Environmentally Just Transformations of Expert Cultures: Toward the Theory and Practice of a Renewed Science and Engineering

Abstract

Arguing that science and technology are inherently dynamic and therefore transformable, we describe how the demands of the environmental justice (EJ) movement have changed, and are changing, technoscientific practices. In particular, we suggest that the EJ movement's insistence on recognition of racial and cultural diversity has resulted in new methods for risk assessment; that its focus on timely political action has pushed scientists to re-evaluate methods for reporting results and standards of proof; and that its emphasis on justice, sustainability, and health have encouraged technical practitioners to incorporate these fundamental values into their work. Understanding technoscience as dynamic, further, suggests strategies for EJ advocates to foster more just forms of science and technology.

Introduction

Scientific and engineering activities, as well as scientists and engineers themselves, have long held an ambiguous role in the environmental justice (EJ) movement. In one narrative, they have been central actors in the industrial cycles of production, consumption, and disposal that have produced the great thrust of environmental hazards faced by communities. Polychlorinated benzene (PCB)-contaminated soil in Warren County, North Carolina, leaking drums of chemical wastes in Love Canal, New York, and hazardous air pollution from petrochemical facilities in Norco, Louisiana, are just a few examples of how the technological infrastructure of the early- to mid-twentieth century put communities in harm's way.^1,2,3 Nor have we transcended these patterns: the so-called digital age demands substances mined from vulnerable communities, often in unstable parts of the world, and sends highly toxic, post-consumer waste from the affluent Global North to poorer communities in Africa, South Asia and beyond.⁴

In a different, nobler narrative, the story of scientists and engineers in the EJ movement is one of collaboration and supportive activism. One outcome of the environmental justice movement, in fact, has been a series of cases showing allegiances between EJ activists and technical agents, wherein one set of technical experts has chosen to solve the problems introduced by a different set of experts. Seeking to account for the local variations and experiential knowledge often smoothed over by dominant scientific modes of research, scientists like MacArthur award-winning chemist Wilma Subra and pioneering genetic toxicologist Marvin Legator have articulated place-based research protocols to craft culturally and environmentally embedded approaches to producing knowledge.^5,6,7

These two contrasting narratives of the relation between science and EJ, together with the oft-rehearsed cases of technoscientific hazards (on the one hand) and expert- activists (on the other) that accompany them, reveal a complicated interplay between technical experts and the environmentally unjust scenarios produced by modern industrial life. Yet both narratives present a view of science and scientists as static: scientific knowledge production and technological progress proceed through apparently autonomous, unalterable methods, and engineers and scientists are fixed instruments of use, whether to industrial production and consumption or the abatement of environmental inequities.

This article argues that a different understanding of technoscience is necessary in order to understand better the relationship between technoscience and environmental justice—and to act effectively on it. Specifically, science and technology are dynamic, value-laden activities that change as their cultural foundations shift, usually incrementally, but sometimes more dramatically in moments of crisis. Understanding technoscience as dynamic allows us to ask not just how science and technology have structured environmental injustices (as the first narrative would suggest) or how expert- activists have contributed to the pursuit of environmental justice (as with the second), but rather how science and technology have been changed by decades of environmental justice activism.

Rather than focusing on how science and engineering have influenced the EJ movement, then, we argue that the environmental justice movement has transformed technoscience. In this, we follow and contribute to scholarship that sees EJ activists as engaged in “transformative politics,”⁸ fundamentally altering individuals, communities, and environmental policies.^9,10,11,12 Looking across a wide range of case studies, we identify four ways in which it has done so: (1) thematizing cultural diversity, EJ activists have pushed experts to adopt new scientific methods and models to replace supposedly universal ones oriented to middle-class whites; (2) demanding to be able to use scientific findings in their activism, EJ organizations have shaped best practices for producing and reporting information about environmental exposures and health; (3) highlighting the urgent environmental and health problems in their communities, grassroots groups have forced the reconsideration of standards of proof and thresholds for action; and, more generally, (4) advocating for justice, sustainability, and health, EJ activists have seen these fundamental values incorporated explicitly into scientific practices and technological innovations.

