See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233716966

Sustainable Agriculture, Science and

the Co-Production of Expert
Knowledge: The Value of
Interactional Expertise

Article in Local Environment August 2006

DOI: 10.1080/13549830600785571

CITATIONS READS

43 229

1 author:

Michael S Carolan
Colorado State University
94 PUBLICATIONS 1,335 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Food and the sharing economy View project

Agriculture and Food in Iran View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Michael S Carolan on 12 December 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Local Environment
Vol. 11, No. 4, 421 431, August 2006

ARTICLE

Sustainable Agriculture, Science

and the Co-production of Expert
Knowledge: The Value
of Interactional Expertise

MICHAEL S. CAROLAN

Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA

ABSTRACT After the last few decades in which the importance of local knowledge has
been emphasized, attention must now turn to better understanding how such knowledge
is communicated to certified experts (scientists) and vice versa. This paper examines how
expert knowledge is co-produced in agriculture by local and non-local experts for the
benefit of both. The argument is informed by an empirical case study of sustainable
farmers and agriculture professionals in Iowa. While much has been written about how
the conventional and sustainable models of agriculture rest upon different
epistemological orientations, little has yet been said about how those different
experts (local and certified) interact with each other. Building upon the work of
H. M. Collins and Robert Evans, and their tripartite model of expertise (of no,
contributory, and interactional expertise), I investigate the different forms of expertise
that exist within agriculture. In doing so, specific focus is placed upon interactional
expertise for creating meaningful exchanges (or interactions) between scientists and
non-scientists.

Introduction
Scholars have argued passionately about why technical decision-making
structures must involve broad public participationwhat Sheila Jasanoff

Correspondence Address: Michael S. Carolan, Department of Sociology, Colorado State

University, B236 Clark, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1784, USA. Email: mcarolan@lamar.
colostate.edu
1354-9839 Print=1469-6711 Online=06=040421-11 # 2006 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080=13549830600785571
422 M. S. Carolan

(2003) eloquently refers to as technologies of humility. This has lead to the

proliferation of arguments in favour of what is called the democratization of
science (Fischer, 2000; Wynne, 2001). Yet, while laudable in the context of
environmental conflicts, regulation and risk, such calls can lead to uncomfor-
table conclusions if not properly reigned in. That is, it is one thing to call for
the democratization of science when speaking of, say, environmental risks. It
is another, however, to be making such calls when speaking of, for example,
high energy particle physics. How, then, can we think about science from the
perspective of local governance (and sustainable development more gener-
ally) without opening ourselves up to an epistemic free-for-all. In other
words, how can we retain the concept of expertise while allowing greater
epistemic diversity to enter into the decision-making process.
Collins and Evans (2002) frame such questions through what they call the
problem of extension: the idea that more participation by the non-specialist is
not always better. In light of this problem, they argue for a turn away from
the issue of democratizing science per se and toward the topic of expertise
(see e.g. Collins and Evans, 2002; Collins, 2004). Building upon their
work, this paper investigates how expert knowledge is co-produced within
the realm of agriculture by local and non-local experts for the benefit of
both. The argument that follows is informed by an empirical case study of
sustainable farmers and agriculture professionals in Iowa.
Admittedly, much has already been written about how the conventional
and sustainable models of agriculture rest upon different epistemological
orientations: namely, the former centres on commodified, universal and
highly generalizable knowledge, while the latter places importance on
knowledge that is mutable, fluid and local (Feldman & Welsh, 1995;
Hassanein, 1999; Kloppenburg, 1991). Yet, the problem of extension
remains unaddressed within this literature. In other words, in calling for
the democratization of science in agriculture, is there any conceptual
room left for expertise? By turning to the topic of expertise (versus
science per se) we can call for broader public participation within (agricul-
tural, environmental, etc.) science whilst still allowing for cognitive
authority.
The paper proceeds as follows. I begin by briefly presenting the tripartite
model of expertise as detailed by Collins and Evans. Attention then turns
to the empirical study, beginning with an overview of methods. This is fol-
lowed by a discussion of how expertise emerges and is co-produced within
the social body of sustainable agriculture.

Collins and Evans on Expertise

On the topic of expertise, Collins and Evans (2002) develop the following
tripartite model: no expertise; interactional expertise; and contributory
expertise. In developing this distinction, Collins and Evans build upon their
first-hand experiences as sociologists of science and through the problems
they confront in trying to cognitively grasp the often esoteric subject
matter they are studying. I suggest, however, that our understanding of
 Sustainable Agriculture and Expert Knowledge 423

these typologies can be slightly modified to present a better fit for the environ-
mental sciences (although, given the empirical examples used by Collins and
Evans to illustrate their typology, and from personal communications
with Collins, I do not believe this re-conceptualization to be too much of a
departure from the original).

