Democratizing Expertise and Environmental Governance: Different Approaches to the Politics of Science and their Relevance for Policy Analysis

References

• Bäckstrand, K. (2003). Civic science for sustainability: Reframing the role of experts, policy-makers and citizens in environmental governance, global environmental. Politics, 3(4), 24–41.
   Google Scholar
• Bäckstrand, K., Khan, J., Kronsell, A., & Lövbrand, E. (2010). The promise of new modes of environmental governance. In K. Bäckstrand, J. Khan, A. Kronsell, & E. Lövbrand (Eds.), Environmental politics and deliberative democracy. Examining the promise of new modes of governance (pp. 3–27). Cheltenhamst: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Bijker, W. E., Bal, R., & Hendricks, H. (2009). The paradox of scientific authority: The role of scientific advice in democracies. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bimber, B. (1996). The politics of expertise in Congress: The rise and fall of the office of technology assessment. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
   Google Scholar
• Collins, H., & Evans, R. (2002). The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science, 32(2), 235–296. doi:10.1177/0306312702032002003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collins, H., & Evans, R. (2007). Rethinking expertise. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dessai, S., & van der Sluijs, J. P. (2007). Uncertainty and climate change adaptation—a scoping study. Report NWS-E-2007-198. Department of Science Technology and Society, Copernicus Institute, Utrecht University.
   Google Scholar
• Dessler, E., & Parson, E. A. (2010). The science and politics of climate change: A guide to the debate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dominguez Rubio, F., & Baert, P. (Eds.). (2012). The politics of knowledge. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Dryzek, J. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Farrell, K. N. (2005). Introduction: Governance of science perspectives and prospects. In K. N. Farrell & J. R. Ravetz (Eds.), Governance of science: The new politics of science in historical perspective (pp. 1–9). Queen's University Belfast, Belfast: Institute of Governance, Public Policy and Social Research Working Paper QU/GOV/2/2005.
   Google Scholar
• Farrell, K. N. (2008). The politics of science and sustainable development: Marcuse's new science in the 21st century. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 19(4), 68–83. doi:10.1080/10455750802559616
   Google Scholar
• Farrell, K. N. (2011). Snow white and the wicked problems of the west. Science, Technology and Human Values, 36(3), 334–361. doi:10.1177/0162243910385796
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing public policy: Discursive politics and deliberative practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972–1977. (C. Gordon, Ed.). New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
   Google Scholar
• Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1990). Uncertainty and quality in policy for science. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1991). A new scientific methodology for global environmental issues. In R. Costanza (Ed.), Ecological economics: The science and management of sustainability (pp. 137–152). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1992). Three types of risk assessment and the emergence of post-normal science. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds.), Social theories of risk (pp. 251–273). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
   Google Scholar
• Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25(7), 739–755. doi:10.1016/0016-3287(93)90022-L
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1994). The worth of a songbird: Ecological economics as a post-normal science. Ecological Economics, 10(3), 197–207. doi: 10.1016/0921-8009(94)90108-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (2008). Values and uncertainty. In G. Hirsch Hadorn, H. Hoffmann-Riem, S. Biber-Klemm, W. Grossenbacher-Mansuy, D. Joye, C. Pohl … E. Zemp (Eds.), Handbook of transdisciplinary research (pp. 361–368). Heidelberg: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Guston, D. H. (2001). Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: An introduction. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 26(4), 399–408. doi: 10.1177/016224390102600401
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hajer, M. A., & Wagenaar, H. (Eds.). (2003). Deliberative policy analysis: Understanding governance in the network society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hilgartner, S. (2000). Science on stage: Expert advice as public drama. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ho-Lem, C., Zerriffi, H., & Kandlikar, M. (2011). Who participates in the intergovernmental panel on climate change and why: A quantitative assessment of the national representation of authors in the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Global Environmental Change, 21(4), 1308–1317. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.05.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoppe, R. (1999). Policy analysis, science and politics: From speaking truth to the power to making sense together. Science and Public Policy, 26(3), 201–210. doi:10.3152/147154399781782482
   Google Scholar
• Hulme, M., & Turnpenny, J. (2004). Understanding and managing climate change: The UK experience. The Geographical Journal, 170(2), 105–115. doi: 10.1111/j.0016-7398.2004.00112.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Irwin, A. (1995). Citizen science. A study of people, expertise and sustainable development. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Irwin, A. (2006). The politics of talk: Coming to terms with the ‘new’ scientific governance. Social Studies of Science, 36(2), 299–320. doi:10.1177/0306312706053350
