E XPERT  KNOWLEDGE  SYSTEMS  AND  POLICY  PRACTICE

As the previous section has attempted to illustrate, historical processes have played an important role in establishing a particular form of expert knowledge for addressing water quality. However, in order to study science as a contemporary phenomenon, other scholars have also argued in favour of a more systematic examination of scientific practices and discussed how these can be implicated in experts’ efforts to maintain credibility, influence and institutional authority (Wynne, 1992, Hilgartner, 2000). This is certainly more relevant when scientists’ work relates to policy because the need to safeguard themselves against charges of inaccuracy becomes an institutional imperative (Jasanoff, 1987).

However, when the questions posed to scientists cannot necessarily be answered by the prevailing technical knowledge, upholding credibility becomes increasingly more difficult. In the case of water quality, scientists were in the past asked to deliver

solutions to clearly bounded policy problems such as the potability of drinking water or the disposal of raw sewage (Goubert, 1989). Now concerns have shifted from these more discrete policy domains to potentially more complex and cross-sectoral water quality problems, such as the effect of specific heavy metals and toxins found in the

water on human health and wellbeing, regional food systems and river ecology. The limitations of science to produce accurate solutions to emerging environmental concerns becomes more problematic in the context of ‘regulatory science’¹⁰ (Weinberg, 1985:

68), when the regulator is expected by law to regulate (and provide definitive answers to) complex environment concerns, but science has often proved inadequate for providing reliable answers. From the point of view of the science practitioner, this creates a series of unresolved tensions, including the inability to defend as ‘credible’ a range of expert driven solutions, as well as the difficulty of developing effective communication with public stakeholders (Irwin and Wynne, 1996).

Social studies of science, by taking a more critical stand on the practice and diffusion of scientific knowledge, attempt to shed light on how scientists resolve these dilemmas.

The technical and the social aspects of scientific work are no longer perceived as separate worlds. Instead, the technical aspects are analysed in conjunction with the performative aspects of scientific activity, thereby highlighting the social practice and culture of scientists and engineers (Pickering, 1992). The scientist is no longer looked upon just as a technical worker, but instead as a ‘heterogeneous engineer’, whose role is to engage in political, economic, and sociological activities (Law, 1987: 10). Out of this framework a series of empirical studies of contemporary scientific developments and scientific controversies has emerged, illustrating the socially constructed nature of scientific knowledge (Bloor, 1976, Jasanoff, 1990, Barnes et al., 1996). The intention of these studies is to reveal that simple ‘facts’ cannot be accepted by virtue of their truth alone, and that their development is in fact subject to a sociological process (Callon and Latour, 1992, Barnes et al., 1996).

This body of literature is particularly relevant for developing a better understanding of the role of environmental regulatory institutions such as the Board, discussed in Chapter 4. It focuses on the individual scientists working within the institution, by examining the practical application and discursive representation of various routine procedures,

measurements and water quality monitoring programmes that they put into practice.

Many of these have been modelled on the basis of Western knowledge systems and institutional plans inspired by institutions such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (Lele et al., 2010). But because of the relative acceptance of scientific

10 ‘Regulatory science’ is defined in Weinberg (1985) as science used in environmental regulation.

routines related to water quality management in Western contexts, they have not been subjected to much scholarly attention nor indeed has their viability in the context of developing countries been adequately examined. In other words, the nature of the

‘expert knowledge systems’ (that pertain to water quality management) largely remain

‘black boxed’ (Knorr Cetina, 1999: 7). As well as explaining the specific constructions of water quality adopted by the scientists, using water quality as an entry point

encourages further questions on the interweaving of expert knowledge with society and public policy (Jasanoff, 1987, 1990, Shackley and Wynne, 1995). This is an area of research that has been addressed by previous social studies of science in India¹¹ but not specifically in relation to the particular implications of regulatory and scientific

decision-making for the livelihoods of poorer populations and local environments that are exemplified by peri-urban areas.

Water quality also provides an interesting study focus for examining expert scientific practice because it encourages the research to traverse across different contexts that are not normally included in social studies of science. For instance, scholars who have observed scientists in their workplace have, in most circumstances, tended to select the

‘laboratory’ as the main site of inquiry (Latour, 1987, Pickering, 1992, Knorr Cetina, 1999). In contrast, this study examines scientific practice not just in regulatory institutions, but also in peri-urban pollution control agencies and water and health authorities. In these semi-bureaucratic environments, scientific practice is more likely to be informed by a different set of experiences and work pressures. Scientists working in the laboratory are obliged to produce ‘innovative ideas’ and ‘experiments’ (Knorr Cetina, 1999) while scientists whose work is closely linked to policy are subordinate to institutional pressures that critically influence their professional attitude towards issues of proof and evidence (Nelkin, 1975, Renn, 1995). Furthermore, political demands for speed in gathering and assessing evidence imposed by public stakeholders and political interest groups (such as the media, the courts and environmental NGOs) can result in narrowly defined policy recommendations and assessments of risk situations (Jasanoff, 1990).

11 See for instance (Visvanathan, 1985) Organising for Science: the making of an industrial research laboratory.