Undone Science and Counter-Expertise: Fighting for Justice in an Argentine Community Contaminated by Pesticides

ABSTRACT

STS and social movement scholars have shown the importance of ‘getting undone science done’ to advance the goals of social movements fighting environmental health injustice. The production and mobilization of counter-expertise, meaning the reliance on expertise, broadly construed, to contest regulatory decisions based on scientific knowledge, must be further analyzed by differentiating among types of expertise and strategies to mobilize them. In social mobilization against the unrestricted use of pesticides in Argentina, the affected community in Ituzaingó Anexo developed three types of expertise. The community first drew upon its own local knowledge of cases of illness and, as lay people, produced the first epidemiological map of this area. Then, they enrolled scientists and NGOs as allies to jointly learn about pesticide contamination as an explanation for illness. The enlisted scientists produced new knowledge by conducting environmental and epidemiological studies. Finally, sympathetic public health authorities, legal experts, and a district attorney designed a successful legal strategy to stop fumigations in that area and enforce local regulations. The case confirms the importance of producing undone science, and shows that its effectiveness can be explained by intertwined strategies deployed by a triad of lay/local, scientific, and legal experts to overcome the expertise barrier.     

法律正义与道德正义

进入文明时代以来,社会正义一直是人们追求的基本价值目标.社会正义实质上是对人类社会关系(包括个人之间、群体及组织之间、个人与群体及组织之间的相互关系)的公平性、正当性的确认和捍卫,社会正义通常采取法律形式和道德形式来表达.法律正义是以国家意志的形式来表达的社会关系的规定性,它通过制度规范方式来确认和捍卫公民的合法权益和守法义务.道德正义是以德性和良心的形式来表现的社会关系的规定性,它通过伦理规范的方式来确认和维护公民的伦理权利和道德义务.法律正义是道德正义的基础和保障,因而也是社会正义的底线和起点;道德正义是法律正义的前提和灵魂,因而也是社会正义的理想和目标.构建法律正义与道德正义的良性互动关系.是实现社会正义的有效保证.     

分配制度公平对员工分配公平感的影响:中国组织情境下的实证研究*

西方组织公平领域的主流观点认为要想提高员工的分配公平感,应着力提高分配过程的公平性以及上下级互动的公平性,即程序公平和互动公平。本研究发现:在中国组织情境下,较之程序公平和互动公平(人际公平、信息公平),分配制度公平对员工分配公平感的解释力最强;在分配制度不公平的情境下,程序公平和人际公平才会影响分配公平感,仅仅起到亡羊补牢的作用。     

组织公正研究:回顾与展望

文章主要回顾了组织公正40多年来的研究成果与进展,包括组织公正的概念和理论发展。并从组织公正概念的整合、机会公正、第三方公正、群体公正、跨文化研究、方法论等几个方面提出了进一步研究的思考和展望。     

分配公正、程序公正、互动公正影响效果的差异

以大学生奖学金评比为例,探讨了组织公正各维度影响效果的差异。以661名大学生为被试,采用2×2×2的完全随机设计,以情境故事法（scenarios）呈现刺激,研究了奖学金评比中分配公正、程序公正、互动公正对大学生学习投入、班级荣誉感、班级归属感、与辅导员的关系的影响。结果表明,组织公正三个维度与效果变量之间存在清晰的对应影响关系：分配公正主要影响具体、以个人为参照的效果变量;程序公正主要影响与组织有关的效果变量;互动公正主要影响与上司有关的效果变量。     

Employer Treatment of Employees During a Community Crisis: The Role of Procedural and Distributive Justice

This study applies organizational justice principles to human resource decisions made during a crisis situation. Three-hundred and sixty-six working individuals of ice storm affected households responded to a telephone survey that included measures of interactional, procedural and distributive justice, organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Confirmatory Factor Analysis suggested collapsing the interactional and procedural justice measures into one measure of procedural treatment. Overall, there was considerable support for the relevance of procedural justice and its interaction with distributive justice in predicting the work attitudes of employee following a disaster. Multiple regression analyses revealed that perceptions of procedural justice most strongly predicted job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Consistent with existing theory, an interaction between distributive and procedural was found to predict job satisfaction. The predicted interaction was not detected for organizational commitment.We would like to acknowledge the capable research assistance of Paula Warnholtz and the financial assistance from the Senate Research Committee at Bishop’s University.     

