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.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BeckU, 1992Risk Society (Sage, London)
2.
BeckU, 1995Ecological Politics in an Age of Risk (Polity, London)
3.
CollinsHMEvansR, 2002, “The third wave of science studies”Social Studies of Science32235–296
4.
EdenS, 1996, “Public participation in environmental policy: Considering scientific, counter-scientific and non-scientific contributions”Public Understanding of Science5183–204
5.
EdenS, 1999, “‘We have the facts’—how business claims legitimacy in the environmental debate”Environment and Planning A311295–1309
6.
EpsteinS, 1995, “The construction of lay expertise: AIDS activism and the forging of credibility in the reform of clinical trials”Science Technology and Human Values20408–437
7.
EyermanRJamisonA, 1989, “Environmental knowledge as an organizational weapon: The case of Greenpeace”Social Science Information2899–119
8.
FischerF, 1990Technocracy and the Politics of Expertise (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA)
9.
FunctowiczSORavetzJR, 1990Global Environmental Issues and the Emergence of Second Order Science Report EUR 12803 EN (Commission of the European Communities, Luxembourg)
10.
GibbonsMLimogesCNowotnyHSchwartzmanSScottPTrowM, 1994The New Production of Knowledge (Sage, London)
11.
GiddensA, 1990The Consequences of Modernity (Polity, Cambridge)
12.
GierynT, 1983, “Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists”American Sociological Review48781–795
13.
GierynT, 1995, “Boundaries of science”, in Handbook of Science and Technology Studies Eds JasanoffSMarkleGEPetersenJCPinchT (Sage, London) pp 393–444
14.
GierynT, 1999Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL)
15.
GrolinJ, 1998, “Corporate legitimacy in risk society: The case of Brent Spar”Business Strategy and the Environment7213–222
16.
Horlick-JonesTde MarchiB, 1995, “The crisis of scientific expertise in fin de siècle Europe”Science and Public Policy22139–145
17.
HuxhamMSumnerD, 1999, “Emotion, science and rationality: The case of the Brent Spar”Environmental Values8349–368
18.
IrwinA, 1995Citizen Science (Routledge, London)
19.
IrwinAMichaelM, 2003Science, Social Theory and Public Knowledge (Open University Press, Buckingham)
20.
IrwinAWynneB (Eds), 1996Misunderstanding Science? (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
21.
JamisonA, 1996, “The shaping of the global environmental agenda: The role of non-governmental organisations”, in Risk, Environment and Modernity Eds LashSSzerszynskiBWynneB (Sage, London) pp 224–245
22.
JamisonA, 2001The Making of Green Knowledge (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
23.
JasanoffS, 1987, “Contested boundaries in policy-relevant science”Social Studies of Science17195–230
24.
JasanoffS, 2003a, “Breaking the waves in science studies: Comment on H M Collins and Robert Evans, ‘The third wave of science studies’”Social Studies of Science33389–400
25.
JasanoffS, 2003b, “(No?) Accounting for expertise”Science and Public Policy30157–162
26.
JordanG, 2001Shell, Greenpeace and the Brent Spar (Palgrave, Basingstoke, Hants)
27.
JordanGMaloneyW, 1997The Protest Business (Manchester University Press, Manchester)
28.
KinchyAJKleinmanDL, 2003, “Organizing credibility: Discursive and organizational orthodoxy on the borders of ecology and politics”Social Studies of Science33869–896
29.
KinneO, 2003, “Climate Research: An article unleashed worldwide storms”Climate Research24197–198
30.
MilneA, 1993, “The perils of green pessimism”New Scientist 12 June, pp 34–37
31.
RipA, 2003, “Constructing expertise: In a third wave of science studies?”Social Studies of Science33419–434
32.
ShackleySWynneB, 1996, “Representing uncertainty in global climate change science and policy: Boundary-ordering devices and authority”Science, Technology and Human Values21275–302
33.
TurnerS, 2001, “What is the problem with experts?”Social Studies of Science31123–149
YearleyS, 1989, “Bog standards: Science and conservation at a public inquiry”Social Studies of Science19421–438
36.
YearleyS, 1991, “Greens and science: A doomed affair?”New Scientist 13 July, pp 37–40
37.
YearleyS, 1992, “Skills, deals and impartiality: The sale of environmental consultancy skills and public perceptions of scientific neutrality”Social Studies of Science22435–453
38.
YearleyS, 1993, “Standing in for nature: The practicalities of environmental organizations' use of science”, in Environmentalism: The View from Anthropology Ed. MiltonK (Routledge, London) pp 59–72
39.
YearleyS, 1996, “Nature's advocates: Putting science to work in environmental organisations”, in Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology Eds IrwinAWynneB (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) pp 172–190