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Irwin, A. (2008). STS perspectives on scientific governance. In E. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 583–601). Cambridge: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Janssen, M., Schoon, M., Ke, W., & Börner, K. (2006). Scholarly networks on resilience, vulnerability and adaptation within the human dimensions of global environmental change. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 240–252. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, S. (1990). The fifth branch: Science advisers as policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, S. (1996). Beyond epistemology: Relativism and engagement in the politics of science. Social Studies of Science, 26, 393–418. doi:10.1177/030631296026002008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, S. (1999). STS and public policy. Getting beyond deconstruction. Science, Technology and Society, 4(1), 59–72. doi: 10.1177/097172189900400104
   Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, S. (2003a). Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva, 41, 223–244. doi:10.1023/A:1025557512320
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, S. (2003b). Breaking the waves in science studies: Comment on H.M. Collins and Robert Evans “the third wave of science studies”. Social Studies of Science, 33(3), 389–400. doi:10.1177/03063127030333004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, S. (2003c). (No?) Accounting for expertise. Science and Public Policy, 30(3), 157–162. doi: 10.3152/147154303781780542
   Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, S. (2004a). The idiom of co-production. In S. Jasanoff (Ed.), States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order (pp. 1–12). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, S. (2004b). Ordering knowledge, ordering society. In S. Jasanoff (Ed.), States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order (pp. 13–45). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, S. (2010). A new climate for society. Theory, Culture & Society, 27(2–3), 233–253. doi:10.1177/0263276409361497
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, S. (2012). The politics of public reason. In F. Dominguez Rubio & P. Baert (Eds.), The politics of knowledge (pp. 11–32). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, S., & Long Martello, M. (Eds.). (2004). Earthly politics: Local and global in environmental governance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kleinman, D. L. (Ed.). (2000). Science, technology and democracy. Albany: State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kloprogge, P., & van der Sluijs, J. (2006). The inclusion of stakeholder knowledge and perspectives in integrated assessment of climate change. Climatic Change, 75(3), 359–389. doi: 10.1007/s10584-006-0362-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krauss, W., Schäfer, M. S., & von Storch, H. (2012). Introduction: Post-normal climate science. Nature and Culture, 7(2), 121–132. doi:10.3167/nc.2012.070201
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions (1st. ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Liberatore, A., & Funtowicz, S. (2003). Introduction. ‘Democratising’ expertise, ‘expertising’ democracy: What does this mean, and why bother? Science and Public Policy, 30(3), 146–150. doi: 10.3152/147154303781780551
   Google Scholar
• Lindblom, C. (1959). The science of muddling through. Public Administration Review, 19, 79–88. doi: 10.2307/973677
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lomborg, B. (2001). The skeptical environmentalist: Measuring the real state of the world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lorenzoni, I., Jones, M., & Turnpenny, J. (2007). Climate change, human genetics and post-normality. Futures, 39(1), 65–82. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2006.03.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lövbrand, E. (2007). Pure science or policy involvement? Ambiguous boundary work for Swedish carbon cycle research. Environmental Science and Policy, 10(1), 39–47. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2006.10.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lövbrand, E. (2011). Co-producing European climate science and policy. A cautionary note on the funding and making of useful knowledge. Science and Public Policy, 38(3), 225–236. doi:10.3152/030234211X12924093660516
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lövbrand, E., Pielke, R., & Beck, S. (2011). A democracy paradox in studies of science and technology. Science Technology and Human Values, 36(4), 474–496. doi:10.1177/0162243910366154
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maasen, S., & Weingart, P. (Eds.). (2005). Democratization of expertise? Exploring novel forms of scientific advice in political decision-making. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Macnaghten, P., & Guivant, J. S. (2011). Converging citizens? Nanotechnology and the political imaginary of public engagement in Brazil and the United Kingdom. Public Understanding of Science, 20(2), 207–220. doi:10.1177/0963662510379084
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCormick, S. (2009). Mobilizing science: Movements, participation and the remaking of knowledge. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, C. (2004). Climate science and the making of a global political order. In S. Jasanoff (Ed.), States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order (pp. 45–66). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, C., & Edwards, P. (Eds.). (2001). Changing the atmosphere. Expert knowledge and environmental governance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mouffe, C. (2000). The democratic paradox. London: Verso.
