Public understanding of science in Pacific Northwest salmon recovery policy

Society and Natural Resources

Volumn 19, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 305-320

  White, Dave D ^a   Hall, Troy E ^b  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO   (United States)

Author keywords

Environmental policy; Public involvement; Science and policy

Indexed keywords

FISHERY MANAGEMENT; LOCAL PARTICIPATION; POLICY MAKING; SALMONID CULTURE;

NORTH AMERICA; PACIFIC NORTHWEST;

EID: 32944459012     PISSN: 08941920     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08941920500519172     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Abraham, J. and J. Shepard. 1997. Democracy, technocracy, and secret state of medicines control: Expert and nonexpert perspectives. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 22(2):139-167.[CSA]
2. Alm, L. R.2000. Crossing borders, crossing boundaries: The role of scientists in the U.S. acid rain debate. Westport, CT: Praeger.
3. Alvesson, M. and D.Karreman. 2000. Varieties of discourse: On the study of organizations through discourse analysis. Hum. Relations 53(9):1125-1149.[CSA]
4. Ashman, K. M. and P. S.Baringer. 2001. After the science wars. London: Routledge.
5. Bauer, M. W., K.Petkova, and P.Boyadjieva. 2000. Public knowledge of and attitudes to science: Alternative measures that may end the "science war." Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 25(1):30-51.[CSA]
6. Bayer, R.2004. A sampling of salmon recovery viewpoints 2004[cited October 25 2004]. Available from http://www.orednet.org/~rbayer/salmon
7. Bensuade-Vincent, B.2001. A genealogy of the increasing gap between science and the public. Public Understand. Sci. 10(1):99-113.[CSA][CROSSREF]
8. Bourdon, S.2000. Inter-coder reliability verification using QSR NUD* IST. Paper read at Conference on Strategies in Qualitative Research: Issues and Results from Analysis Using QSR NVivo and QSR NUD*IST, at the Institute of Education, University of London, London, UK.
9. Brown, P.1992. Popular epidemiology and toxic waste contamination: Lay and professional ways of knowing. J. Health Social Behav. 33:267-281.[CSA]
10. Clark, R. N. and E. E.Meidinger. 1998. Integrating science and policy in natural resource management: Lessons and opportunities from North America. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station.
11. Eden, S.1996. Public participation in environmental policy: Considering scientific, counter-scientific and non-scientific contributions. Public Understand. Sci. 5(3):183-204.[CSA][CROSSREF]
12. Einsiedel, E. F.1994. Mental maps of science: Knowledge and attitudes among Canadian adults. Int. J. Public Opin. Res. 6(1):35-44.[CSA]
13. Elam, M. and M.Bertilsson. 2003. Consuming, engaging and confronting science: The emerging dimensions of scientific citizenship. Eur. J. Social Theory 6(2):233-251.[CSA][CROSSREF]
14. Fiorino, D. J.1990. Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional mechanisms. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 15(2):226-243.[CSA]
15. Fischer, F.2000. Citizens, experts, and the environment: The politics of local knowledge. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
16. Flynn, J., P.Slovic, and C. K.Mertz. 1993. Decidedly different: Expert and public views of risks from a radioactive waste repository. Risk Anal. 13:643-648.[CSA]
17. Freemuth, J. and R. M.Cawley. 1998. Science, expertise and the public: The politics of ecosystem management in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem. Landscape Urban Plan. 40(1-3):211-219.[CSA][CROSSREF]
18. Hisschemöller, M. and C. J. H.Midden. 1999. Improving the usability of research on the public perception of science and technology for policy-making. Public Understand. Sci. 8(1):17-33.[CSA][CROSSREF]
19. Hull, R. B., D. P.Robertson, and A.Kendra. 2001. Public understandings of nature: A case study of local knowledge about "natural" forest conditions. Society Nat. Resources 14(4):325-340.[CSA]
20. Irwin, A.2001. Constructing the scientific citizen: Science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Understand. Sci. 10(1):1-18.[CSA][CROSSREF]
21. Jasanoff, S.1990. The fifth branch: Science advisers as policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
22. Jasanoff, S.1995 Science at the bar Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
23. Kajanne, A. and A. M.Pirttila-Backman. 1999. Laypeople's viewpoints about the reasons for expert controversy regarding food additives. Public Understand. Sci. 8(4):303-315.[CSA][CROSSREF]
24. Kinchy, A. and D. L.Kleinman. 2003. Organizing credibility: Discursive and organizational orthodoxy on the borders of ecology and politics. Social Stud. Sci. 33(6):869-896.[CSA][CROSSREF]
25. Lach, D., P.List, B.Steel, and B.Shindler. 2003. Advocacy and credibility of ecological scientists in resource decisionmaking: A regional study. Bioscience 53(2):170-178.[CSA]
26. Lackey, R. T.2000. Restoring wild salmon to the Pacific Northwest: Chasing an illusion? In What we don't know about Pacific Northwest fish runs - An inquiry into decision-making, eds. P.Koss and M.Katz, 91-143. Portland, OR: Portland State University.
27. Laird, F. N.1993. Participatory analysis, democracy, and technological decision making. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 18(3):342-361.[CSA]
28. Latour, B.1998. From the world of science to the world of research? Science 280(5361):208-209.[CSA][CROSSREF]
29. Limoges, C.1993. Expert knowledge and decision-making in controversy contexts. Public Understand. Sci. 2(4):417-426.[CSA][CROSSREF]
