Skip to main content
Intended for healthcare professionals
Restricted access
Research article
First published online February 13, 2008

Democratizing Knowledge: Sustainable and Conventional Agricultural Field Days as Divergent Democratic Forms

Michael S. CarolanView all authors and affiliations
Volume 33, Issue 4
https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243907306698

Abstract

This article highlights that in our rush to call for the democratization of science and expertise we must not forget to speak to what type of democratization we are calling for. In short, not all participatory forms are the same. In developing this argument, I examine one such form that has yet to receive much attention from science and technology studies scholars: the agricultural field day. In examining the field day, we find that its orientation—that is, toward either the conventional or sustainable model of agriculture—shapes significantly its democratic approach to knowledge coproduction. To help inform how we understand conventional and sustainable field days, I turned to two conceptual frameworks of participation: namely, that of Wynne and Funtowicz and Ravetz. In doing this, we find that conventional field days mirror closely that form of public participation detailed by Funtowicz and Ravetz, while sustainable field days reflect that conceptualized by Wynne.

Get full access to this article

View all access and purchase options for this article.

Get Access
1.
1. As noted in the article's conclusion, definitions of sustainable and conventional agriculture vary widely. As such, for purposes of this article, sustainable and conventional agriculture field days are defined by who is doing them; that is, the former are those field days done by Practical Farmers of Iowa (an organization later discussed), while the latter are those field days done by Iowa State University Extension and agribusiness.
2.
2. http://www.practicalfarmers.org/aboutus.asp (last accessed March 22, 2006).