Beyond cataloguing the transformations that have taken place, our view of technoscience as dynamic allows for imagining the transformation that could take place. Specifically, conceptualizing change as occurring through scientists and engineers' responses to everyday—and not so everyday—ruptures in technical practice, we suggest, equips environmental justice advocates to identify, create, and pursue opportunities for transformation in science and technology. Strategies for doing so could include unsettling established practices, or inducing ruptures, through partnerships and participation in science and engineering education, and taking advantage of other unsettling forces (e.g., economic crises or neoliberal reforms) to point to possibilities for re-forming technoscience along more just lines.

In the next section, we argue for the dynamism of science and present our theory of technoscientific transformation. We then outline the four transformations of technoscience evident in case studies of environmental justice activists' engagement with science. The concluding section suggests how the insights here might support a more targeted approach to just transformations of technoscience.

Discussion

The dynamism of technical practice

A view of science as dynamic and transformable rather than fixed and stable is rooted in the historical, sociological, philosophical, and political research on technoscientific practice often grouped under the label Science and Technology Studies (STS). More familiar, positivist conceptions of science conceive of science as rational and a-social, devoted to uncovering timeless and placeless facts about the natural world.¹³ In contrast, by focusing on the actual human practices of scientific knowledge production, STS scholars have shown science to be a more culturally embedded and dynamic social system than positivist portrayals allow. Notably, researchers have demonstrated that scientific “facts” do not enter the social world fully formed; rather, they are produced in the course of working out other kinds of political and social arguments.^14,15,16,17 Nor can the development of technology be understood as the straightforward application of scientific principles to pre-established problems; technology too is shaped by a variety of social and political negotiations that simultaneously define an object's form, its meaning, and the societal problems to which it is a solution.^18,19,20,21

Because science and technology are actively produced rather than pre-given, they are also dynamic. That is, scientific and engineering practices are not only made, they are constantly in the process of being re-made in response to shifts in cultural terrain. One finds examples of this remaking throughout the recent history of science and technology. As scholars have shown, for instance, a number of individual “politico-scientists” in the post-World War II era were in part the product not just of shifting Cold War cultural circumstances but rising environmental values.^22,23 Newer fields like genetic toxicology²⁴ and conservation biology²⁵ offer other notable cases of scientific research growing in directions influenced by emerging social values. New agendas for sustainability science provide yet another recent example, where the chorus of concern for sustainable environmental principles has informed designs on new means to educate and structure research for sustainability science.²⁶

Changing political-economic arrangements as well as shifting public values can foster new directions in science and technology. Most significantly, the late twentieth century move toward market-based models of governance, known as neoliberalism, has entailed the rollback of public funding for academic research—generating a rupture in scientific practice that has arguably engendered significant transformations. While these changes have included a move toward research agendas with commercial significance, they have also given rise to a new sense of entrepreneurialism among university scientists, as well as novel partnerships with civil society organizations, from which they have been able to reimagine research programs.^27,28,29,30

This is not to say that cultural and political-economic shifts directly determine the shape science will take. Rather, they offer technical practitioners and institutions the opportunity to deliberately refashion their practices, institutions, and identities.³¹ That is, as a social practice, science is constructed through the everyday choices and activities of practitioners as they go about their work.^32,33 The situations in which practitioners act always contain an element of indeterminacy, and thus maneuverability, meaning that science is constantly being re-made. That indeterminacy is limited, of course: the activities of technical practitioners are always shaped by the power structures of dominant institutions in which they are situated. The constant re-making of science therefore usually takes the form of mundane, subtle reconstructions.

