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.
Beck, U.1992a. From industrial society to the risk society: Questions for survival, social structure, and ecological enlightenment. Theory, Culture, and Society9:97-123.
2.
---. 1992b. Risk society: Toward a new modernity. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
3.
---. 1995. Ecological politics in an age of risk. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
4.
Beck, U., A. Giddens, and S. Lash.1994. Reflective modernization: Politics, tradition and aesthetics in the modern social order. Cambridge , UK: Polity Press.
5.
Brown, J.R.2001. Who rules in science? An opinionated guide to the wars . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
6.
Buttel, F.H., O.F. Larson, and G.W. Gillespie.1990. The sociology of agriculture. New York: Greenwood Press.
7.
Campbell, D.2001. Conviction seeking efficacy: Sustainable agriculture and the politics of co-optation. Agriculture and Human Values18:353-63.
8.
Carolan, M.S.2005. Barriers to the adoption of sustainable agriculture on rented land: An examination of contesting social fields. Rural Sociology70:387-413.
9.
---. 2006. Social change and the adoption and adaptation of knowledge claims: Whose truth do you trust in regard to sustainable agriculture? Agriculture and Human Values23:222-48.
10.
Collins, H.M.1992. Changing order: Replication and induction in scientific practice. 2nd ed. Chicago, IL : University of Chicago Press.
11.
---. 2003King Canute meets the Beach Boys. Social Studies of Science33:435-52.
12.
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.
13.
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).
14.
DuPuis, M.2000. Not in my body: rBGH and the rise of organic milk. Agriculture and Human Values17:285-95.
15.
Evans, R.2005. Introduction. Demarcation socialized: Constructing boundaries and recognizing difference. Science, Technology, & Human Values30:3-16.
16.
Feenstra, G.2002. Creating space for sustainable food systems: Lessons from the field. Agriculture and Human Values19:99-106.
17.
Fischer, F.2000. Citizens, experts, and the environment: The politics of local knowledge. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
18.
Fitzgerald, D.2003. Every farm a factory: The industrial ideal in American agriculture. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
19.
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.
20.
---. 1993. Science for a post normal age. Futures25: 739-52.
21.
---. 1994. The worth of a songbird: Ecological economics as a post normal science. Ecological Economics10:197-207.
22.
Giddens, A.1990. The consequences of modernity. Cambridge , UK: Policy Press.
23.
Gieryn, T.1983. Boundary work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional interests of scientists. American Sociological Review48:781-95.
24.
---. 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.
25.
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 Values24:451-82.
26.
Hamlett, P.2003. Technology theory and deliberative democracy. Science, Technology, & Human Values28:112-40.
27.
Haraway, D.1997. Modest_Witness@Second_Millennium.FemaleMan@Meets_OncoMouseTM: Feminism and technoscience. New York: Routledge.
28.
Jasanoff, S.1987. Contested boundaries in policy-relevant science. Social Studies of Science17:195-230.
29.
---. 2003a. Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva41:223-44.
30.
---. 2003b. (No?) accounting for expertise. Science and Public Policy. 30:157-62.
31.
---. 2003c. Breaking the waves in science studies: Comments on H. M. Collins and Robert Evans, "The third wave of science studies." Social Studies of Science33:389-400.
32.
---. 2005. Designs on nature: Science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
33.
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.
34.
Kelly S.2003. Public bioethics and publics: Consensus, boundaries, and participation in biomedical science policy. Science, Technology, & Human Values28:339-64
35.
Kloppenburg, J.1991. Social theory and de/reconstruction of agricultural science: For an alternative agriculture. Rural Sociology56:519-48.
36.
Kuhn, T.S. [1962] 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
37.
Lahsen, M.2005. Technocracy, democracy, and U.S. climate politics: The need for demarcation. Science, Technology, & Human Values30:137-69.
38.
Latour, B.1987. Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
39.
---. 2004. Politics of nature: How to bring the sciences into democracy . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
40.
McHenry, H.1997. Wild flowers in the wrong field are weeds! Examining farmers' constructions of conservation. Environment and Planning29:1039-53.
41.
Mulkay, M.J.1976. Norms and ideology in science. Social Science Information15:637-56.
42.
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.
43.
Popper, K. [1963] 2002. Conjectures and refutations . London; New York: Routledge.
44.
Rasmussen, W.D.1989. Taking the university to the people: Seventy-five years of cooperative extension. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.
45.
Ravetz, J.1999. What is post-normal science? Futures31:647-53.
46.
---. 2005. A No-nonsense guide to science. London : Verso.
47.
Rayner, S., and R. Cantor.1987. How fair is safe enough? The cultural approach to social technology choice. Risk Analysis7:3-9.
48.
Rogers, E.1995. Diffusion of innovations, 4th ed. New York: The Free Press .
49.
Rowe G., and L. Frewer2000. Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation . Science, Technology, & Human Values25:3-29.
50.
Turner, S.2001. What is the problem with experts? Social Studies of Science31:123-49.
51.
Wachelder, J.2003. Democratizing science: Various routes and visions of Dutch science shops. Science, Technology, & Human Values28:244-27.
52.
Wynne, B.1992. Misunderstood misunderstanding: Social identities and public uptake of science. Public Understanding of Science1:281-304.
53.
---. 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.