References

Beck, U. 1992a. From industrial society to the risk society: Questions for survival, social structure, and ecological enlightenment. Theory, Culture, and Society 9:97-123.
Google Scholar
---. 1992b. Risk society: Toward a new modernity. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Google Scholar
---. 1995. Ecological politics in an age of risk. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Google Scholar
Beck, U., A. Giddens, and S. Lash. 1994. Reflective modernization: Politics, tradition and aesthetics in the modern social order. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Google Scholar
Brown, J.R. 2001. Who rules in science? An opinionated guide to the wars . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Google Scholar
Buttel, F.H., O.F. Larson, and G.W. Gillespie. 1990. The sociology of agriculture. New York: Greenwood Press.
Google Scholar
Campbell, D. 2001. Conviction seeking efficacy: Sustainable agriculture and the politics of co-optation. Agriculture and Human Values 18:353-63.
Google Scholar
Carolan, M.S. 2005. Barriers to the adoption of sustainable agriculture on rented land: An examination of contesting social fields. Rural Sociology 70:387-413.
Google Scholar
---. 2006. Social change and the adoption and adaptation of knowledge claims: Whose truth do you trust in regard to sustainable agriculture? Agriculture and Human Values 23:222-48.
Google Scholar
Collins, H.M. 1992. Changing order: Replication and induction in scientific practice. 2nd ed. Chicago, IL : University of Chicago Press.
Google Scholar
---. 2003 King Canute meets the Beach Boys. Social Studies of Science 33:435-52.
Google Scholar
Collins, H.M., and R. Evans. 2002. The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science. 32:235-96.
Google Scholar
Commission of the European Communities. 2001 . European governance: A white paper. COM (2001) 428 Final, Brussels, July 27, http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/cnc/2001/com2001_0428en01.pdf (accessed December 6, 2004).
Google Scholar
DuPuis, M. 2000. Not in my body: rBGH and the rise of organic milk. Agriculture and Human Values 17:285-95.
Google Scholar
Evans, R. 2005. Introduction. Demarcation socialized: Constructing boundaries and recognizing difference. Science, Technology, & Human Values 30:3-16.
Google Scholar
Feenstra, G. 2002. Creating space for sustainable food systems: Lessons from the field. Agriculture and Human Values 19:99-106.
Google Scholar
Fischer, F. 2000. Citizens, experts, and the environment: The politics of local knowledge. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, D. 2003. Every farm a factory: The industrial ideal in American agriculture. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Google Scholar
Funtowicz, S., and J.R. Ravetz. 1992. Three types of risk assessment and the emergence of post normal science. In Social theories of risk, edited by S. Krimsky and D. Golding, 251-74. New York: Praeger.
Google Scholar
---. 1993. Science for a post normal age. Futures 25: 739-52.
Google Scholar
---. 1994. The worth of a songbird: Ecological economics as a post normal science. Ecological Economics 10:197-207.
Google Scholar
Giddens, A. 1990. The consequences of modernity. Cambridge, UK: Policy Press.
Google Scholar
Gieryn, T. 1983. Boundary work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional interests of scientists. American Sociological Review 48:781-95.
Google Scholar
---. 1995. Boundaries of science. In Handbook of science and technology studies, edited by S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen, and T. Pinch [pp. 339-443]. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Google Scholar
Guston D. 1999. Evaluating the first U.S. Consensus Conference: The impact of the citizens' panel on telecommunications and the future of democracy. Science, Technology, & Human Values 24:451-82.
Google Scholar
Hamlett, P. 2003. Technology theory and deliberative democracy. Science, Technology, & Human Values 28:112-40.
Google Scholar
Haraway, D. 1997. Modest_Witness@Second_Millennium.FemaleMan@Meets_OncoMouseTM: Feminism and technoscience. New York: Routledge.
Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S. 1987. Contested boundaries in policy-relevant science. Social Studies of Science 17:195-230.
Google Scholar
---. 2003a. Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva 41:223-44.
Google Scholar
---. 2003b. (No?) accounting for expertise. Science and Public Policy. 30:157-62.
Google Scholar
---. 2003c. Breaking the waves in science studies: Comments on H. M. Collins and Robert Evans, "The third wave of science studies." Social Studies of Science 33:389-400.
Google Scholar
---. 2005. Designs on nature: Science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S., and B. Wynne. 1998. Science and decision making. In Human choice and climate change, edited by S. Rayner and E. L. Malone (pp.1-87). Columbus, OH: Batelle.
Google Scholar
Kelly S. 2003. Public bioethics and publics: Consensus, boundaries, and participation in biomedical science policy. Science, Technology, & Human Values 28:339-64
Google Scholar
Kloppenburg, J. 1991. Social theory and de/reconstruction of agricultural science: For an alternative agriculture. Rural Sociology 56:519-48.
Google Scholar
Kuhn, T.S. [1962] 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Google Scholar
Lahsen, M. 2005. Technocracy, democracy, and U.S. climate politics: The need for demarcation. Science, Technology, & Human Values 30:137-69.
Google Scholar
Latour, B. 1987. Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Google Scholar
---. 2004. Politics of nature: How to bring the sciences into democracy . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Google Scholar
McHenry, H. 1997. Wild flowers in the wrong field are weeds! Examining farmers' constructions of conservation. Environment and Planning 29:1039-53.
Google Scholar
Mulkay, M.J. 1976. Norms and ideology in science. Social Science Information 15:637-56.
Google Scholar
Munton, R. 2003. Deliberative democracy and environmental decision-making . In Negotiating environmental change: New perspectives from social science, edited by F. Berkhout, M. Leach, and I. Scoones, 109-36. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Google Scholar
Popper, K. [1963] 2002. Conjectures and refutations . London; New York: Routledge.
Google Scholar
Rasmussen, W.D. 1989. Taking the university to the people: Seventy-five years of cooperative extension. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.
Google Scholar
Ravetz, J. 1999. What is post-normal science? Futures 31:647-53.
Google Scholar
---. 2005. A No-nonsense guide to science. London : Verso.
Google Scholar
Rayner, S., and R. Cantor. 1987. How fair is safe enough? The cultural approach to social technology choice. Risk Analysis 7:3-9.
Google Scholar
Rogers, E. 1995. Diffusion of innovations, 4th ed. New York: The Free Press .
Google Scholar
Rowe G., and L. Frewer 2000. Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation . Science, Technology, & Human Values 25:3-29.
Google Scholar
Turner, S. 2001. What is the problem with experts? Social Studies of Science 31:123-49.
Google Scholar
Wachelder, J. 2003. Democratizing science: Various routes and visions of Dutch science shops. Science, Technology, & Human Values 28:244-27.
Google Scholar
Wynne, B. 1992. Misunderstood misunderstanding: Social identities and public uptake of science. Public Understanding of Science 1:281-304.
Google Scholar
---. 1996a. May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. In Risk, environment and modernity: Towards a new ecology, edited by S. Lash, B. Szerszynski, and B. Wynne, 44-83. London: Sage.
Google Scholar
---. 1996b. SSK's identity parade: Signing-up, off-and-on. Science Studies of Science 26:357-91.
Google Scholar
---. 2002. Risk and environment as legitimatory discourses of technology: Reflectivity inside and out? Current Sociology 50:459-77.
Google Scholar
---. 2003. Seasick on the third wave: Subverting the hegemony of propositionalism. Social Studies of Science 33:401-17.
Google Scholar