More significant transformations occur in conjunction with disruptions of social structure both large (e.g., wars, natural disasters, health epidemics) and small (changes in management, new personnel, shifting fashions). These ruptures or schisms are productive, as the social theorists Deleuze and Guattari show, in that they open space from which new possibilities for social action emerge.³⁴ Like an earthquake breaking apart the land or a knife slicing across the top of a loaf of rising bread, social ruptures make available to practitioners more space to maneuver than there was previously.^34,35 Anthropologist Sharon Traweek similarly uses the metaphor of fault lines to refer to territory at the edges of heterogeneous knowledge-making practices; here, she suggests, new institutional arrangements and epistemic commitments can emerge.³⁶

While technical practices always remain bounded by existing power dynamics and social structures, then, scientists and engineers are most capable of significantly reshaping their practices in the context of noticeable disruptions that open “spaces between.” Neoliberal agendas, health epidemics, the security imperatives of a post-9/11 political landscape, and environmental politics that provide the basis for sustainability science are examples of the kind of disruption that can generate such transformations. The environmental justice movement is another source of disruption; moreover, because it highlights the inequities produced by industrial technologies and insists on the importance of laypeople's local and experiential knowledge, it is one with especially great potential for the transformation of scientific and engineering practice.

The ruptures of environmental justice

As environmental justice activists have both challenged industrial hazards and enlisted sympathetic scientists in their efforts to demonstrate and remedy the effects of those hazards, they have extended the basic demands of the EJ movement to science in important ways. Among others, these include: the recognition of racial and cultural diversity; the need for timely, protective policy action; and the acknowledgement of justice and sustainability as fundamental public goods. Unusual in the context of technical practice, these demands have disrupted the normal work not only of expert- activists allied with the EJ movement but also of regulatory scientists and others whose technical practices have an impact on environmental quality in communities burdened by pollution. In the process, activists' demands have created space for new, more just forms of science to emerge.

Insistence that racial, cultural, and other forms of diversity be recognized has long been central to environmental justice activism³⁷ and has been especially important in activists' work for just and participatory processes that include, for example, inclusion of immigrant populations and foreign language interpreters.⁸ Concern for diversity has informed environmental justice critiques of scientific methods, as well: EJ advocates have critiqued quantitative risk assessments for calculating risk as though those exposed to hazards were all 70-kg males living suburban lifestyles, pointing out that urban immigrant and Native American communities, to name a few, are likely to be far more exposed to pollution through, for example, subsistence fishing and ceremonial uses of waterways.^38,39,40

In at least some places, these critiques have given rise to regulatory science that explicitly recognizes the diversity of populations affected by pollution. Corburn, for example, details a case in which a community convinced regulatory scientists that their standard assumptions about fish consumption would severely underestimate pollution exposures in their racially and ethnically diverse, largely low-income community; regulators' exposure assessment was consequently broadened to incorporate a community-led survey of subsistence fishermen that gave far more accurate estimates of community exposures to fish from local, polluted waters than would the standard method that regulators had wanted to use.⁴¹ EJ demands for recognition of cultural diversity are not only reforming scientific risk assessments to make them both more representative and more participatory, they also are pushing scientists toward new paradigms for thinking about the effects of environmental hazards on communities: Johnson and Ranco point to efforts by the EPA's Tribal Science Council to get the agency to move away from a model of risk assessment that focuses on rates of illness to a more holistic, culturally relevant, “health and well-being model” for assessing impacts.⁴²

While environmental justice activists have called into question scientific methods and participated in their reform, producing knowledge for its own sake has not been a priority of the movement. Rather, EJ activism has focused on redressing in a timely way the problems of communities suffering from environmental hazards; as a result, activists have looked to science less for indisputable proof than for tools that further their demands for immediate political action. The action-orientation of the environmental justice movement has, again, disrupted standard scientific practices and created space for the emergence of more just alternatives.

