Social Justice

Many issues facing science and technology (S&T) communication involve questions about who experiences the costs and benefits that changes often bring. Discussions about social justice address fundamental human concerns of fairness and, as such, have been a key part of contemporary debates about the impact of science and technology in society. Many of these discussions build on the political philosophy of John Rawls's 1971 work, A Theory of Justice, but include a range of methodological approaches. Some writers have focused on providing historical or case study–based descriptions of specific cases of injustice, while others have used social scientific methods to assess the relationship between fairness perceptions and outcomes, such as satisfaction with decision making. At the heart of [Page 813]social justice concerns are questions about implicit exclusion and social power. In general, social justice discussions provide frameworks through which to critically examine the relationship between science and the broader culture.

Using terms such as social justice and environmental justice, scholars taking a critical or cultural perspective have successfully directed attention to the fact that traditionally marginalized groups, such as African Americans and rural communities in poor areas, often bear the brunt of economic change, particularly through environmental pollution. Dirty factories (for example, chemical plants in the Mississippi Delta) and resource extractive industries (for example, coal mines in West Virginia) are often able to locate in such communities (or countries) because residents have few economic choices and because they do not have the community resources to mount successful opposition to large corporations. Others have argued that, for example, new technologies may displace low-skilled workers or destabilize communities or ways of life, while still further discussions question exploitation by developed countries of less-developed nations through a range of practices. These may include, for example, the use of native plant material in the creation of new pharmaceuticals (“bio-piracy”), or a failure to provide basic medical resources, such as AIDS or anti-malarial drugs. Research has shown that women and non-whites generally perceive higher levels of environmental risk. Those who perceive they have been discriminated against may also perceive higher levels of risk.

Commentators and researchers have also used social justice ideas to explore racism, sexism, discrimination based on sexual orientation, class-based dynamics, and a host of other topics related to social power. For S&T communication, concern has particularly focused on issues such as the underrepresentation of women and minorities in science (or in science media content), failure to communicate in a culturally sensitive or effective manner, and, more generally, the need to engage a society's full diversity in discussions about the health, environmental, economic, and social risks that may accompany scientific or technological change. New areas of technology, particularly nuclear technology, biotechnology, and nanotech-nology, have provided substantial opportunity for social justice discussions.

Some social scientific approaches to justice have focused on understanding what role fairness perceptions play in how individuals perceive science decisions and decision makers. Research on public engagement, in particular, has implicitly and explicitly drawn on justice concepts to try to understand individuals' interactions with science. Research in social psychology has shown that individuals experience unfairness more acutely than fairness and that there are likely at least four subdimensions of fairness perceptions, all of which seem relevant to S&T communication. These include concerns about outcome fairness, procedural fairness, interpersonal fairness, and informational fairness. Outcome fairness—also known as distributional justice—focuses on questions about whether all parties to a decision have received an outcome that is equal, whether parties feel they have received an outcome that they deserve (equity), and whether parties feel they have received what they need. Procedural fairness, in contrast, addresses whether those affected by a decision perceive they had a voice in a decision-making process and other issues associated with the quality of the decision-making process. Interpersonal fairness includes individuals' perceptions that decision makers are trustworthy, respectful, and unbiased. Informational fairness addresses perceptions that decision makers are providing access to all of the relevant information.

...