In light of arguments that citizen science has the potential to make environmental knowledge and policy more robust and democratic, this article inquires into the factors that shape the ability of citizen science to actually influence scientists and decision makers. Using the case of community-based air toxics monitoring with ‘‘buckets,’’ it argues that citizen science’s effectiveness is significantly influenced by standards and standardized practices. It demonstrates that, on one hand, standards serve a boundary-bridging function that affords bucket monitoring data a crucial measure of legitimacy among experts. On the other hand, standards simultaneously serve a boundary-policing function, allowing experts to dismiss bucket data as irrelevant to the central project of air quality assessment. The article thus calls attention to standard setting as an important site of intervention for citizen science-based efforts to democratize science and policy.
Abraham, J., and T. Reed.2002. Progress, innovation, and regulatory science in drug development: The politics of international standard-setting . Social Studies of Science32 (3):337-69.
2.
Allen, B.L.2000. The popular geography of illness in the industrial corridor . In Transforming New Orleans and its environs: Centuries of change, ed., C. E. Colten, 178-201. Pittsburgh : University of Pittsburgh Press.
3.
Allen, B.L.2003. Uneasy alchemy: Citizens and experts in Louisiana’s Chemical Corridor disputes. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
4.
Allen, D.2000. Threshold limit values in the 1990s and beyond: A follow-up . In Illness and the environment: A reader in contested medicine , eds., S. Kroll-Smith , P. Brown, and V. J. Gunter, 135-41. New York: NYU Press .
5.
Bowker, G.C., and S.L. Star.1999. Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
6.
Brown, N., and M. Michael.2002. From authority to authenticity: The changing governance of biotechnology. Health, Risk, and Society4 (3):259-72.
7.
Brown, P.1993. When the public knows better: Popular epidemiology challenges the system. Environment35 (8): 16-21, 32-41.
8.
Calow, P.1998. Standards, science, and the politics of chemical risk . In The politics of chemical risk: Scenarios for a regulatory future, eds., R. Bal, and W. Halffman, 251-63. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
9.
Cole, L.W., and S.R. Foster.2001. From the ground up: Environmental racism and the rise of the environmental justice movement. New York: New York University Press.
10.
Corburn, J.2005. Street science: Community knowledge and environmental health justice. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
11.
Daemmrich, A.1998. The evidence does not speak for itself: Expert witnesses and the organization of DNA-typing companies. Social Studies of Science28 (5-6):741-72.
12.
Davis, D.2002. When smoke ran like water: Tales of environmental deception and the battle against pollution. New York: Basic Books.
13.
Epstein, S.1996. Impure science: AIDS, activism, and the politics of knowledge . Berkeley: University of California Press.
14.
Fischer, F.2000. Citizens, experts, and the environment: The politics of local knowledge. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
15.
Frickel, S., and K. Moore.2006. Prospects and challenges for a new political sociology of science. In The new political sociology of science: Institutions, networks, and power, eds., S. Frickel, and K. Moore, 3-31. Madison : The University of Wisconsin Press.
16.
Fujimura, J.H.1996. Crafting science: Standardized packages, boundary objects, and ‘‘translation’’. In Science as practice and culture, ed., A. Pickering , 168-211. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
17.
Gieryn, T.F.1999. Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
18.
Head, R.A.1995. Health-based standards: What role in environmental justice . In Environmental justice: Issues, policies, solutions , ed., B. Bryant, 45-56. Washington, DC : Island Press.
19.
Hess, D.J.2007. Alternative pathways in science and industry: Activism, innovation, and the environment in an era of globalization. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
20.
Irwin, A.1995. Citizen science: A study of people, expertise, and sustainable development. London: Routledge.
21.
Irwin, A.2001. Constructing the scientific citizen: Science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Understanding of Science10 (1):1-18.
22.
Irwin, A., H. Rothstein, S. Yearley, and E. McCarthy.1997. Regulatory science: Towards a sociological framework. Futures29 (1):17-31.
23.
Kaprow, M.1985. Manufacturing danger: Fear and pollution in industrial society. American Anthropologist87 (2):342-56.
24.
Lerner, S.2005. Diamond: A struggle for justice in Louisiana’s Chemical Corridor. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
25.
Levidow, L., S. Carr, D. Wield, and R. von Schomberg .1997. European biotechnology regulation: Framing the risk assessment of a herbicide-tolerant crop. Science, Technology, and Human Values22 (4):472-505.
26.
Majone, G.1984. Science and trans-science in standard setting. Science, Technology, and Human Values9 (1):15-22.
27.
Mallard, A.1998. Compare, standardize, and settle agreement: On some usual metrological problems. Social Studies of Science28 (4):571-601.
28.
Martin, B.2006. Strategies for alternative science. In The new political sociology of science: Institutions, networks, and power , eds., S. Frickel, and K. Moore, 272-98. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.
29.
O’Connell, J.1993. Metrology: The creation of universality by the circulation of particulars. Social Studies of Science23 (1):129-73.
30.
O’Rourke, D., and G.P. Macey.2003. Community environmental policing: Assessing new strategies of public participation in environmental regulation . Journal of Policy Analysis and Management22 (3):383-414.
31.
Oudshoorn, N.1997. From population control politics to chemicals: The WHO as an intermediary organization in contraceptive development. Social Studies of Science27 (1):41-72.
32.
Overdevest, C., and B. Mayer.2008. Harnessing the power of information through community monitoring: Insights from social science. Texas Law Review86 (7):1493-526.
33.
Plate, M.C.2001. USEPA Region 9 summary of quality assurance planning for the ‘‘Bucket Brigade’’ community air sampling project, Contra Costa County, California. Memorandum.
34.
Salter, L.1985. Science and peer review: The Canadian standard-setting experience. Science, Technology, and Human Values10 (4):37-46.
35.
Shapiro, S.1997. Degrees of freedom: the interaction of standards of practice and engineering judgment. Science, Technology, and Human Values22 (3):286-316.
36.
Shostak, S.2007. Translating at work: Genetically modified mouse models and molecularization in the environmental health sciences. Science, Technology, and Human Values32 (3):315-38.
37.
Star, S.L., and J.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.
38.
Timmerman, S., and M. Berg.1997. Standardization in action: Achieving local universality through medical protocols. Social Studies of Science27 (2):273-305.
39.
URS.2003. Phase I final report: Ambient air quality study in the Norco community. Houston, TX.
40.
Wynne, B.1996. Misunderstood misunderstandings: social identities and public uptake of science. In Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology, eds., A. Irwin, and B. Wynne, 19-46. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
41.
Yearley, S., S. Cinderby, J. Forrester, P. Bailey, and P. Rosen.2003. Participatory modelling and the local governance of the politics of UK air pollution: A three-city case study. Environmental Values12 (2):247-62.
42.
Ziem, G.E., and B.I. Castleman.1989. Threshold limit values: Historical perspectives and current practice. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine31 (11):910-8.
43.
Zimmerman, A.S.2008. New knowledge from old data: The role of standards in the sharing and reuse of ecological data. Science, Technology, and Human Values33 (5):631-52.