The ethical standards for reporting study results back to study participants provide an example of this productive disruption. Morello-Frosch and her colleagues focus on biomonitoring to contrast the traditional clinical ethics approach, which reports personal exposures only at an aggregate or community level, with EJ-influenced community-based participatory research (CBPR) and “data judo” approaches, which give participating community members access to their individual exposure data. They argue that the CBPR and data judo approaches facilitate environmental justice organizing and advocacy, whereas a clinical ethical framework does not.⁴³

The EJ focus on political action and policy remedies has fostered the development of more just technology as well. Community groups wishing to respond to the intense, immediate impacts of large, unplanned releases of toxic air pollutants from industrial facilities have adopted portable air monitors that allow them to characterize concentrations of chemicals in the air during the release. “Bucket” air monitoring technology in particular has arguably contributed to the goal of timely policy action by heightening regulatory scrutiny at facilities where buckets are mobilized and furthering activists' demands for industry accountability.^44,45

In addition to insisting that communities cannot (and governments should not) wait for definitive proof before taking action, environmental justice activists have also challenged the standards for proof that would justify regulatory intervention. This, again, has created ruptures in scientific practice out of which new forms can emerge. In their interpretation of results from bucket air monitors, for example, activists compare chemical concentrations from five-minute samples to standards for eight-hour, 24-hour, and annual average levels. By doing so purposefully—over regulators' objections that bucket data are incommensurable with the standards—bucket users assert the legitimacy of even episodic data as a trigger for policy action.^46,47 Similarly, noting the extreme difficulty of establishing the statistical significance of elevated rates of disease in small communities, Allen describes efforts by scientists to establish a less stringent standard of “public health significance” as a more appropriate basis for deciding when to intervene in communities apparently suffering from exposures to environmental hazards.^48,49

Finally, by foregrounding justice as a fundamental good, the EJ movement has challenged narrow notions of what makes good science or successful technology, creating space for technical professionals to define success more broadly. Some regulatory scientists working with EJ communities, for example, have started to see community involvement as an important element of effective exposure assessment.⁵⁰ The values of environmental justice have also allied EJ activists with other movements, like those focused on sustainability, health, and localism, among others. Studies of these movements give further examples of how values, shared with EJ, are transforming technical practices not only in the public sector but in industrial production and innovation as well.^51,52,53

Conclusions

Instigating rupture, orchestrating change

The EJ movement has already wrought or seeded changes in technoscientific practice, as studies of environmental justice activists' engagement with scientists and engineers have shown. These include a recognition of diversity in scientific studies, new research protocols oriented to timely and actionable results, standards of proof that allow for protective, even precautionary, intervention, and explicit incorporation of values formerly thought irrelevant to science into strategies for research and innovation. But understanding technoscience as dynamic and potentially transformable also points to ways that advocates of environmental justice might work strategically and purposefully toward even more just forms of science and technology.

The EJ movement might, first, broaden and proliferate the spaces available for transformation by finding ways to produce ruptures in technical practice. This is already happening, as we have argued above, in EJ activists' on-going critiques of scientific protocols that exclude local knowledge, fail to recognize diversity, and demand proof at a level that undermines action; it is also happening in their collaborations with sympathetic scientists. Yet EJ advocates might also hasten transformation by expanding the domains in which technical practitioners confront environmental justice values and critiques. The classroom, for example, provides potent opportunities for creating rupture: both of us have, in separate classes, introduced undergraduate engineering students to concepts of environmental justice and asked them to embed those concepts into their technical work.^54,55 Ruptures could also be furthered by finding ways to connect science and engineering graduate students, as well as established technical professionals, with “shadow” networks of expert-activists.^6,56

Environmental justice advocates could also look for transformative opportunities in the far-reaching social ruptures taking place at any moment. Many observers argue that neoliberalism, for example, is not only shaking up how corporations are regulated and citizenship defined^57,58 but also altering the way that science is practiced.^27,29

Although many EJ advocates consider neoliberal policies to be detrimental to the environment and to environmental justice,^59,60 they could nonetheless open the door to just transformations of science and technology. That is, scientists and engineers will have to figure out how to adjust their practices to the inexorable demands of neoliberal political economic structures. In so doing, they may be more open to collaboration with and agendas from those environmental justice advocates who are able to envision more just practices within the new models of entrepreneurialism and public-private partnership that neoliberalism privileges. Representing a similarly large-scale rupture, the on-going “economic crisis” that began in 2008 could offer an opening for EJ activists able to make more just forms of technoscience that answer problems, at least in part, of declining public budgets and high unemployment.