. No expertise: A cognitive state that does not fall within either of the
following categories.
. Contributory expertise: Enough expertise to contribute to the knowledge
base of the topic in question, noting, importantly, that such cognitive
authority can come in the form of either abstract/generalizable or local/
practical knowledge.
. Interactional expertise: Having enough expertise to allow for interesting
interactions between contributory experts of both abstract/generalizable
and local/practical knowledge domains, which allows for interactions to
occur to the extent that all participants leave the process cognitively
changed.

To illustrate these terms, Collins and Evans draw from Brain Wynnes
(1989) famous case study on the relationship between scientists and sheep
farmers after the radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl disaster contami-
nated the Cumbrian fells. Wynne examined the relationships between UK
Ministry of Agriculture Food and Fisheries (MAFF) scientists and the
Cumbrian sheep farmers, arguing that the expertise of the sheep farmers
with respect to sheep should not have been ignored (which it was by
MAFF scientists). Specifically, the farmers knew a great deal about the
ecology of the sheep, prevailing winds and the behaviour of rainwater on
the pasture land that was relevant to discussions of how the sheep should
be treated in order to minimize the impact of radioactivity. Nevertheless,
the MAFF scientists failed to listen to the farmers because they (the
farmers) lacked the proper scientific training and credentials.
The farmers, according to Collins and Evans, thus possessed contributory
expertise (of local/practical knowledge). What was lacking in this case,
however, was interactional expertise. On the one hand, the MAFF scientists
lacked the knowledge to understand that the farmers really did know what
they were talking about and that their knowledge was meaningful to the
broader decision-making process (which no doubt was in part a reflection
of their inability to communicate effectively with them). Conversely, the
farmers lacked knowledge that would have allowed them to enter into and
speak the technical, universal language of science. The missing ingredient
that would have greatly improved dialogue and knowledge exchange in
this case, it appears, is interactional expertise.
Through this, we can begin to see that such concepts as lay expertise
(Wynne, 1989), community science (Carr, 2004) and local knowledge
(Fischer, 2000) all ultimately speak of the need for expertiseor, more specifi-
cally, contributory expertise (as it relates to local/practical knowledge). For in
these cases we find examples of individuals having an intimate tacit working
424 M. S. Carolan

knowledge of local conditions, variables and process. Yet, contributory exper-

tise is not all that is required to effectively deal with many of todays environ-
mental threats. Indeed, the greatest strides are often made within policy and
regulatory frameworks when local knowledge is combined with the standar-
dized knowledge of objective, universal science (see e.g. Epstein, 1996). And
this, in short, speaks to the importance of interactional expertise.
Through this typology of expertise, we can begin to talk about the need
to open decision-making structures up to not only those contributory
experts with abstract/generalizable knowledge but also those contributory
experts with local/practical knowledge. And this implies the need for indivi-
duals with interactional expertise, so as to allow for a useful exchange of
information between these two groups.

Methods
Data collection began in the summer of 2004. I started by contacting
sustainable farmers in two regions within the state of Iowacentral and
northeasternasking for their participation in this research. I then proceeded
to employ the snowball sampling technique to recruit further participants (as
was the case throughout all phases of data collection). During this time, 15 in-
depth personal interviews were conducted, recorded and shortly thereafter
transcribed. After reviewing transcriptions for emergent themes, interviews
resumed during the winter of 2004/2005. This round of interviews occurred
over the phone (given the distance between myself and the sample popu-
lation). During this time, an additional 20 interviews were conducted,
recorded and transcribed. All transcriptions were then reviewed (and in
some cases re-reviewed) for emergent themes. Following this, I once again
resumed the interviewing process during the summer months of 2005. An
additional ten in-depth personal interviews were conducted during this
time (which were also recorded and transcribed). It was at this point that
the interview process ceased, for theoretical saturation had been reached
and the above-mentioned emergent categories were no longer forthcoming.
In total, 35 interviews were conducted, recorded, transcribed and manually
analysed. The sample population consisted of 28 farmers and seven agricul-
ture professionals (extension staff and agriculture scientists). Each interview
lasted approximately one hour.

