Везде
Counter-expertise: Opening and Closing the Black Boxes
Table of contents
Annotation Estimate Publication content
References Comments
Share
QR
Metrics
Counter-expertise: Opening and Closing the Black Boxes
Annotation
PII
S1811-833X0000616-7-1
Publication type
Article
Status
Published
Authors
Asya Filatova 
Edition
Volume 57 Issue 2
Pages
48-57
Abstract
The term “counter-expertise” has recently become a part of the STS theoretical tools, although main topics covered by this term have been the STS subjects for several decades. These themes concern the norms and practices of laypeople participation in assessing the quality of their living conditions. This assessing often clashes with official expertise. First of all, the problem of counter-expertise is considered in the context of the democratization of science, a participatory turn and activism. In this article, using the vocabulary of B. Latour's actor-network theory, I try to demonstrate the way counter-experts use, open and close the so-called “black boxes” of science. The counter-experts’ attitude about scientific facts is a matter of principle, for it actualizes the problem of demarcation of counter-expertise from various kinds of grassroots initiatives, which are usually interpreted as unscientific and socially destructive.
Keywords
counter-expertise, science facts, black boxes, Bruno Latour, STS, local knowledge, matters of facts and matters of concern
Date of publication
01.06.2020
Number of purchasers
22
Views
557
Readers community rating
0.0 (0 votes)
Cite Download pdf

References



Additional sources and materials

    

  1. Arancibia, F., Motta, R. “Undone Science and Counter-Expertise: Fighting for Justice in an Argentine Community Contaminated by Pesticides”, Science as Culture, 2018, pp. 1‒26, DOI:10.1080/09505431.2018.1533936
    2. 

  2. Bosworth, K. “The People Know Best: Situating the Counter-expertise of Populist Pipeline Opposition Movements”, Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 2018, 20 Dec, pp. 1‒12. DOI: 10.1080/24694452.2018.1494538
    3. 

  3. Fischer, F. Citizens, Experts, and the Environment: The Politics of Local Knowledge. Durham: Duke University Press, 2000, 351 pp.
    4. 

  4. Gould, D.B. Moving Politics: Emotion and ACT UP’s Fight against AIDS. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press, 2009, 536 pp.
    5. 

  5. Hess, J.D. Undone Science: Social Movements, Mobilized Publics, and Industrial Transitions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2016, 258 pp.
    6. 

  6. Kimura, A. H. “Citizen Science in Post-Fukushima Japan: The Gendered Scientization of Radiation Measurement”, Science as Culture, 2017, pp. 1‒24. DOI:10.1080/09505431.2017.1347154
    7. 

  7. Latur, B. “Nauka v deystvii: sleduya za uchenymi i inzhenerami vnutri obshchestva” [Science in Action, How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society]. Saint Petersburg: EU SPb, 2013, 414 pp. (In Russian)
    8. 

  8. Latour, B. “Why Has Critique Run out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern”, Critical Inquiry, 2004, vol. 3, no. 2., pp. 225‒248.
    9. 

  9. Sellars, W. “Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind”. Cambridge, London: Harvard University Press, 1997, 192 pp.
    10. 

  10. Shevchenko, S.Yu. “Ierarkhiya otsenok tekhnonauki: kazus spora ob ekvivalentnosti lekarstv” [Hierarchy of technoscience estimation: the case of drag equivalence dispute], Epistemology & Philosophy of Science, 2019, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 186‒201. (In Russian)
    11. 

  11. Shevchenko, S.Yu. “Prezirat' i podskazyvat': epistemicheskaya nespravedlivost' i kontr-ekspertiza” [Incline and Admonish: Epistemic Injustice and Counter-Expertise], Epistemology & Philosophy of Science, 2020, vol. 5, no., pp. (In Russian)
    12. 

  12. Williams, L. D. A., Moore, S. “Guest Editorial: Conceptualizing Justice and Counter-Expertise”, Science as Culture, 2019, Iss. 28(3), pp. 251‒276, DOI:10.1080/09505431.2019.1632820
    13. 

  13. Wynne, B. “Misunderstood Misunderstanding: Social Identities and Public Uptake of Science”, Public Understanding of Science, vol.1, no. 3, pp. 281‒304. DOI:10.1088/0963‒6625/1/3/004.
    14.

Comments

No posts found

Write a review
Translate