Changes in science and technology are slow; just transformations of technoscience are likely to be slower still. Yet understanding that technical practices can be altered, and indeed have already been significantly changed by the environmental justice movement, allows us to think strategically about how to orient our efforts to create space for change and take advantage of spaces opened up by forces greater than the movement.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Kim Fortun and other contributors to Technoscience and Environmental Justice (MIT Press, 2011), as well as the three anonymous reviewers of this article.

Author Disclosure Statement

The authors have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

References

Bullard

Robert D.

Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class, and Environmental Quality. Westview Press, 1990.

Blum

Elizabeth D.

Love Canal Revisited: Race, Class, and Gender in Environmental Justice Activism. University of Kansas Press, 2008.

Steve Lerner. Diamond: A Struggle for Justice in Louisiana's Chemical Corridor. The MIT Press, 2005.

Alastair

Iles

. “Mapping Environmental Justice in Technology Flows: Computer Waste Impacts in Asia,” Global Environmental Politics, 4 November 2004; 76–107.

Barbara

Allen

. “Shifting boundary work: Issues and tensions in environmental health science in the case of Grand Bois, Louisiana,” Science as Culture, 13. 2004; 429–448.

Scott

Frickel

. “Who are the experts of environmental health justice?”

Gwen

Ottinger

, Cohen

Benjamin R.

Technoscience and Environmental Justice: Expert Cultures in a Grassroots Movement. The MIT Press, 2011; 21–39.

“Obituary for Marvin S. Legator”

Houston Chronicle, July 21, 2005; B7.

Luke

Cole

, Sheila

Foster

. From the Ground Up: Environmental Racism and the Rise of the Environmental Justice Movement. New York University Press, 2001; 26.

Pardo

Mary S.

Mexican American Women Activists: Identity and Resistance in Two Los Angeles Communities. Temple University Press, 1998.

10.

Melissa

Toffolon-Weiss

, Timmons

Roberts

. –Who Wins, Who Loses? Understanding Outcomes of Environmental Justice Struggles,” Pellow

David N.

, Robert

Brulle

. Power, Justice, and the Environment: A Critical Appraisal of the Environmental Justice Movement. The MIT Press, 2005; 77–90.

11.

Gordon

Holly D.

, Harley

Keith I.

“Environmental Justice and the Legal System,”

Pellow

David N.

, Brulle

Robert J.

Power, Justice, and the Environment: A Critical Appraisal of the Environmental Justice Movement. The MIT Press, 2005; 153–170.

12.

National Research Council. Science, Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment. The National Academies Press, 2009.

13.

Stephen

Turner

. “The social study of science before Kuhn,” Hackett

Edward J.

, Olga

Amsterdamska

, Lynch

Michael P.

, Judy

Wajcman

. The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, Third. The MIT Press, 2008; 33–62.

14.

Lorraine

Daston

, Peter

Galison

. Objectivity. Zone Books, 2007.

15.

Scott

Frickel

, Kelly

Moore

. The New Political Sociology of Science: Institutions, Networks, and Power. The University of Wisconsin Press, 2006.

16.

Hackett

Edward J.

, Olga

Amsterdamska

, Michael

Lynch

, Judy

Wajcman

. The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, Third. The MIT Press, 2007.

17.

Bruno

Latour

, Steve

Woolgar

. Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton University Press, 1979.

18.

