When do Facts Matter? Knowledge Conflicts, Mobilized Publics, and Social Fields

This contribution to the study of "energy policy conflicts as default" develops an analysis of knowledge conflicts, or uses of research and expertise by mobilized coalitions with opposing goals. Based on a unique data set of media coverage of a six-year conflict over the Atlantic Coast Pipeline in the U.S., we identify research reports used by supporters and opponents, identify types of studies produced (economic, health and environmental, and political legitimacy), and show differences across the three types of knowledge conflicts. We then show how the conflicts are vetted across social fields (political, media, scientific, regulatory, and juridical). We find that the courts have both the autonomy and authority to engage in world-making decisions about knowledge claims and pipeline outcomes, and we show how the other fields tend to be aligned with industry or not interested in adjudication. We use the concepts of symbolic power and field autonomy help to clarify why some fields approximate a condition of “post-truth” politics and others do not. Where the judicial system is relatively autonomous and open to litigation, facts may indeed matter even in the unequal power relations associated with social movement mobilizations. Awareness of the variations across fields may be valuable for scientists and mobilized publics as they develop strategy. It also provides a theoretical contribution to the understanding of conditions of resolution and non-resolution of energy policy conflicts.