Sustainable Agriculture and the Co-production of Expert Knowledge

One of the seminal works to articulate the role of local knowledge in sustain-
able agriculture comes from Robert Chambers and colleagues (1989), in a
book that details what they call farmer participatory research (see also
Chambers, 1983). The farmer first model seeks to reverse the traditional
top-down model of knowledge dissemination (which dominated agriculture
for much of the twentieth century) into one that allows for a richer, more con-
textualized understanding of agro-ecosystems. In Chambers own words,
learning has to start at the other end. The farmer must educate outsiders;
the poor must ring outsiders down to earth (Chambers, 1983, p. 201).
 Sustainable Agriculture and Expert Knowledge 425

Recent research has given support to such an epistemic view of sustainable

agriculture (e.g. Hassanein, 1999; Nerbonne & Lentz, 2003). In doing this,
scholars have detailed how the immutable mobiles (Latour, 1987) of conven-
tional agriculturewhich allow, for instance, for the purchasing of manage-
ment in a can (e.g. petrochemical inputs)are ill-suited for sustainable
agriculture, where sensitivity to local conditions is key so as not to disrupt
natural and social systems (Kloppenburg, 1991). Nevertheless, the problem
of extension remains unaddressed in this literature. If some participation in
agricultural research is good, is more necessarily better? Do traditional agricul-
tural specialists, like agronomists, plant pathologists and dairy scientists have
nothing of value to say in the context of sustainable agriculture as experts?
The utility of Collins and Evanss tripartite model of expertise resides in
its ability to provide us a language with which we can begin to answer such
questions. Let us begin with what is called contributory expertise.

Contributory Expertise: Local and Generalizable

As mentioned, we find within agriculture a tension between the immutable
mobiles of the conventional model, which are said to be generalizable
across farms and fields, and the mutable, local mobilities of the sustain-
able model, which highlight that no two fields are exactly alike. And,
corresponding to these two forms of knowledge, are associated contributory
experts: the former are usually referred to as scientists; the latter are the
farmers themselves.
In the words of one agriculture professional, Were [agriculture scientists]
trained to reduced things to nice and neat formulashave this crop rotation,
apply this many chemicals at such and such times, and youll have a bumper
crop. But this completely glosses over the more site specific knowledge that
sustainable farmers need.
This unease was likewise expressed by a number of sustainable growers,
who felt that the contributory expertise of agriculture professionals (e.g.
agronomists, plant scientists, extension personnel and the like) did little to
help them become better farmers.
One organic farmer remarked, Ive tried to get information from special-
ists at ISU [Iowa State University] about how to control for pests without
having to rely so much on pesticides. What I got in return, unfortunately,
was something someone farming a 1,000 acre corn and [soy]bean operation
would want.
Another organic beef grower stated, I remember a few years back, I was
looking for some information on rotational grazing. I went to our extension
guy, even talked to a professor at Iowa State [University] about it, but
couldnt find anyone to give me the information that I was looking for . . .
So I began asking around and finally got a name of a farmer in northeastern
Iowa. I had to go to him for help. And the real kicker is that I now have people
from Iowa State coming to me for information.
It quickly became clear that expertise could not be viewed in monolithic
and universalistic terms. The traditional (contributory) experts knew a lot
426 M. S. Carolan

of things related to their fields of study. But such knowledge came packaged
in a methodologically reductionist form, where fields were reduced to nutri-
ents, moisture and solar energy. Sustainable agriculture, on the other hand,
is premised on a (contributory) expertise that cannot be reduced to standar-
dized formulas or immutable mobiles. What we find in agriculture, then, are
two forms of contributory expertise: (1) that involving an intimate, working
(as least in the laboratory and test plots) knowledge of agro-ecosystem prin-
ciples in an abstract, universal form; and (2) that involving an intimate,
working knowledge of agro-ecosystem principles that are bound to place.
Yet, this brings us to less charted territory. While it is well established that
there are different types of experts in agriculture, little has been said
about how these different experts talk to each other. Enter interactional
expertise.