Contributive Justice and Meaningful Work

The dominant focus of thinking about economic justice is overwhelmingly distributive, that is, concerned with what people get in terms of resources and opportunities. It views work mainly negatively, as a burden or cost, or else is neutral about it, rather than seeing it as a source of meaning and fulfilment—a good in its own right. However, what we do in life has at least as much, if not more, influence on whom we become, as does what we get. Thus we have good reason also to be concerned with what Paul Gomberg has termed contributive justice, that is, justice as regards what people are expected and able to contribute in terms of work. Complex, interesting work allows workers not only to develop and exercise their capacities, and gain the satisfaction from achieving the internal goods of a practice, but to gain the external goods of recognition and esteem. As Gomberg’s analysis of the concept of contributive justice in relation to equality of opportunity shows, as long as the more satisfying kinds of work are concentrated into a subset of jobs, rather than shared out among all jobs, then many workers will be denied the chance to have meaningful work and the recognition that goes with it. In this paper I examine the contributive justice argument, suggest how it can be further strengthened, arguing, inter alia, that ignoring contributive injustice tends to support legitimations of distributive inequality.

时间视角下的组织公正研究

组织公正的动态研究是在时间视角下分析组织公正的变化及其影响。根据研究中不同的时间跨度,可将该领域的研究分为短期公正变化与长期公正变化研究。短期公正变化研究主要分析公正事件在日层次上的变化对组织内个体的影响。长期公正变化则分析组织内个体过往的公正经历如何影响他们当前的心理与行为。研究主要从自我调节资源的变化、不确定管理、社会认知及长时社会交换角度解释公正的动态影响。未来可从公正动态变化的特征、前因机制及其差异化影响机制开展研究。     

Justice and forgiveness: Experimental evidence for compatibility

A 3 (justice prime: restorative, retributive, no prime) × 3 (contextual prime: criminal justice system, intimate relationship, workplace) experimental design was used with 173 participants reading hypothetical transgression scenarios to test the hypothesis that people associate forgiveness more with restorative justice than with retributive justice, and that such relationships hold regardless of the social context. As predicted, there were main effects for justice prime, with participants more likely to associate benevolent responding, and less likely to associate revenge and avoidant responses, with restorative justice than with retributive justice. They were also more likely to associate benevolence, and less likely to associate revenge and avoidant responses, with intimate relationships than with criminal justice and the workplace. Also as predicted, there was no interaction between justice and context for benevolence and revenge. Although one should be cautious about extrapolating from ‘no difference’ hypotheses, these results provide some indication that the forgiveness-justice relationship may be generalised beyond the criminal justice system.     

分配不公正下的退缩行为：程序公正和互动公正的影响

以160名中学教师为被试,采用2×2的完全随机设计,以模拟故事（scenarios）的方法呈现刺激,研究了在职称评定中分配不公正的前提下,程序公正/不公正,互动公正/不公正对教师的退缩行为（消极怠工、拒绝帮助、离职、对校长的消极态度）的影响。结果表明,在分配不公正条件下：（1）程序公正、互动公正均影响教师的消极怠工程度;（2）程序公正、互动公正均影响教师的拒绝帮助行为程度,而且交互作用显著;（3）互动公正影响教师对上司的消极态度,程序公正无显著影响;（4）程序公正和互动公正对离职意愿影响均不显著     

With Liberty and Some Justice for a Few: Thinking Theologically about Criminal Justice

The current crisis in the American criminal justice system begs for theological response, and its sources need theological critique. The recent proposed statement of the ELCA draws attention to the needs of victims of crime and their families, and makes sensible recommendations for paths to greater justice. In doing so it is important to remember what forms of justice are possible under the jurisdiction of fallible, earthly institutions.     

The Role of Justice in Organizations: A Meta-Analysis

The correlates of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice were examined using 190 studies samples, totaling 64,757 participants. We found the distinction between the three justice types to be merited. While organizational practices and outcomes were related to the three justice types, demographic characteristics of the perceiver were, in large part, unrelated to perceived justice. Job performance and counterproductive work behaviors, considered to be outcomes of perceived justice, were mainly related to procedural justice, whereas organizational citizenship behavior was similarly predicted by distributive and procedural justice. Most satisfaction measures were similarly related to all justice types. Although organizational commitment and trust were mainly related to procedural justice, they were also substantially related to the other types of justice. Findings from laboratory and field studies are not always in agreement. Future research agendas are discussed.     

