Localizing Detroit’s Food System: Boundary-Work and the Politics of Experiential Expertise

ABSTRACT

Recently, different expert actors have attempted to localize Detroit’s food system to bring about greater justice citywide. At first, ‘professional experts’ dominated these efforts, claiming authority in the food system due to their knowledge based in qualified training and applied work experience. Yet a rival group of ‘experiential experts’ soon rose up to assert their power, arguing they and their unique race and place-based know-how merited greater influence. Within just a few years, experiential experts successfully replaced professional ones in commanding much area food localization. I show that experiential experts achieved this power largely through strategic boundary-work, including expulsion, expansion, and protection of autonomy. Nonetheless, some Detroiters and professional experts themselves questioned experiential experts’ legitimacy in removing professional experts from the food system altogether. I thus introduce a fourth form of boundary-work that experiential experts deployed to maintain their clout, what I term ‘accommodation’. Accommodation connotes instances of strategic inclusion where an expert authority facilitates rivals in sharing some influence based on distinct conditions that leave dominant epistemic arrangements generally intact. This occurred in Detroit as experiential experts accommodated professional ones in exercising some food systems power provided they better deploy their own race and place-based knowledge. Such actions helped quell public concern while also protecting experiential experts’ rising authority. Accommodation is useful for understanding cases in which diverse types of experts work together despite that single knowledge-forms guide their activities overall. Further research into accommodation could aid in identifying whether or not diverse forms of knowledge are together influencing decision-making around a range of cases, or if single forms of expertise remain dominant despite the appearance that democratization is taking place.     

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.     

Effects of psychological interventions on competitive anxiety in sport: A meta-analysis

ObjectivesThis study reviewed the effects of psychological interventions on competitive anxiety in sport.DesignMeta-analysis and systematic review.MethodPsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, ProQuest, and Sage databases were searched for experimental studies that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Risk of bias was assessed using the 12 criteria Cochrane Review Book Group tool. Hedge's g and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated and pooled using a random effects model employing the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman (HKSJ) method.ResultsThe search strategy identified 37 studies which fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis was conducted on 34 studies after removal of outliers. The results showed an overall small to medium-sized effect for psychological interventions on competitive anxiety in athletes (g = −0.42; 95% CI, −0.58 to −0.25). Subsequent subgroup analyses showed that this finding was robust regardless of experimental design, anxiety measure, anxiety type, gender, country, sport, intervention component, intervention delivery method, and intervention duration. The results indicated that the effects might be greater for athletes of higher levels of competition as compared to those from lower levels of competition. Separate meta-analyses also suggested that there were medium to large-sized effects for cognitive anxiety (g = −0.54) and self-confidence (g = 0.55) intensity, and a small to medium-sized effect for somatic anxiety (g = −0.36) intensity.ConclusionThe findings from this review study provide a robust evidence base for the use of psychological interventions to help reduce competitive anxiety in athletes. Future studies need to investigate how psychological interventions might affect the directional interpretation of anxiety symptoms.