| 05 May 2026
Facing the Unknown: A Sociological Analysis of Non-Knowledge, Time and Procedural Dilemmas in Germany’s Site Selection for Nuclear Waste
Abstract. The selection for a repository site for high-level radioactive waste has experienced significant procedural delays, extending timelines into the 22nd century. This article examines these delays through a sociological lens, focusing on the interplay between non-knowledge, procedural logic, and temporal dimensions. It argues how non-knowledge, understood as a socially constructed and temporally dynamic phenomenon, creates a structural dilemma within the site selection procedure. Central to this dilemma is a tension between the procedure’s scientific legitimization, which demands continuous change in social configurations of knowledge and non-knowledge, and the need for procedural closure to enable binding decisions. Results of an empirical qualitative discourse analysis (SKAD) reveal conflicting temporalities of non-knowledge that potentially undermine the procedure’s capacity to conclude. Building on this, the article highlights how ongoing deferral actively shapes and constrains the futures of subsequent generations, drawing on sociological theories of temporal responsibility and the concept of timeprints. It concludes that addressing these challenges requires repositioning non-knowledge within the procedure, making explicit political decisions about acceptable unknowns, and embracing temporal responsibility beyond risk assessments. The findings underscore that delays are not merely technical or managerial issues regarding unknowns but reflect deeper socio-structural conditions demanding political and legal attention.
1. Does the paper address relevant scientific questions within the scope of SaND?
Yes
2. Does the paper present novel concepts, ideas, tools, or data?
Potentially new data. As research on nuclear waste storage in Germany under a nonknowledge perspective has already been carried out (e.g. Schürkmann 2024), the novelty is not that clear. It would be good to explain more clearly in how far the paper at hand goes beyond existing research in the German context.
Line 165: It is a commonplace in research on ignorance and nonknowledge to refer to the Rumsfeld-quote on known unknowns and unknown unknowns. This, however should not be considered as typology in an academic sense and put on a level with typologies suggested by academics such as Michael Smithson.
3. Are substantial conclusions reached?
Together with the previous point: If research on nonknowledge as social construction is not new in the context of nuclear waste disposal in Germany, what are then substantial conclusions? It is stated that the contribution of the paper is an analysis of the temporal dimension and the interplay of temporality and nonknowledge. Against this background it is irritating to read in line 375 with regard to timeprints „a comparative study of the German case would provide valuable insights“. Rather, I would expect that the author is able to deliver such contributions based on her empirical Material. I am sure that it is possible to generate outcomes that provide a relevant answer regarding timeprints.
Conclusions such as “non-knowledge can function as a legitimate justification…” or “non-knowledge is not only a temporary deficit to be resolved…” are not innovative.
4. Are the scientific methods and assumptions valid and clearly outlined?
In paragraph 5.1.1 sociology of knowledge approach to discourse (SKAD) is introduced as method for data analysis. However, it remains unclear which „relevant meaning-making patterns” were identified. It would be good to be a bit more transparent in this regard.
The data are mentioned briefly. For those readers who are not familiar with the German situation some more information might be helpful: e.g. when these documents have been published, number of documents, who were the experts who wrote the expert reports included in the analysis? Based on which criteria the documents included in the analysis have been chosen? Why the chosen documents are relevant regarding the research question? A list of all documents indicating authors and publication date could be inserted as supplementary material/ annexe.
5. Are the results sufficient to support the interpretations and conclusions?
The results should be better grounded in the empirical material. I could not find longer quotes underlying the statements and conclusions drawn throughout the paper. Especially when it comes to argue on nonknowledge and temporality this would be important. To give some examples, but there are some more: e.g. line 294 it is stated that two contradictory understandings of the temporal dimension of non-knowledge become visible; unfortunately, it is not shown where in the empirical material these become visible or who of the actors support each understanding. Also, in line 310 it is stated that the scientific standard changed, an impactful event; unfortunately, it remains unclear who for what reason changed this standard. In line 338 it is stated that actors from various fields shape how the procedure unfolds; it would be good to show this in the empirical material.
As it stands now, many conclusions are not grounded in empirical material.
6. Is the description of experiments and calculations sufficiently complete and precise to allow their reproduction by fellow scientists (traceability of results)?
See point 4
7. Do the authors give proper credit to related work and clearly indicate their own new/original contribution?
Yes, existing research is referred to. It is possible to distinguish between own consideration and considerations drawing on previous research.
8. Does the title clearly reflect the contents of the paper?
It does. However, I suggest to simplify the title. Maybe the title could be modified in a way that brings to light the relationship between nonknowledge, time and procedural dilemmas become not clear. As it stands now, the aspects are just listed.
9. Does the abstract provide a concise and complete summary?
Yes
10. Is the overall presentation well structured and clear?
There are some structural difficulties that make it harder to follow the line of arguing. For example, in Chapter 6, that is the section on the authors’ own analyses, a new concept—timeprints—is introduced, and its application in the context of final repository research is explained. It is unclear why the authors’ own analyses are not continued at this point. The concept of timeprints could have been introduced earlier in the conceptual section of the paper (Chapters 3 and 4).
It is also not entirely clear why there need to be two chapters on the concept of non-knowledge (Chapters 3 and 4).
In chapter 6 a question is raised (line 349 – 352). It remains unclear to whom this question is relevant: the author of this paper for her research or for the actors in the field?
11. Is the language fluent and precise?
Language proof is advisable (e.g. line 9 „it argues how non-knowledge…“ better „it asks how non-knowledge …”). It's possible that in some places, clarity suffers for linguistic reasons as well.
Line 191 – in the field it is more common to use “not-yet-known” instead of “non-yet-knowledge”.
Line 189: I wonder if “temporal stability” is a good translation of the characteristics Wehling suggested. Wouldn’t be “persistence” better suits the characteristic of non-knowledge?
Check spelling, e.g. headline line 404.
12. Are mathematical formulae, symbols, abbreviations, and units correctly defined and used?
Does not apply
13. Should any parts of the paper (text, formulae, figures, tables) be clarified, reduced, combined, or eliminated?
chapter 6; chapter 3 and 4 could be combined – see my comments under 10.
In chapter 5.1.2 it should become more clear how the subsections on scientific standards and structural dilemma hang together with the two contradictory understandings that seem to be relevant findings.
14. Are the number and quality of references appropriate?
Yes. Links for online resources should be checked again. E.g. Microsoft PowerPoint - Optimierung_StandAV_2025_11_17 Lars Beyer.pptx (line 546) does not work. 20250130_Diskussionsvorschlag_Beschleunigung_Standortauswahlverfahren_barrierefrei.pdf does not lead directly to the document (line 542).
Citation style needs to be checked: in-text-citations are neigher in alphabetical nor in chronological order.
15. Is the amount and quality of supplementary material appropriate?
Yes, the empirical material is listed in the reference section and needs not to be provided as supplementary material.
However, there is a need to show and integrate more of the empirical material throughout the paper.