Interactional Expertise: The Co-production of Expert Knowledge

Take, for example, the following sustainable farmer who uses eggshells as a
liming source. This individual had initially sought out university scientists to
find out more information about the use of eggshells in agriculture (to no
avail) and who now is a source of expertise for those very scientists on
the subject. Yet, even here, the production of expert knowledge was not uni-
directional, moving from this organic producer to the university scientists. It
was, importantly, a two-way street. Given the contributory expertise of both
the university scientists (e.g. general principles on soil ecology and the like)
and this farmer (e.g. local knowledge of soil type, drainage, etc.), both left
such exchanges transformed. And so too did the expert knowledge in
question.
In the farmers own words, At first, I would receive a few calls a year, or
I was asked about it by other local farmers. In the last year or so, however,
Ive been getting calls from people from Iowa State [University], University
of Minnesota, and just a few weeks ago even someone from University of
Wisconsin, wanting to talk with me about my use of [egg] shells.
This process of knowledge exchange, however, was not unidirectional.
Again, that same farmer: And its not like I didnt benefit from it. I learned
a bit from them, like how the absorption of calcium carbonate is affected by
soil types and how pH is impacted by this.
How, then, did this exchange of information take place? Such exchanges
could occur one of two ways. First, the university scientists or farmer could
develop the same level of (contributory) expertise as the other. In such an
event, they could be considered a contributory expert of both abstract/
generalizable and local/practical knowledge, which would make interaction
between these two domains less problematic. One could perhaps say in such
cases that such an individual has latent interactional expertise, which would
be acquired as they developed contributory expertise (more on this in a
moment). Alternatively, the university scientists or farmer could have learned
the language of the other, in which case they would have acquired interactional
expertise of the domain in which they do not have contributory expertise.
 Sustainable Agriculture and Expert Knowledge 427

The exchange between the eggshell farmer and university scientists appears
to have involved the latter. In this case at least, the farmer seems to have
acquired a working knowledge of scientific language and the university scien-
tists appear to have acquired a working knowledge of the local lexicon (what
was frequently referred to during interviews as farmer talk).
Again, the eggshell farmer: We both knew enough about what the other
does to make it work. Im no ag. scientist but I know enough to be able to
talk to them. And I generally felt that they were in the same position.
Theyve been around farmers enough to be able to talk to us and have us
understand what theyre saying.
Yet, what is to be said of individuals who possess contributory expertise
within bothabstract/generalizable and local/practicaldomains? Is
interactional expertise also implied in such cases? In answering this question
I turn to Marvin.1 Marvin is not only a farmer but also an agricultural scien-
tist employed through Iowa State University. His ability to speak between
these domains, however, did not emerge alongside his acquiring both forms
of contributory expertise. Indeed, it took Marvin some time before he rea-
lized his interactional expertise, which is to suggest that the capabilities
were there; they just needed to be discovered and put to use (hence the
earlier use of the term latent interactional expertise).
As Marvin explains, Early in my career, I had a real hard time changing
between these two hats [of farmer and research scientist]. Its hard to
explain. I think it had to do with the fact that I was still learning how to
apply what I learn in graduate school to things other than test plots and
field experiments.
Later in the interview he then repeats this point by stating, It took a while
before I could use my experiences growing up on the farm to help me under-
stand my research, just like it took me a while to learn how my research could
make me a better farmer.
Unfortunately, space does not permit me to enter into a deeper discussion
regarding the cognitive and social mechanisms at work that cause individuals
with contributory expertise to not realize their latent interactional expertise
(although Collins and Evans [2002] and Collins [2004] provide some insights
toward this end). For now, my point is to highlight how interactional and
contributory expertise need not always be tied together, and thus to empha-
size how these types of expertise are analytically distinct. Any discussion
beyond this point must be left for future research.

The Emergence of Contributory and Interactional Expertise

In the words of Collins (2004, p. 129), interactional expertise is hard to attain,
and probably only a very few non-scientists, such as sociologists, or high class
journalists, or certain types of science administrator, possess it in the absence
of contributory expertise, but is not as hard to attain as contributory expertise
(my emphasis). Collins and Evans thus place contributory expertise higher on
the epistemological hierarchy than interactional expertise. As I hope is clear by
now, this need not always be the case. As illustrated, interactional expertise, at
428 M. S. Carolan

