the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 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.
- Preprint
(630 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
- RC1: 'Comment on sand-2026-9', Anonymous Referee #1, 05 Jun 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on sand-2026-9', Anonymous Referee #2, 19 Jun 2026
This paper examines the different constructions of ‘non-knowledge’ as an explanatory variable for the significant delays in the process of finding a final repository for nuclear waste in Germany. The causes have so far been sought in organisational theory, at the planning level. By introducing the concept of non-knowledge, the paper exposes conflicting perspectives on the social construction of reality that serve to structure the process of finding a final repository. Through this constructivist conceptualisation, the paper demonstrates that functional logics give rise to different approaches to non-knowledge, each with its own temporalities, which are difficult to convey. In the end, non-knowledge cannot be permanently reduced or eliminated in the process, as it is always present as the functional counterpart to knowledge. Therefore, the author argues for a pragmatic dealing with non-knowledge in the search for a final repository. Instead of treating non-knowledge as a barrier to the implementation of a decision, she argues that those who are involved in the process should take responsibility for it.
The paper begins by criticising existing approaches to explain the delays in the search for a final repository. Based on this critique, the paper develops the argument that non-knowledge must be used as an explanatory variable. However, the author does not confine himself to only that conception of non-knowledge as a social construct. Because the process of identifying a final repository is a political process that is intended to reach a legitimate decision, non-knowledge itself becomes a subject to temporalisation. By embedding the construction of non-knowledge within a political process, the essay now identifies a dilemma: on the one hand, the construction of non-knowledge in the context of scientific knowledge production remains unresolved for as long as the scientific system itself is capable of reproducing itself through communication. Scientific communication continues to create links for further scientific communication, provided that these relate exclusive to the fundamental distinction between truth/untruth.
Non-knowledge is then only a distinction of knowledge which, whilst constantly being renewed in the process of communication, does not lead to a break in communication, because at some point everything will be known. On the other hand, however, the political sphere requires a stable framework for managing uncertainty in order to be able to make legitimate decisions. Therefore a contradiction emerges when in the process of searching for a final repository, the legitimacy of political decisions is supposed to be based on scientific findings in order to guarantee maximum security, while science itself cannot guarantee that security. This contradiction is the reason for the perceived stagnation in the process of searching for a final repository.
This deduction-based insight is confirmed by a qualitative analysis. Drawing on the discussion of these findings, the paper develops three implications for the search for a final repository. In addition to the transparent problematisation of non-knowledge within the process, the focus is essentially on the ‘normalisation’ of non-knowledge and the idea that policymakers should deal with the extent of acceptable non-knowledge in a systematic and legitimate framework..
This paper highlights the problem of non-knowledge regarding the controversial search for a final repository in Germany, a project that is both political ambitious and highly disputed. Its innovative approach contributes to explaining the structural limitations of the process and fits well with the discussion on the role of scientific policy advice, particularly in times of crisis. It can supplement the well-known conflicts arising from the differing priorities of the actors cooperating in the advisory process, their ambivalent orientations and actions, with a specific perspective of divergent functional logics within social subsystems.
However, in order to present the findings more clear and stringent, the paper should be substantially revised. It should go into greater depth regarding its conceptual foundations, the derivation of its hypothesis and the presentation of its results, and its structuring should be improved. Readers find it difficult, even confusing, to follow the theoretical basis of non-knowledge, the methodology and the empirical results. The paper needs to be improved in this respect. I recommend revising the paper in the following areas:
- Conceptual foundations: The paper discusses the construction of non-knowledge in three different contexts. In the first one, non-knowledge is defined in terms of systems theory as a distinction (from knowledge). Communication can then follow on from this distinction in a system-specific manner. This approach to non-knowledge illustrate the different functions of its constitution, as well as its specific use in politics and science. Despite this, non-knowledge is dealt here exclusively as a problem of communication, and thus differs from another use of non-knowledge discussed in this paper. In this case, non-knowledge is conceptualised as a specific form of knowledge which serves as an important reference point for decision-makers. Is the available knowledge sufficient, or is the non-knowledge controllable enough to enable an evaluation of the consequences of action for people. In this context, non-knowledge (as knowledge) can, for example, be treated as a risk that enables decision-making even in the face of uncertainty. As a reference framework for actions or decisions, non-knowledge thus differs not only from the communicative conceptualisation described in the first case, but also from its use as a resource. This third conceptualisation of non-knowledge in the paper opens non-knowledge to its politicisation or instrumentalisation. Non-knowledge is then constructed as a factor that can be flexible used as a justification for continuing policies, as well as for disrupting established practices, excluding specific expertise (which will manage non-knowledge in a different way), and so on. These three different uses should, for the sake of clarity, be kept separate before the analysis begins and, if possible (though not necessarily), linked to one another (wider) theory.
- Derivation of the dilemma: In contrast to the systems-theoretical deduction, neither the empirical basis nor the consequential problems arising from non-knowledge are exclusive discussed in terms of systems-theory. Moreover, there is a further ambiguity here.The paper derives the dilemma purely from a functional perspective, based on the interruption of the process of securing legitimacy. This means that the dilemma would only present a problem for the continuity of the communication process. From this perspective, only considerations or implications regarding the successful continuity of the process of a purely functional nature would be appropriate. This could involve, for example, introducing second-order observations into the process in order to describe the (non-)knowledge of the non-knowledge and to allow the process of communication to continue. Such considerations would then be highly abstract (re-entry), which would contradict the text’s aim of enlightenment. In addition to a precise distinction between the various social forms of non-knowledge (communication/reference/resource), it would probably also be useful here not only to draw on the concept of legitimation but also to consider approaches relating to the politics of legitimation (Legitimationspolitik). This provides a useful framework for explaining the instrumentalisation of non-knowledge (as a resource) in politics.
- Presentation of the results: The final suggestion concerns the presentation of the results. In my view, it is very important here that the paper goes into greater detail regarding the methodology and how the empirical findings originated. More detailed illustrations and reconstructions of the document analysis would help the reader to better follow the paper’s discussion. It would also be helpful for the presentation of the paper if the subheadings could be organised more clearly.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/sand-2026-9-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 108 | 21 | 7 | 136 | 17 | 13 |
- HTML: 108
- PDF: 21
- XML: 7
- Total: 136
- BibTeX: 17
- EndNote: 13
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
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.