688days since
the conference--thanks for the great conversations!

Selected Bibliography

  • Bohman, James. 1999. Democracy as inquiry, inquiry as democratic: Pragmatism, social science, and the cognitive division of labor. American Journal of Political Science 43 (2):590-607.
  • Brown, Mark B. 2009. Science in Democracy: Expertise, Institutions, and Representation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Ceccarelli, Leah. forthcoming. Manufactured scientific controversy: Science, rhetoric, and public debate. Rhetoric & Public Affairs.
  • Collins, Harry, and Robert Evans. 2007. Rethinking Expertise. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  • Dewey, John. 1927. The Public and Its Problems: An Essay in Political Inquiry. New York, NY: Henry Holt.
  • Fahnestock, Jeanne. 1986. Accommodating science:  The rhetorical life of scientific facts. Written Communication 3 (3):275-296.
  • Fischer, Frank. 1990. Technocracy and the Politics of Expertise. Newbury Park, PA: Sage Publications.
  • Funtowicz, Silvio O., and Jerome R Ravetz. 1993. Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25:735-755.
  • Goldman, Alvin I. 2001. Experts: Which ones should you trust? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 63 (1):85-110.
  • Goodnight, G. Thomas. 1982. The personal, technical and public spheres of argument: A speculative inquiry into the art of public deliberation. Journal of the American Forensic Association 18:214-227.
  • Hardwig, John. 1991. The role of trust in knowledge. The Journal of Philosophy 88 (12):693-708.
  • Hartelius, Johanna. 2010.  The Rhetoric of Expertise. Plymouth:  Lexington Books.
  • Hilgartner, Stephen. 2000. Science on Stage: Expert Advice as Public Drama. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  • Jackson, Sally. 2008. Black box arguments. Argumentation 22 (3):437-446.
  • Kitcher, Philip. 2003. Science, Truth, and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Lippmann, Walter. 1925. The Phantom Public. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace.
  • Miller, Carolyn R. 2004. Presumptions of expertise:  The role of ethos in risk analysis. Configurations 11:163-202.
  • Nisbet, Matthew C. 2009. Communicating climate change: Why frames matter for public engagement. Environment 51:514-518.
  • Nowotny, Helga. 2003. Democratising expertise and socially robust knowledge. Science and Public Policy 30 (3):151-156.
  • Pigliucci, Massimo. 2010. Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Paroske, Marcus. 2009. Deliberating international science policy controversies: Uncertainty and AIDS in South Africa. Quarterly Journal of Speech 95 (2):148-170.
  • Pielke, Roger A., Jr. 2007. The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics. Cambridge University Press.
  • Rehg, William. 2009. Cogent Science in Context: The Science Wars, Argumentation Theory, and Habermas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Sarewitz, Daniel. 2004. How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environmental Science & Policy 7:385-403.
  • Turner, Stephen P. 2003. Liberal Democracy 3.0. London: Thousand Oaks.
  • Walton, Douglas. 1997. Appeal to Expert Opinion: Arguments from Authority. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
  • Weingart, Peter. 1999. Scientific expertise and political accountability: Paradoxes of science in politics. Science and Public Policy 26 (3):151-161.