Wiebe

Bijker

, Thomas

Hughes

, Trevor

Pinch

. The Social Construction of Technological Systems. The MIT Press, 1987.

19.

Donald

MacKenzie

, Judy

Wajcman

. The Social Shaping of Technology, 2nd. McGraw Hill Education, 1999.

20.

Langdon

Winner

. “Do Artifacts Have Politics?,” Daedalus, 109Winter1980; 121–136.

21.

Gwen

Ottinger

. “Environmentally Just Technology,” Environmental Justice, 4 March 2011; 81–85.

22.

Michael Egan. Barry Commoner and the Science of Survival: The Remaking of American Environmentalism. The MIT Press, 2007.

23.

Kelly Moore. Disrupting Science: Social Movements, American Scientists, and the Politics of the Military, 1945–1975. Princeton University Press, 2008.

24.

Scott

Frickel

. Chemical Consequences: Environmental Mutagens, Scientist Activism, and the Rise of Genetic Toxicology. Rutgers University Press, 2005.

25.

Wyatt

Galusky

. “The Promise of Conservation Biology,” Organization & Environment, 13 June 2000; 226–232.

26.

Clark

William C.

, Dickson

Nancy M.

“Sustainability Science: The Emerging Research Program,”

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100 July 2003; 8059–8061.

27.

Rebecca

Lave

, Philip

Mirowski

, Samuel

Randalls

. “Introduction: STS and Neoliberal Science,” Social Studies of Science, 40 October 2010; 659–675.

28.

Philip

Mirowski

. Science-Mart: Privatizing American Science. Harvard University Press, 2011.

29.

Kelly

Moore

, Kleinman

Daniel L.

, David

Hess

, Scott

Frickel

. “Science and Neoliberal Globalization,” Theory and Society, 40 September 2011; 505–532.

30.

Steven

Shapin

. The Scientific Life. University of Chicago Press, 2008.

31.

Gwen

Ottinger

, Cohen

Benjamin R.

Technoscience and Environmental Justice: Expert Cultures in a Grassroots Movement. The MIT Press, 2011.

32.

Pierre Bourdieu. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University Press, 1977.

33.

Michel De Certeau. The Practice of Everyday Life. University of California Press, 1984.

34.

Gilles

Deleuze

. Felix Guattari. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. University of Minnesota Press, 1987.

35.

Michel

Serres

. Hermes: Literature, Science, Philosophy. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983.

36.

Sharon

Traweek

. “Faultlines,” Roddey

Reid

, Sharon

Traweek

. Doing Science + Culture: How Cultural and Interdisciplinary Studies Are Changing the Way We Look at Science and Medicine. Routledge, 2000; 21–48.

37.

Schlosberg

David

. Defining Environmental Justice: Theories, Movements, and Nature. Oxford University Press, 2007.

38.

Stuart

Harris

, Barbara

Harper

. “A Native American Exposure Scenario,” Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 17 December 1997; 789–795.

39.

Kuehn

Robert R.

“The Environmental Justice Implications of Quantitative Risk Assessment,”

University of Illinois Law Review, 38. 1996; 103–172.

40.

Maria

Powell

, Jim

Powell

. “Invisible People, Invisible Risks: How Scientific Assessments of Environmental Health Risks Overlook Minorities—and How Community Participation Can Make Them Visible”

Gwen

Ottinger

, Cohen

Benjamin R.

Technoscience and Environmental Justice: Expert Cultures in a Grassroots Movement. The MIT Press, 2011; 149–178.

41.

Jason Corburn. Street Science: Community Knowledge and Environmental Health Justice. MIT Press, 2005.

42.

Johnson

Jaclyn R.

, Ranco

Darren J.

“Risk Assessment and Native Americans at the Cultural Crossroads: Making Better Science or Redefining Health?,”

Gwen

Ottinger

, Cohen

Benjamin R.