   Google Scholar
• Nowotny, H. (2003). Democratised expertise and socially robust knowledge. Science and Public Policy, 30(3), 151–156. doi:10.3152/147154303781780461
   Google Scholar
• Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2003). Introduction ‘mode 2’ revisited: The new production of knowledge. Minerva, 41, 179–194. doi: 10.1023/A:1025505528250
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pasgaard, M., & Strange, N. (2013). A quantitative analysis of the causes of the global climate change research distribution. Global Environmental Change, 23(6), 1684–1693. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.08.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pellizzoni, L. (2011). The politics of facts: Local environmental conflicts and expertise. Environmental Politics, 20(6), 765–785. doi:10.1080/09644016.2011.617164
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pielke, R. (2006). When scientists politicize science. Regulation, 29(1), 28–34. Retrieved from https://store.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv29n1/v29n1-4.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Pielke, R. (2007). The honest broker. Making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pielke, R. (2010). The climate fix. New York, NY: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Pielke, R. (2013). Providing evidence to policy makers: An integration of expertise and politics. Bridges, 38. Retrieved from http://www.ostina.org/en/volume-38-august-14-2013/opeds-commentaries/providing-evidence-to-policy-makers-an-integration-of-expertise-and-politics
   Google Scholar
• Ravetz, J. R. (1971). Scientific knowledge and its social problems. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ravetz, J. R. (1990). The merger of knowledge with power: Essays in critical science. London: Mansell.
   Google Scholar
• Ravetz, J. R. (2005). Keynote public lecture “the new politics of science: historical perspective” (09 March 2004). In K. N. Farrell & J. R. Ravetz (Eds.), Governance of science: The new politics of science in historical perspective (pp. 13–23). Institute of Governance. Queen's University Belfast, Belfast: Public Policy and Social Research Working Paper QU/GOV/2/2005.
   Google Scholar
• Ravetz, J. R. (2011). ‘Climategate’ and the maturing of post-normal science. Futures, 43, 149–157. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2010.10.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roe, E. (1994). Narrative policy analysis: Theory and practice. Durham: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sarewitz, D. (2004). How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environmental Science & Policy, 7, 385–403. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2004.06.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Sluijs, J. P. (2012). Uncertainty and dissent in climate risk assessment, a post-normal perspective. Nature and Culture, 7(2), 174–195. doi: 10.3167/nc.2012.070204
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thorpe, C. (2008). Political theory in science and technology studies. In E. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 63–82). Cambridge: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Thorpe, C., & Gregory, J. (2010). Producing the post-fordist public: The political economy of public engagement with science. Science as Culture, 19(3), 273–301. doi:10.1080/09505430903194504
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turner, S. (2014). The politics of expertise. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Turnpenny, J., Jones, M., & Lorenzoni, I. (2011). Where now for post-normal science? A critical review of its development, definitions, and uses. Science, Technology & Human Values, 36(3), 287–306. doi: 10.1177/0162243910385789
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turnpenny, J., Lorenzoni, I., & Jones, M. (2009). Noisy and definitely not normal: Responding to wicked issues in the environment, energy and health. Environmental Science & Policy, 12(3), 347–358. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2009.01.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waage, E., & Benediktsson, K. (2010). Performing expertise: Landscape, governmentality and conservation planning in Iceland. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 12(1), 1–22. doi:10.1080/15239080903220112
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weingart, P. (1999). Scientific expertise and political accountability: Paradoxes of science in politics. Science and Public Policy, 26(3), 151–161. doi:10.3152/147154399781782437
   Google Scholar
• Wesselink, A., Paavola, J., Fritsch, O., & Renn, O. (2011). Rationales for public participation in environmental policy and governance: Practitioners’ perspectives. Environment and Planning A, 43(11), 2688–2704. doi: 10.1068/a44161
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yanow, D. (2000). Conducting interpretive policy analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar