Abstract
This paper explores inherent tensions between two democratic ideals: citizen representation and accountability of the state. Specifically, I argue that the method by which state officials make themselves accountable—through their creation of the appearance of transparency—results in the exclusion of alternative, non-scientific ways of knowing, including those that are gendered, local and indigenous, because these ways of knowing often employ non-standardized methods which are not “transparent” in the same way as science and therefore easily dismissed by state officials as indefensible to citizens’ questioning. I explore this tension by drawing on examples from ethnographic work I completed with two groups of knowledge practitioners, Kwakwaka’wakw First Nations (Native American) traditional marine harvesters and government biologists, both of whom work with clams.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
-
It is important to point out that there is not a general consensus amongst biologists in terms of how surveys are or should be conducted. Other methods in use include a systematic grid (Gillespie and Kronlund 1999) and “purposive sampling,” or using expert opinion about where quadrats should be placed. As Michal Pagis (a sociologist who is also trained in biology) suggested to me, biologists may be involved in a general process of becoming more accountable in their methods to satisfy critics’ needs. In other words, biologists are slowly switching over to methods that are “replicable” so as to appear more credible to scientists.
-
For clarity, I have described the DFO clam survey as a single marked area. If fact, for most large beaches, they divide the beach area into more than one rectilinear area or, as they refer to them, strata. Borders between strata are typically determined by differences in sediment type (e.g. sand versus mud). Digging spots are randomly selected from within each strata, resulting in a stratified random sample. In some cases, when surveying costs exceed available funds, what they refer to as two-stage sampling (the social science equivalent to multi-stage cluster sampling) is used to reduce the energy and costs required for sampling.
-
The one exception to this is whether they used simple random sampling, stratified random sampling or two-stage sampling on the beach (as described in footnote 2). Once a beach had been initially surveyed, the preference was to repeat the exact same procedures from one survey to the next. This meant there could be differences in sampling protocol from one beach to another.
-
Shapin argues (1995) that, around the same time period as Daston (1992) described, a culture of honor among scientists developed in which it was considered dishonorable for one to falsify their data or intentionally lie about their knowledge claims. Combined, trust in conventions and trust in the honesty of those who reported using those conventions replaced interpersonal trust.
-
A retired First Nations commercial clam digger from a different Nation told me a story about a beach she knows of being completely transformed in the winter months. High tides and stormy waters wash away gravel that collects to form a point in calmer seasons. Her point was that the clams do not remain in the same location—when there is no point the clams cannot remain buried under the sediment of that point, so they must be moving elsewhere.
-
This arguably has a check in place against too many changes being made during this period, as the semi-independent committee knew exactly what was contained in the report before it was sent to upper management and can conceivably draw the publics’ attention to any subsequent changes that appear politically motivated.
References
Baird, R. W. (2000). The killer whale: Foraging specializations and group hunting. In J. Mann, R.C. Connor, P. L. Tyack, & H. Whitehead (eds.), Cetacean societies: Field studies of dolphins and whales (pp. 127–153). University of Chicago Press.
Berkes, F. (1993). Traditional ecological knowledge in perspective. In J. T. Inglis (Ed.) Traditional ecological knowledge: Concepts and cases. International Program on Traditional Ecological Knowledge International Development Research Centre.
Bloor, M. (2000). The South Wales Miners Federation, Miners’ Lung and the instrumental use of expertise, 1900–1950. Social Studies of Science, 30, 125–140.
Boesch, C. (1994). Chimpanzees—red colobus monkeys: A predator-prey system. Animal Behavior, 47, 1135–1148.
Collins, H. M., & Evans, R. (2002). The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science, 32, 235–296.
Conor, R. C., Wells, R. S., Mann, J., & Read, A. J. (2000). The bottlenose dolphin: Social relationships in a fission-fusion society. In J. Mann, R. C. Connor, P. L. Tyack, & H. Whitehead (eds.) Cetacean societies: Field studies of dolphins and whales (pp. 91–126). University of Chicago Press.
Curio, E. (1988). Cultural transmission of enemy recognition by birds. In T. R. Zentall, & B. G. Galef, Jr. (eds.) Social learning: Psychological and biological perspectives (pp. 75–97). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Daston, L. (1992). Objectivity and the escape from perspective. Social Studies of Science, 22, 597–618.
Ellis, S. (2005). Meaningful consideration? A review of traditional knowledge in environmental decision making. Arctic, 58, 66–77.
Epstein, S. (1995). The construction of lay expertise: AIDS activism and the forging of credibility in the reform of clinical trials. Science, Technology and Human Values, 20, 408–437.
Espeland, W. (2000). Bureaucratizing democracy, democratizing bureaucracy. Law and Social Inquiry, 25, 1077–1109.
Evans, R., & Plows, A. (2007). Listening without prejudice? Re-discovering the value of the disinterested citizen. Social Studies of Science, 37, 827–853.
Fairhead, J., & Leach, M. (1996). Misreading the African landscape: Society and ecology in a forest-savanna mosaic. Cambridge University Press.
