Hence, scientific knowledge is highly contingent in its authority, and dependent upon continual (re)negotiation.

Making sense of policy implementation: The construction and uses of expertise and evidence in managing freshwater environments

“…A body of work has looked at the engagement of a range of different stakeholders in the decision making process concerned with the development and the implementation of environmental plans and practices (Callon, 1999;Nowotny et al, 2001;Eden et al, 2006;Collins and Weinel, 2011). In the area of land and water management Juntti and Potter (2002), Medd and Marvin (2008), Nutley et al (2003) and Proctor et al (in press) have focussed on practices of implementation.…”

Landfarming: A contested space for the management of waste from oil and gas extraction

“…Demands for the application of science in the policy process reflect the assumption that its discipline will hold the research behind regulatory decisions to the same scientific standard (Jasanoff, 1987). Moreover, Climate Justice Taranaki's eliciting of the commentary by the veterinary scientist at Massey University concerning the report on contaminants in milk can be seen as illustrating the active role of this NGO in the production of scientific knowledge (Eden et al, 2006.) Not just being critical on the side-lines, they helped to shed light -knowledge -on the assumptions and methodological difficulties involved in trying to ascertain the safety of milk from cows grazing on landfarms.…”

“…For instance, De Rijke (2013: 17) notes how some environmental groups have an "ambiguous relationship with science", in particular when there is a clash between esoteric knowledge and local experience. On the other hand, some NGOs may procure, or even serve as coproducers of scientific knowledge for explicit public consumption (Eden et al, 2006). It is because of the potential complexity and confusion arising from the struggle for credibility regarding a given issue that an established cultural cartography may derive its appeal.…”

“…However, the cultural map of knowledge and the boundaries that sustain it should not be reified (Eden et al, 2006), they are contingent, part of an ongoing negotiated order. Moreover, whilst acknowledging the critical responses to Gieryn's take on science (see also : Berbrier, 2002;Brown, 2015;Kinchy and Kleinman, 2003), it is important to point out that we are not concerned with the character of science as such but rather the boundary work inherent in the discursive ways in which science is invoked in public debate over the safety of landfarming and thereby how the struggle for epistemic authority is performative as regards its regulation.…”

Geo-political genetics: Claiming the commons through species mapping

“…For example, Campbell (2007) shows how scientists selectively employ ecological data to support predetermined conservation goals at particular socio-political scales, arguing that "promoting conservation action at a particular scale is not simply a matter of biological or ecological necessity, but serves the political interests of particular groups" (Campbell 2007). Further, Campbell (2007), Eden, Donaldson, and Walker (2006), Yearley (1996) and others have considered the relationship of science, scientists, and environmental NGOs, both how NGOs use science strategically and with what consequences; the line between NGOs and science is often blurred in conservation contexts (Campbell 2007). Thus, although both common pool resource theory and political ecology have interests in scale and scalar politics, we argue that insights from science studies can help us explore the ways in which science itself (i.e.…”