Cite article

Cite article

Cite article

OR

Download to reference manager

If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice

Share options

Share

Share this article

Share with email
EMAIL ARTICLE LINK
Share on social media

Share access to this article

Sharing links are not relevant where the article is open access and not available if you do not have a subscription.

For more information view the Sage Journals article sharing page.

Information, rights and permissions

Information

Published In

Volume 33, Issue 4
Pages: 508 - 528
Article first published online: February 13, 2008
Issue published: July 2008

Keywords

  1. participation
  2. deliberation
  3. expertise
  4. post-normal
  5. science

Rights and permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Authors

Affiliations

Michael S. Carolan
Colorado State University
View all articles by this author

Metrics and citations

Metrics

Journals metrics

This article was published in Science, Technology, & Human Values.

VIEW ALL JOURNAL METRICS

Article usage*

Total views and downloads: 194

*Article usage tracking started in December 2016

Articles citing this one

Receive email alerts when this article is cited

Web of Science: 30 view articles Opens in new tab

Crossref: 0

  1. Agroecology: advancing inclusive knowledge co-production with society
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  2. Pollinating Collaboration: Diverse Stakeholders’ Efforts to Build Expe...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  3. Democratic professionals in civic life: cultivating civil discourse in...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  4. Filtering perceptions of climate change and biotechnology: values and ...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  5. Lands changing hands: Experiences of succession and farm (knowledge) a...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  6. The role of citizen science in addressing grand challenges in food and...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  7. Collaboration Matters: Honey Bee Health as a Transdisciplinary Model f...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  8. Socio‐economic transitions and everyday life changes in the rural worl...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  9. Early changes in farmers’ adoption and use of an improved maize seed: ...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  10. Rejuvenating Design...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  11. Enacting Multiple Audiences...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  12. Success and Evolution of a Boundary Organization
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  13. Creating Tactile Space during a University Extension Field Day Event: ...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  14. Wine science in the Wild West: information-seeking behaviors and attit...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  15. Pesticides and pollinators: a context-sensitive policy approach
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  16. Des sciences par et pour le gouvernement
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  17. Wickedness, reflexivity, and dialogue: toward a multivalent bioenergy
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  18. Use of conservation practices by women farmers in the Northeastern Uni...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  19. Democratising research evaluation: Achieving greater public engagement...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  20. Moissonner le champ scientifique
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  21. Building ‘participation’ upon critique: The Loweswater Care Project, C...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  22. Meeting the ‘multi-’ requirements in organic agriculture research: Suc...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  23. Public engagement coming of age: From theory to practice in STS encoun...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  24. Between technocracy and democracy: An experimental approach to certifi...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  25. The Object of Extension: Agricultural Education and Authentic Farmers ...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  26. Atmospheric composition change research: Time to go post-normal?
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar

Figures and tables

Figures & Media

Tables

View Options

Get access

Access options

If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:

Alternatively, view purchase options below:

Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.

Subscribe to this journal

Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.

Start 2 week free trial
Need help?

View options

PDF/ePub

View PDF/ePub
Download PDF

Also from Sage