Citizens Speaking as Experts: Expertise Discourse in Deliberative Forums

References

• Aakhus, M. (2007). Communication as design. Communication Monographs, 74, 112–117. doi: 10.1080/03637750701196383
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aakhus, M., & Jackson, S. (2005). Technology, interaction, design. Handbook of language and social interaction. In K. Fitch & R. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction (pp. 411–437). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Blok, A. (2007). Experts on public trial: On democratizing expertise through a Danish consensus conference. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 163–182. doi: 10.1177/0963662507062469
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bohman, J. (2006). Deliberative democracy and the epistemic benefits of diversity. Episteme; Rivista Critica Di Storia Delle Scienze Mediche E Biologiche, 3, 175–191. doi: 10.3366/epi.2006.3.3.175
   Google Scholar
• Bohman, J. (2007). Political communication and the epistemic value of diversity: Deliberation and legitimation in media societies. Communication Theory, 17, 348–355. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00301.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, M. B. (2009). Science in democracy: Expertise, institutions, and representation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, M. B. (2014). Expertise and deliberative democracy. In S. Elstub, & P. McLaverty (Eds.), Deliberative democracy: Issues and cases (pp. 50–68). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bulkeley, H., & Mol, A. P. J. (2003). Participation and environmental governance: Consensus, ambivalence and debate. Environmental Values, 12(2), 143–154. doi: 10.3197/096327103129341261
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Candlin, C. N., & Candlin, S. (2002). Discourse, expertise, and the management of risk in health care settings. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 35, 115–137. doi: 10.1207/S15327973RLSI3502_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carcasson, M., & Sprain, L. (2016). Beyond problem solving: Reconceptualizing the work of public deliberation as deliberative inquiry. Communication Theory, 26, 41–63. doi: 10.1111/comt.12055
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chilvers, J. (2008). Environmental risk, uncertainty, and participation: Mapping an emergent epistemic community. Environment and Planning A, 40, 2990–3008. doi: 10.1068/a39279
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Craig, R. T., & Tracy, K. (2014). Building grounded practical theory in applied communication research: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 42(3), 229–243. doi: 10.1080/00909882.2014.916410
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daniels, S. E., & Walker, G. (2001). Working through environmental conflict: The collaborative learning approach. Westport, CT: Praeger.
   Google Scholar
• Davies, G., & Burgess, J. (2004). Challenging the “view from nowhere”: Citizen reflections on specialist expertise in a deliberative process. Health & Place, 10(4), 349–361. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2004.08.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, R. (2008). The sociology of expertise: The distributions of social fluency. Sociology Compass, 2(1), 281–298. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2007.00062.x
   Google Scholar
• Few, R., Brown, K., & Tompkins, E. L. (2007). Public participation and climate change adaptation: Avoiding the illusion of inclusion. Climate Policy, 7(1), 46–59. doi: 10.1080/14693062.2007.9685637
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer, F. (2004). Professional expertise in deliberative democracy. The Good Society, 13(1), 21–27. doi: 10.1353/gso.2004.0027
   Google Scholar
• Fung, A. (2003). Thinking about empowered participatory governance. In A. Fung & E. O. Wright (Eds.), Deepening democracy: Institutional innovations in empowered participatory governance (pp. 3–42). New York, NY: Verso.
   Google Scholar
• Gastil, J., & Black, L. W. (2008). Public deliberation as the organizing principle for political communication research. Journal of Public Deliberation, 4, article 3. Retrieved from http://services.bepress.com/jpd/vol4/iss1/art3
   Google Scholar
• Goodin, R. E. (2008). Innovating democracy: Democratic theory and practice after the deliberative turn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kadlec, A., & Friedman, W. (2007). Deliberative democracy and the problem of power. Journal of Public Deliberation, 3, article 8. Retrieved from http://services.bepress.com/jpd/vol3/iss1/art8/
   Google Scholar
• Kerr, A., Cunningham-Burley, S., & Tutton, R. (2007). Shifting subject positions: Experts and lay people in public dialogue. Social Studies of Science, 37(3), 385–411. doi: 10.1177/0306312706068492
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knight, J., & Johnson, J. (1997). What sort of equality does deliberative democracy require? In J. Bohman & W. Rehg (Eds.), Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics (pp. 279–320). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Luskin, R., Fishkin, J., & Hahn, K. (2007). Deliberation and net attitude change. Unpublished paper at ECPR general conference, Pisa, Italy.
