Aldrich, Howard E.1979. Organizations and environments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
2.
Arrow, Kenneth J.1991. The economics of agency. In Principals and agents: The structure of business, edited by John W. Pratt and Richard J. Zeckhauser, 37-51. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
3.
Bimber, Bruce. 1996. The politics of expertise in Congress: The rise and fall of the Office of Technology Assessment. Albany: State University of New York Press.
4.
Bozeman, Barry. 1987. All organizations are public. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
5.
Braun, Dietmar. 1993. Who governs intermediary organizations? Principal-agent relations in research policy-making. Journal of Public Policy13 (2): 135-162.
6.
Caswill, Chris. 1998. Social science policy: Challenges, interactions, principals and agents. Science and Public Policy25 (5): 286-296.
7.
Ehrlich, Paul R., and Anne H. Ehrlich. 1996. Brownlash: The new environmental anti-science. The Humanist, November/December, 21-25.
8.
Ezrahi, Yaron. 1990. The descent of Icarus: Science and the transformation of contemporary democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
9.
Fujimura, Joan. 1992. Crafting science: Standardized packages, boundary objects, and “translation.” In Science as culture and practice, edited by Andrew Pickering, 168-211. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
10.
Gieryn, Thomas F.1995. Boundaries of science. In Handbook of science and technology studies, edited by Sheila Jasanoff, Gerald E. Markle, James C. Petersen, and Trevor Pinch, 393-443. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11.
Gieryn, Thomas F.1999. Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
12.
Guston, David H.1996. Principal-agent theory and the structure of science policy. Science and Public Policy23 (4): 229-240.
13.
Guston, David H.1999. Stabilizing the boundary between US politics and science: The role of the Office of Technology Transfer as a boundary organization. Social Studies of Science29 (1): 87-112.
14.
Guston, David H.2000. Between politics and science: Assuring the integrity and productivity of research. New York: Cambridge University Press.
15.
Guston, David H., William Clark, Terry Keating, David Cash, Susanne Moser, Clark Miller, and Charles Powers. 2000. Report of the Workshop on Boundary Organizations in Environmental Policy and Science. Rutgers University, 9-10 December 1999. The Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute at Rutgers University and UMDNJ-RWJMS, and the Global Environmental Assessment Project. Available at http://environment.harvard.edu:80/gea/pubs/huru1.html.
16.
Jasanoff, Sheila. 1990. The fifth branch: Science advisers as policy makers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
17.
Jasanoff, Sheila. 1996. Beyond epistemology: Relativism and engagement in the politics of science. Social Studies of Science26:393-418.
18.
Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
19.
Moore, Kelly. 1996. Organizing integrity: American science and creation of public interest organizations, 1955-1975. American Journal of Sociology101 (6): 1592-1627.
20.
Powers, Charles W.1991. The role of NGOs in improving the employment of science and technology in environmental management. Working paper. Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government, New York.
21.
Price, Don K.1954. Government and science: Their dynamic relation in American democracy. New York: New York University Press.
22.
Rip, Arie. 1994. The republic of science in the 1990s. Higher Education28:3-23.
23.
Scott, Alister. 2000. The dissemination of the results of environmental research: A scoping report for the European Environment Agency. Environmental Issues Series No. 15. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency.
24.
Scott, W. Richard. 1992. Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems. 3rd ed.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
25.
Shackley, Simon, and Brian Wynne. 1996. Representing uncertainty in global climate change science and policy: Boundary-ordering devices and authority. Science, Technology, & Human Values21 (3): 275-302.
26.
Star, Susan Leigh, and James R. Griesemer. 1989. Institutional ecology, “translations,” and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science19 (3): 387-420.
27.
van der Meulen, Barend. 1998. Science policies as principal-agent games: Institutionalization and path-dependency in the relation between government and science. Research Policy27 (4): 397-414.