Finlayson, A. C. (1994). Fishing for truth: A sociological analysis of northern cod stock assessments from 1977–1990. Institute of Social and Economic Research.
Gillespie, G. E., & Kronlund, A. R. (1999). A manual for intertidal clam surveys. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 2270.
Grigorescu, A. (2003). International organizations and government transparency: Linking the international and domestic realms. International Studies Quarterly, 47, 643–667.
Habermas, J. (1975 [1973]). Legitimation crisis. Translated by T. McCarthy. Beacon Press.
Hutchings, J. A., Walters, C., & Haedrich, R. L. (1997). Is scientific inquiry incompatible with government information control? Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 54, 1198–1210.
Jasanoff, S. (1990). The fifth branch: Science advisors as policymakers. Harvard University Press.
Keller, A. C. (2009). Science in environmental policy: The politics of objective advice. MIT Press.
Kerr, A., Cunningham-Burley, S., & Tutton, R. (2007). Shifting subject positions: Experts and lay people in public dialogue. Social Studies of Science, 37, 385–411.
Knorr Cetina, K. (1981). The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Pergamon.
Latour, B. (1988). The pasteurization of France. Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Harvard University Press.
Lorde, A. (2007). The Master's tools will never dismantle the Master's house. In Sister outsider: Essays and speeches by Audre Lorde. The Crossing Press.
Lynch, M. P. (1991). Method: Measurement—ordinary and scientific measurement as ethnomethodological phenomena. In G. Button (Ed.) Ethnomethodology and the human sciences (pp. 77–108). Cambridge University Press.
McCay, B. J. (1989). Co-management of a clam revitalization project: The New Jersey “Spawner sanctuary” program. In E. Pinkertson (Ed.) Co-operative management of local fisheries (pp. 103–124). University of British Columbia Press.
Nadasdy, P. (1999). The politics of TEK: Power and the “integration” of knowledge. Arctic Anthropology, 362, 1–18.
Nadasdy, P. (2003). Re-evaluating the co-management success story. Arctic, 4, 367–380.
Ozonoff, D. (1988)). Failed warning: Asbestos-related disease and industrial medicine. In Bayer (Ed.) The health and safety of workers (pp. 139–218). Oxford University Press.
Paolisso, M. (2000). Blue crabs and controversy on the Chesapeake Bay: A cultural model for understanding watermen's reasoning about blue crab management. Human Organization, 61, 226–239.
Philp, M. (2009). Delimiting democratic accountability. Political Studies, 57, 28–53.
Popay, J., & Williams, G. (1996). Public health research and lay knowledge. Social Science and Medicine, 42, 759–768.
Porter, T. M. (1992a). Objectivity as standardization: The rhetoric of impersonality in measurement, statistics, and cost-benefit analysis. In A. Megill (Ed.) Rethinking objectivity (pp.197–238). Duke University Press.
Porter, T. M. (1992b). Quantification and the accounting ideal in science. Social Studies of Science, 22, 633–652.
Power, M. (1997). The audit society: Rituals of verification. Oxford University Press.
Rayner, S. (2003). Democracy in the age of assessment: Reflections on the roles of expertise and democracy in public-sector decision making. Science and Public Policy, 30, 163–170.
Rayner, S., & Malone, E. (1998). The challenge of climate change to the social sciences. In S. Rayner & E. Malone (Eds.), Human choice and climate change: volume 4. What have we learned? Battelle Press.
Relly, J., & Sabharwal, M. (2009). Perceptions of transparency of government policymaking: A cross-national study. Government of Information Quarterly, 26, 148–157.
Roepstorff, A. (2000). The double interface of environmental knowledge: Fishing for Greenland halibut. In B. Neis & L. Felt (Eds.) Finding our sea legs: Linking fishery people and their knowledge within science and management (pp. 165–188). ISER.
Shapin, S. (1995). A social history of truth: Civility and science in seventeenth-century England. University of Chicago Press.
Smith, D. (2005). Institutional ethnography: A sociology for people. Alta Mira Press.
Timmermans, S., & Berg, M. (1997). Standardization in action: Achieving local universality through medical protocols. Social Studies of Science, 272, 273–305.
Wynne, B. (1989). Sheep farming after Chernobyl: A case study in communicating scientific information. Environment, 31, 10–15 and 33–39.
Yapa, L. (1993). What are improved seeds? An epistemology of the Green Revolution. Economic Geography, 69, 254–273.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank everyone at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada and in Kwakwaka’wakw territory who helped me with and/or participated in my research. It is because of them that I learned what I did and without them I could not have written this paper. I would also like to thank John Levi Martin, Linda Derksen, two anonymous reviewers and those present at the American Sociological Association’s 2009 Junior Theorists Symposium (especially Monika Krause, Julia Adams, Michal Pagis, and Aaron Panofsky) for thoughtful comments and/or feedback on various versions of this paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Marlor, C. Bureaucracy, Democracy and Exclusion: Why Indigenous Knowledge Holders Have a Hard Time Being Taken Seriously. Qual Sociol 33, 513–531 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-010-9168-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-010-9168-7