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

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.

[1]  S. Eden,et al.  ‘We Have the Facts’—How Business Claims Legitimacy in the Environmental Debate , 1999 .

[2]  S. Shackley,et al.  Representing Uncertainty in Global Climate Change Science and Policy: Boundary-Ordering Devices and Authority , 1996 .

[3]  A. Giddens.  The consequences of modernity , 1990 .

[4]  Ulrich Beck,et al.  Ecological Politics in an Age of Risk , 1995 .

[5]  B. Wynne,et al.  Misunderstanding science? : the public reconstruction of science and technology , 1996 .

[6]  Abby Kinchy,et al.  Organizing Credibility , 2003 .

[7]  O. Kinne.  Climate Research: an article unleashed worldwide storms , 2003 .

[8]  Mark Huxham,et al.  Emotion, Science and Rationality: The Case of the Brent Spar , 1999, Environmental Values.

[9]  T. Gieryn.  Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional , 1983 .

[10]  S. Turner.  What is the Problem with Experts? , 2001 .

[11]  S. Jasanoff.  Contested Boundaries in Policy-Relevant Science , 1987 .

[12]  A. Jamison,et al.  Environmental knowledge as an organizational weapon: the case of Greenpeace , 1989 .

[13]  Misunderstanding science?: Nature's advocates: putting science to work in environmental organisations , 1996 .

[14]  Sheila Jasanoff,et al.  Breaking the Waves in Science Studies , 2003 .

[15]  A. Jamison.  The Making of Green Knowledge , 2001 .

[16]  Andrew Jamison,et al.  The Shaping of the Global Environmental Agenda: The Role of Non-Governmental Organisations , 1998 .

[17]  Frank Fischer,et al.  Technocracy and the Politics of Expertise. , 1991 .

[18]  S. Eden.  Public participation in environmental policy: considering scientific, counter-scientific and non-scientific contributions , 1996 .

[19]  S. Yearley.  Bog Standards: Science and Conservation at a Public Inquiry , 1989 .

[20]  Jesper Grolin,et al.  Corporate legitimacy in risk society: the case of Brent Spar , 1998 .

[21]  B. Marchi,et al.  The crisis of scientific expertise in fin de siècle Europe , 1995 .

[22]  Brian Wynne,et al.  How science fails the environment. , 1993 .

[23]  Arie Rip,et al.  Constructing Expertise , 2003 .

[24]  Sheila Jasanoff,et al.  (No?) Accounting for expertise , 2003 .

[25]  Steven Epstein,et al.  The Construction of Lay Expertise: AIDS Activism and the Forging of Credibility in the Reform of Clinical Trials , 1995, Science, technology & human values.

[26]  Harold Maurice Collins,et al.  The third wave of science studies , 2002 .

[27]  Jerome R. Ravetz,et al.  Global environmental issues and the emergence of Second Order Science , 1990 .