least in certain instances, should not be viewed as a lesser cognitive form than
contributory expertise. Indeed, sometimes it is the very reverse of this (and I
would argue this is particularly the case in the context of environmental
conflicts).
While scholars have documented the variability of expertise within agricul-
ture, little (if anything) has been said regarding how this expertise emerges. I
would like to now speak specifically to this point, by detailing how an indi-
vidual went from possessing no, to possessing contributory expertise, to
possessing interactional expertise.
For farmers and scientists alike, contributory expertise appeared to emerge
first as a product of their respective fields: for the former a local/practical
expertise emerged, while for the latter the expertise took on a more
abstract/generalizable character. After a while, however, some of these con-
tributory experts began to see the limits of their epistemic orientations, which
is not to say that they began to see their way of knowing as wrong, but that it
was, by itself, incomplete. From this emerged the desire to interact with con-
tributory experts of the other domain. And, thus, the seed for interactional
expertise was planted.
This is not to argue that contributory expertise need always precede inter-
actional expertise. As someone who has spent a number of years studying
both farmers and agricultural scientists, I could be said to possess interac-
tional expertise within these two domains, although I would not go as far
as to claim possessing contributory expertise in either. Thus, while I can argu-
ably talk the talk I cannot walk the walk and thus do, with any degree of
success, the practices associated with either domain.
For most of the farmers interviewed, it is difficult to discern when they went
from possessing, say, no expertise to possessing contributory expertise. This
is due to the point that most were born and raised on the farm, in which case
they were doing farming (at least at some level) for as long as they can remem-
ber. There was, however, one case that allowed for relatively clear analytic
distinctions to be made as to when these various types of expertise emerged.
Steve is a forty-something organic farmer. Unlike most farmers, however,
Steve was not born on a farm. Rather, he came to farming later in life. While
in his early thirties, Steve decided he needed a life change, as he calls it. As he
explains, I left my $50,000 a year job in Des Moines [the state capital],
bought some land in the country, and began growing organic vegetables
and raising a few organic beef cattle.
As a non-farmer, Steve was ready to admit he knew little about farming
when he began. About six months before I got up the guts to make the big
move I read everything I could get my hands on: agronomy books, books on
insects, manure management, holistic management practices. You name it
and I read it. I started that process knowing that I wanted to live in the
country yet knowing absolutely nothing about agriculture. I was unbelievably
naive.
By almost any definition, Steve would be considered as having begun this
process with no expertise in agriculture. Yet, with a drive to learn about
farming and agro-ecosystems, Steves learning curve was steep. And after a
 Sustainable Agriculture and Expert Knowledge 429

few seasons, where much was learned through simple trial and error, he
began to be quite knowledgeable in his field.
As he explains, I made a lot of mistakes at first, and they were really stupid
ones too. Anyway, after receiving my PhD in the School of Hard Knocks,
I started to find my feet as a farmer. Now Id consider myself a pretty
damn good organic grower. Just as good as any other organic grower I
know, and in some cases even better.
Indeed, as Steve later remarked, he is now approached by others farmers
for information regarding organic agriculture. I went from the one that
came up to people asking all the questions to the one who others go to for
information.
Yet, even at this point, he lacked the expertise to engage in the same form
of knowledge creation as is done by agricultural scientists. This became
apparent when Steve began conducting scientific tests (his words) through
the employment of experimental test plots.
I knew my management strategy worked; I just wanted to prove it to the
folks at ISU; you know, show through science what I already knew through
personal experience.
So how did you proceed to show this through science? I asked.
Well, I began with a lot of different test plots, using various organic and
conventional methods . . . I tried a bunch of different practices and compared
the results . . . But, just to give you one example of my lack of scientific train-
ing, I conducted organic tests on organically certified land and conven-
tional tests on land that had previously been in a conventional corn bean
rotation. I didnt think how this might impact my results.
In short, while Steve possessed (local/practical) contributory expertise in
the areas of, say, local pest ecology and soil structure, he lacked abstract/
generalizable (contributory) expertise, which in this case was a working
knowledge of research methods and statistics to engage in this form of gen-
eralizable knowledge production. Shortly thereafter, Steve became part of a
diverse research team (sponsored by Iowa State University) of farmers and
university scientists that sought to investigate and bolster sustainable agricul-
tural practices. In this team, sustainable growers shared their local/practical
contributory expertise with university researchers, who, in exchange, shared
their abstract/generalizable contributory expertise with the farmers. And, at
least according to Steve, this left both groups changed, which, again, is one of
the indicators that interactional expertise is present.
It was an interesting exchange, Steve explained. They [university research-
ers] seemed genuinely interested in what we had to say. I remember one time a
farmer doing something, I think he was growing a herb, that a researcher didnt
think would work given his soil type, but it was working. A lot of the time
researchers assumptions were challenged like that . . . [On the other hand]
I learned what it meant to practise science and now feel confident that I
could do it too, if I ever get the itch to test various [farming] methods again.
This interaction between contributory experts, however, did not simply
occur sui generis. Steve hinted at early communication barriers between
these two groups when he remarked, It was a slow start; I just dont think
430 M. S. Carolan