家长式领导与组织公正感的关系

以428名企事业单位员工为调查对象,采用问卷法,探讨了家长式领导与组织公正感的关系,结果表明：（1）仁慈领导对组织公正感各维度有显著的积极影响;德行领导对组织公正感各维度有显著的积极影响;权威领导对领导公正有显著的消极影响;（2）在分配公正、程序公正上,德行与权威领导有显著负交互效应;在领导公正、领导解释上,仁慈与权威领导有显著负交互效应。最后,对研究的理论和实践意义作了探讨,并提出了未来的研究方向     

程序公正及其心理机制

程序公正是组织公正的重要成分。自从Thibaut和Walker（1975）提出程序公正的概念以后,程序公正被引入了很多领域的研究,得到了极大的发展,但是程序公正的内容需要整合统一。发言权效应和尊重效应讨论了影响程序公正判断的因素,个人利益模型和团体价值模型则分析了其内在的心理机制。程序公正影响了大量与工作有关的态度和行为,并与分配结果产生了交互作用,其内在机制也在文章中得到了讨论。     

Knowledge and Justice: A Comment

ABSTRACT

Epistemic justice projects are now one of the most important sites of science studies scholarship and engagement. The papers in this collection make clear that we divorce science and technology from questions of power at our peril, if we are to understand what generates and remediates the inequalities that past and extant knowledge creation and distribution systems have wrought. Expertise and experts are the conceptual anchors for these articles, and they offer quite different perspectives on whether expertise and counter-expertise are the terrain on which epistemic justice struggles ought to be fought. Some challenge older conceptualizations of expertise as narrow and specific, providing new evidence and frameworks for treating epistemes that are heterogeneous and boundary-crossing as means to justice; others demonstrate that acting on concerns as purely technical matters can provide strategic advantages; and others make clear that formally trained experts are neither welcome nor visible in technopolitical justice struggles. Reflected in the innovative approaches that the papers take, a second major contribution of the collection is to show why inclusion is itself a just goal, and a means to uncovering stories of injustice, technical innovations, and visions of the future that can offer new pathways to justice. The collection inspires new directions in sts, including which stories, and by whom, matter and why, and how attention to innovation can be balanced with attention to the extant, and to history.     

不确定性、情绪对公正判断的影响

本研究以不确定管理模型为理论来源,采用实验法探讨了公正判断中的情绪效应。实验1采用2（两种情绪状态：愉快/愤怒）×4（四种结果：比自己多/一样多/比自己少/不知道）被试间设计。实验2采用2（两种情绪状态：愉快/愤怒）×3（三种程序：有发言权/外显无发言权/无发言权信息）被试间设计。分别考察了分配公正与程序公正判断中的情绪影响。结果发现：不确定性调节了情绪与公平判断之间的关系。当用于公平判断的外部信息不明确时,情绪充当了公平判断的线索。     

互动公正及其因素结构实证研究

在中国文化背景下,针对营利性组织中人际交往中互动公正的因素结构展开研究,通过实证调研、数据分析得出互动公正的二维结构,即尊重与认可、解释和领导方式,同时提出互动公正在人力资源管理实践中的指导意义。     

组织公平文献综述及未来的研究方向

文章的主要目的在于回顾组织公平自其产生至今的主要文献,并介绍Colquitt(2001)的组织公平四因素结构(即分配公平、程序公平、人际公平和信息公平)[1]。文章还讨论了组织公平的工具性和非工具性模型。最后,文章介绍了组织公平今后的几个研究方向。     

Cosmopolitanism and Global Justice

Philosophical attention to problems about global justice is flourishing in a way it has not in any time in memory. This paper considers some reasons for the rise of interest in the subject and reflects on some dilemmas about the meaning of the idea of the cosmopolitan in reasoning about social institutions, concentrating on the two principal dimensions of global justice, the economic and the political.Opening address of the Mini-Conference on Global Justice, American Philosophical Association Pacific Division, 2004 Annual Meeting, Pasadena, California, March 27, 2004. I am grateful for comments to Darrel Moellendorf and to my copanelists Michael Blake, Kristen Hessler, Jon Mandle, Mathias Risse and Leif Wenar.     

公正敏感性的研究现状与展望

公正敏感性是一种独立的、稳定的人格特质, 体现为个体知觉不公正的难易程度以及对知觉到的不公正所作出的反应的强烈程度。它包含受害者敏感性、观察者敏感性、得益者敏感性、犯过者敏感性四个成分, 主要使用量表法进行测量。公正敏感性是公正问题中的一个重要视角, 与亲社会行为、反社会行为密切相关, 对认知过程也有一定影响。目前的研究主要集中于公正敏感性对结果变量的影响, 今后的研究应该进一步探讨公正敏感性的影响因素。