Technoscience and Environmental Justice: Expert Cultures in a Grassroots Movement. The MIT Press, 2011; 179–199.

43.

Rachel

Morello-Frosch

, Phil

Brown

, Julia Green

Brody

, Rebecca Gasior

Altman

, Rudel

Ruthann A.

, Ami

Zota

, Carla

Perez

. “Experts, Ethics, and Environmental Justice: Communicating and Contesting Results from Personal Exposure Science,”

Gwen

Ottinger

, Cohen

Benjamin R.

Technoscience and Environmental Justice: Expert Cultures in a Grassroots Movement. The MIT Press, 2011; 93–118.

44.

Dara

O'Rourke

, Macey

Gregg P.

“Community Environmental Policing: Assessing New Strategies of Public Participation in Environmental Regulation,”

Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 22,Summer 2003:383–414.

45.

Christine

Overdevest

, Brian

Mayer

. “Harnessing the Power of Information through Community Monitoring: Insights from Social Science,” Texas Law Review, 86 June 2008; 1493–1526.

46.

Gwen

Ottinger

. “Epistemic Fencelines: Air Monitoring Instruments and Expert- Resident Boundaries,” Spontaneous Generations, 3. 2009; 55–67.

47.

Gwen

Ottinger

. “Buckets of Resistance: Standards and the Effectiveness of Citizen Science,” Science, Technology, and Human Values, 35 March 2010; 244–270.

48.

Allen

Barbara L.

“The Popular Geography of Illness in the Industrial Corridor,”

Colten

Craig E.

Transforming New Orleans and its Environs: Centuries of Change. University of Pittsburgh Press, 2000; 178–201.

49.

Allen

Barbara L.

Uneasy Alchemy: Citizens and Experts in Louisiana's Chemical Corridor Disputes. The MIT Press, 2003.

50.

Liévanos

Raoul S.

, London

Jonathon K.

, Julie

Sze

. “Uneven Transformations and Environmental Justice: Regulatory Science, Street Science, and Pesticide Regulation in California,”

Gwen

Ottinger

, Cohen

Benjamin R.

Technoscience and Environmental Justice: Expert Cultures in a Grassroots Movement. The MIT Press, 2011; 201–228.

51.

Hess

David J.

Alternative Pathways in Science and Industry: Activism, Innovation, and the Environment in an Era of Globalization. The MIT Press, 2007.

52.

Hess

David J.

Localist Movements in a Global Economy: Sustainability, Justice, and Urban Development in the United States. The MIT Press, 2009.

53.

Julian

Agyeman

. Sustainable Communities and the Challenge of Environmental Justice. New York University Press, 2005.

54.

Gwen

Ottinger

. “Rupturing Engineering Education: Opportunities for Transforming Expert Identities through Community-Based Projects”

Gwen

Ottinger

, Cohen

Benjamin R.

Technoscience and Environmental Justice: Expert Cultures in a Grassroots Movement. The MIT Press, 2011; 229–248.

55.

Brevy

Cannon

. “January Term Class Tackles Local Food Hub Challenges,” UVA Today 21 January 2011.

56.

Scott

Frickel

. “Shadow mobilization for environmental, health justice,” Jane

Banaszak-Holl

, Levitsky

Sandra R.

, Mayer

Zald

. Social Movements and the Transformation of American Health Care. Oxford University Press, 2010; 171–187.

57.

David

Harvey

. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford University Press, 2005.

58.

Ronen

Shamir

. “The Age of Responsibilization: On Market-Embedded Morality,” Economy and Society, 37. 2008; 1–19.

59.

Nik

Heynen

, James

McCarthy

, Scott

Prudham

, Paul

Robbins

. Neoliberal Environments: False Promises and Unnatural Consequences. Taylor and Francis, Inc., 2007.

60.

Daniel

Faber

. Capitalizing on Environmental Injustice: The Polluter-Industrial Complex in the Age of Globalization. Rowman and Littlefield, 2008.