farmers were used to talking to researchers and they werent used to talking
to farmers. Yet, in part due to individuals like Steve, these barriers were over-
come. It appears that Steves early interest in abstract/generalizable knowl-
edge (science), as noted by his early ill-fated attempts to conduct scientific
trials on his own land, provided him with enough knowledge to interact
meaningfully with the university researchers. Thus, while he did not
possess contributory expertise as it related to abstract/generalizable knowl-
edge, as illustrated by his inability to effectively do agricultural science, he
could still, if you will, talk the talk when it came to this domain of knowl-
edge. And this ability to interact meaningfully with agricultural scientists
allowed him to serve an important translating role between farms and
scientists.
In his own words, I think the biggest problem was that the researchers just
didnt know how to talk to the farmers. They lacked a grasp of farmer talk.
And, not surprisingly, the farmers then couldnt communicate with the
researchers. Id like to think that I played a role in helping to bridge those
barriers. I like to talk so I felt pretty comfortable serving the role of translator
between groups.
And how did you accomplish this? I asked.
Well, first off, being familiar with the area, I could provide some context
and history to the land: you know, if a patch of land doesnt drain well and
gets marshy in the spring months, I could let them know and theyd adjust
their test plots accordingly. Stuff like that. But then, at the same time,
I could explain to some of my fellow farmers why the researchers were
doing what they were doing, if they had questions about it, you know, in
language they could understand.

Conclusion
Many environmental scientists, of both the natural and social persuasions,
spend a great deal of time developing contributory expertise (specifically, that
of abstract/generalizable knowledge). Yet, while certified experts value local
knowledgeas indicated by the proliferation of research on what is often
called indigenous and lay knowledge (Brush & Stabinsky, 1996; Carr,
2004; Fischer, 2000; Wynne, 1989)very little time has been spent examin-
ing just how these different types of (contributory) experts interact. This
point is supported by research illustrating that citizens (not professional
scientists) have often been the ones who have had to develop this expertise
if they wanted their voices and accompanying data heard by the larger scien-
tific community (see particularly the work of Epstein [1996], who examined
the early years of AIDS research). Future energies would thus be well spent
examining ways in which we could nurture interactional expertise, so as
to help facilitate knowledge exchange between both local and certified con-
tributory experts. After the last few decades in which the importance of
local knowledge has been emphasized, attention must now turn to better
understanding how such knowledge is communicated (or not) to certified
 Sustainable Agriculture and Expert Knowledge 431

(contributory) experts and, in doing this, to help nurture institutional

arraignments to better utilize the expertise of those on the ground.

Note
[1] Names have been changed to protect the identities of research participants.

References
Brush, S. & Stabinsky, D. (Eds) (1996) Valuing Local Knowledge (Washington: Island Press).
Carr, A. (2004) Why do we all need community science? Society and Natural Resources, 17, pp. 841 849.
Chambers, R. (1983) Rural Development (New York: Wiley).
Chambers, R., Pacey, A. & Thrupp, L. A. (1989) Farmer First (London: Intermediate Technology).
Collins, H. M. (2004) Interactional expertise as a third kind of knowledge, Phenomenology and the
Cognitive Sciences, 3, pp. 125 143.
Collins, H. M. & Evans, R. (2002) The third wave of science studies: studies of expertise and experience,
Social Studies of Science, 32, pp. 235 296.
Epstein, S. (1996). Impure Science (Berkeley: University of California Press).
Feldman, S. & Welsh, R. (1995). Feminist knowledge claims, local knowledge, and gender divisions of
agricultural labor, Rural Sociology, 60, pp. 2343.
Fischer, F. (2000) Citizens, Experts, and the Environment (Durham, NC: Duke University Press).
Hassanein, N. (1999) Changing the Way America Farms (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press).
Jasanoff, S. (2003) Technologies of humility, Minerva, 41, pp. 223244.
Kloppenburg, J., Jr (1991). Social theory and de/reconstruction of agricultural science, Rural Sociology,
56, p. 519 548.
Latour, B. (1987) Science in Action (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
Nerbonne, J. F. & Lentz, R. (2003) Rooted in grass, Agriculture and Human Values, 20, pp. 6578.
Wynne, B. (1989) Sheep farming after Chernobyl: a case study in communicating scientific information,
Environment, 31, pp. 1015, 33 39.
Wynne, B. (2001) Creating public alienation, Science as Culture, 10, pp. 445481.
View publication stats