30. Michael, J. H.1999. The future of Washington salmon: Extinction is not an option but may be the preferred alternative. Northwest Sci. 73(3):235-239.[CSA]
31. Michael, M.1992. Lay discourses of science: Science-in-general, science-in-particular, and self. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 17(3):313-333.[CSA]
32. Miller, J. D.2004. Public understanding of, and attitudes toward, scientific research: What we know and what we need to know. Public Understand. Sci. 13(3):273-294.[CSA][CROSSREF]
33. Mitchell, R. C., A. G.Mertig, and R. E.Dunlap. 1991. Twenty years of environmental mobilization: Trends among national environmental organizations. Society Nat. Resources 4:219-234.[CSA]
34. National Research Council. 1996. Upstream: Salmon and society in the Pacific Northwest. Washington, DC: Committee on Protection and Management of Pacific Northwest Anadromous Salmonids, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Commission on Life Sciences.
35. Ozawa, C. P.1996. Science in environmental conflicts. Sociol. Perspect. 39(2):219-230.[CSA]
36. Parsons, K. M.2003. The science wars: Debating scientific knowledge and technology. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
37. Petkova K. P. Boyadjieva 1994 The image of the scientist and its functions. Public Understand. Sci. 3 2 215-224 [CSA][CROSSREF]
38. Petts, J.1997. The public-expert inrterface in local waste management decisions: Expertise, credibility and process. Public Understand. Sci. 6(4):359-381.[CSA][CROSSREF]
39. Pierce, J. C.1992. Citizens, political communication, and interest groups: Environmental organizations in Canada and the United States. Westport, CT: Praeger.
40. Pierce, J. C. and N. P.Lovrich. 1986. Water resources, democracy, and the technical information quandary, National university publications. Port Washington, NY: Associated Faculty Press.
41. Potter, J.1996. Representing reality: Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
42. Potter, J.1997. Discourse analysis as a way of analysing naturally occurring talk. In Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice, ed. D.Silverman, 144-160. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
43. Potter, J., D.Edwards, and M.Wetherell. 1993. A model of discourse in action. Am. Behav. Scientist 36(3):383-401.[CSA]
44. Potter, J. and M.Mulkay. 1985. Scientists' interview talk: Interviews as a technique for revealing participants interpretative practices. In The research interview: Uses and approaches, eds. D. V.Canter, J.Brown, and M.Brenner, 247-271. London: Academic Press.
45. Potter, J. and M.Wetherell. 1987. Discourse and social psychology. London: Sage.
46. Rhoads, B. L., D.Wilson, M.Urban, and E. E.Herricks. 1999. Interaction between scientists and nonscientists in community-based watershed management: Emergence of the concept of stream naturalization. Environ. Manage. 24(3):297-308.[PUBMED][INFOTRIEVE][CSA][CROSSREF]
47. Ross A.1996 Science wars. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
48. Roth, A. L., J.Dunsby, and L. A.Bero. 2003. Framing processes in public commentary on US federal tobacco control regulation. Social Stud. Sci. 33(1):7-44.[CSA][CROSSREF]
49. Roth, W.-M. and K. B.Lucas. 1997. From "truth" to "invented reality": A discourse analysis of high school physics students' talk about scientific knowledge. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 34(2):145-179.[CSA][CROSSREF]
50. Rust, R. T. and B.Cooil. 1994. Reliability measures for qualitative data: Theory and implications. J. Market. Res. 31(1):1-14.[CSA]
51. Segerstrêale, U. C. O.2000. Beyond the science wars: The missing discourse about science and society. SUNY series in science, technology, and society. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
52. Smith, C. and B. S.Steel. 1997. Values in the valuing of salmon. In Pacific salmon and their ecosystems: Status and future options, eds. D. J.Strouder, P. A.Bisson, and R. J.Naiman, 599-616. Corvalis, OR: Oregon State University Press.
53. Steel, B. S. and N. P.Lovrich. 1997. An introduction to natural resource policy and public lands: Changing paradigms and values. In Public lands management in the West, ed. B. S.Steel, 3-15. New York: Praeger.
54. Trachtman, L. E. and R.Perrucci. 2000. Science under siege?: Interest groups and the science wars. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
55. U.S. Government Printing Office. 2001. GPO Access 2001 [cited 2001]. Available from http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/index.html.
56. Weingart, P.1999. Scientific expertise and political accountability: Paradoxes of science in politics. Sci. Public Policy 26(3):151-161.[CSA]
57. Wetherell, M. and J.Potter. 1988. Discourse analysis and the identification of interpretative repertoires. In Analysing everyday explanation: A casebook of methods, ed. C.Antaki, 168-183. London: Sage.
58. Wynne, B.1996. May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view on the expert-lay knowledge divide. In Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology, eds. S.Lash, B.Szerszynski, and B.Wynne, 19-46. New York: Cambridge University Press.
59. Yearley, S.1994. Understanding science from the perspective of the sociology of scientific knowledge: An overview. Public Understand. Sci. 3:245-258.[CSA][CROSSREF]
60. Yearley, S. 2000. Making systematic sense of public discontents with expert knowledge: Two analytical approaches and a case study. Public Understand. Sci. 9(2):105-122.[CSA][CROSSREF]
61. Zehr, S.C. 2000 Public representations of scientific uncertainty about global climate change. Public Understand. Sci. 9(2):85-103.[CSA][CROSSREF]
62. Ziman, J.1991. Public understanding of science. Science Technol. Hum. Values 16(1):99-105.[CSA]