   Google Scholar
• Martí, J. L. (2006). The epistemic conception of deliberative democracy defended reasons, rightness and equal political. In S. Besson & J. L. Matrí (Eds.), Deliberative democracy and its discontents (pp. 27–56). Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Nabatchi, T. (2012). An introduction to deliberative civic engagement. In T. Nabatchi, J. Gastil, G. M. Weiksner, & M. Leighninger (Eds.), Democracy in motion (pp. 3–18). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• O’Doherty, K. C., & Davidson, H. J. (2010). Subject positioning and deliberative democracy: Understanding social processes underlying deliberation. Journal of Theory of Social Behaviour, 40(2), 224–245. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5914.2009.00429.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paavola, J., & Adger, W. N. (2006). Fair adaptation to climate change. Ecological Economics, 56(4), 594–609. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.03.015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petts, J., & Brooks, C. (2006). Expert conceptualisations of the role of lay knowledge in environmental decisionmaking: Challenges for deliberative democracy. Environment and Planning A, 38, 1045–1059. doi: 10.1068/a37373
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rayner, S. (2003). Democracy in the age of assessment: Reflections on the roles of expertise and democracy in public-sector decision making. Science and Public Policy, 30, 163–170. doi: 10.3152/147154303781780533
   Google Scholar
• Reed, M. S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biological Conservation, 141, 2417–2431. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Renn, O. (2004). The challenge of integrating deliberation and expertise: Participation and discourse in risk management. In T. McDaniels & M. Small (Eds.), Risk analysis and society: An interdisicplinary characterization of the field (pp. 289–366). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Senecah, S. L. (2011). The trinity of voice: The role of practical theory in planning and evaluating the effectiveness of environmental participatory process. In S. E. Depore, J. W. Delicath, & M. A. Eisenbeer (Eds.), Communication and public participation in environmental decision-making (pp. 13–33). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sprain, L. (2015). Expertise discourse. In K. Tracy, C. Illie, & T. Sandel (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of language and social interaction (Vol. 1, pp. 574–579). Boston, MA: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Sprain, L. (2016). Paradoxes of public participation in climate change governance. Good Society, 25, 62–79. doi: 10.5325/goodsociety.25.1.0062
   Google Scholar
• Sprain, L. (2018). Framing science for democratic engagement. In S. Priest, J. Goodwin, & M. Dahlstrom (Eds.), Ethical issues in science communication: A theory–based approach (pp. 74–90). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sprain, L., & Carcasson, M. (2013). Democratic engagement through passionate impartiality. Tamara Journal for Critical Organizational Inquiry, 11, 13–26.
   Google Scholar
• Sprain, L., Carcasson, M., & Merolla, A. J. (2014). Utilizing “on tap” experts in deliberative forums: Implications for design. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 42, 150–167. doi: 10.1080/00909882.2013.859292
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sprain, L., & Hughes, M. F. (2015). A new perspective on stories in public deliberation: Analyzing small stories in discussions about immigration. Text & Talk, 35, 531–551. doi: 10.1515/text-2015-0013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sprain, L., & Ivancic, S. (2017). Communicating openness in deliberation. Communication Monographs, 84, 241–257. doi: 10.1080/03637751.2016.1257141
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sprain, L., van Over, B., & Morgan, E. L. (2016). Divergent meanings of participation: Two ethnographies of communication in water governance. In T. R. Peterson, H. Bergeå, A. Feldpausch-Parker, & K. Raitio (Eds.), Environmental communication and community: Constructive and destructive dynamics of social transformation (pp. 259–266). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Stringer, L. C., Dougill, A. J., Fraser, E., Hubacek, K., Prell, C., & Reed, M. (2006). Unpacking “participation” in the adaptive management of social-ecological systems: A critical review. Ecology & Society, 11, 39. Retrieved from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art39/ doi: 10.5751/ES-01896-110239
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tracy, K. (2005). Reconstructing communicative practices: Action-implicative discourse analysis. In K. L. Fitch & R. E. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction (pp. 301–319). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Tracy, K., & Craig, R. T. (2010). Studying interaction in order to cultivate communicative practices. In J. Streeck (Ed.), New adventures in language and social interaction (pp. 145–165). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Warren, M. E. (1996). Deliberative democracy and authority. The American Political Science Review, 90, 46–60. doi:jstor.org/stable/2082797 doi: 10.2307/2082797
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zorn, T. E., Roper, J., Weaver, C. K., & Rigby, C. (2010). Influence in science dialogue: Individual attitude changes as a result of dialogue between laypersons and scientists. Public Understanding of Science, 21, 848–864. doi: 10.1177/0963662510386292
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar