In States of Knowledge (2004), Sheila Jasanoff argues that we gain explanatory power by thinking of natural and social orders as being produced together, but she and her volume contributors do not yet offer a theory of the coproduction of scientific knowledge and social order. This article uses Mary Douglas’s cultural theory to identify four recurring states of knowledge and to specify political–cultural conditions for the coproduction of scientific knowledge, social order, and scientific, cultural, and policy change. The plausibility of this theory is illustrated by using it to explain the coproduction and transformation of forest and wildlife science and management in the Pacific Northwest.
BrownG.HarrisC. (1992a). “The U.S. Forest Service: Toward a New Resource Management Paradigm?”Society and Natural Resources, 5, 231–45.
2.
BrownG.HarrisC. (1992b). “The U.S. Forest Service: Changing of the Guard.”Society and Natural Resources, 32, 449–66.
3.
BrownG.HarrisC. (1993). “The Implications of U.S. Workforce Diversification in the U.S. Forest Service.”Administration and Society, 25, 85–113.
4.
ChaseA. (1995). In a Dark Wood: The Fight Over Forests and the Rising Tyranny of Ecology. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
5.
CortnerH. J.MooteM. A. (1999). The Politics of Ecosystem Management. Washington, DC: Island Press.
6.
CoyleD. J. (1994). “This Land is My Land, This Land is Your Land: Cultural Conflict in Environmental and Land Use Regulation.” In Politics, Policy, and Culture Edited by CoyleD. J.EllisR. J.33–50. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
7.
CozzensS. E.GierynT. F. eds. (1990). Theories of Science in Society. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
8.
DouglasM. (1986). How Institutions Think. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
9.
DouglasM.WildavskyA. (1983). Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technical and Environmental Dangers. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
10.
EllisR. J.ThompsonF. (1997). “Culture and the Environment in the Pacific Northwest.”American Political Science Review, 91, 885–97.
11.
FarnhamT. J. (1995). “Forest Service Budget Requests and Appropriations: What do Analyses of Trends Reveal?”Policy Studies Journal, 23, 253–67.
12.
FarnhamT. J.MohaiP. (1995). “National Forest Timber Management Over the Past Decade: A Change in Emphasis for the Forest Service?”Policy Studies Journal, 23, 268–80.
13.
FarnhamT. J.TaylorC. P.CallawayW. (1995). “A Shift in Values: Non-Commodity Resource Management and the Forest Service.”Policy Studies Journal, 23, 281–95.
14.
FitzsimmonsA. K. (1999). Defending Illusions: Federal Protection of Ecosystems. New York, NY: Rowan and Littlefield.
15.
Forest Ecosystem Management Team (FEMAT). 1993. Forest Ecosystem Management: An Ecological, Economic, and Social Assessment. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service; Bureau of Land Management; National Park Service; Environmental Protection Agency; U.S. Department of Commerce; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; National Marine Fisheries Service.
16.
FranklinJ. F.CromackK.DenisonW.McKeeA.MaserC.SedellJ.SwansonF.JudayG.1981. Ecological Characteristics of Old-Growth Douglas-Fir Forests. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, General Technical Report PNW 118, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station.
17.
FreemanR. (2002). “The Ecofactory: The United States Forest Service and the Political Construction of Ecosystem Management.”Environmental History, 7, 632–58.
18.
HammittJ. K.WienerJ. B.SwedlowB.KallD.ZhouZ.2005. “Precautionary Regulation in Europe and the United States: A Quantitative Comparison.”Risk Analysis25:1215–1228.
19.
JasanoffS. ed. 2004. States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order. London: Routledge.
20.
JasanoffS.WynneB. (1998). “Science and Decisionmaking.” In Human Choice and Climate Change, Vol. 1, The Societal Framework Edited by RaynerS.MaloneE.1–87. Columbus, OH: Batelle Press.
21.
JensenL. (1999). “Images of Democracy in Danish Social Housing.” In Cultural Theory as Political Science Edited by ThompsonM.GrendstadG.SelleP.167–80. London: Routledge.
22.
JonesE. S.TaylorC. P. (1995). “Litigating Agency Change: The Impact of the Courts and Administrative Appeals Process on the Forest Service.”Policy Studies Journal, 23, 310–36.
23.
JonesE. S.CallawayW. (1995). “Neutral Bystander, Intrusive Micromanager, or Useful Catalyst? The Role of Congress in Effecting Change Within the Forest Service.”Policy Studies Journal, 23, 337–50.
24.
KaufmanH. (1960). The Forest Ranger: A Study in Administrative Behavior. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press.
25.
KempR.RotmansJ. (2009). “Transitioning Policy: Co-Production of a New Strategic Framework for Innovation Policy in the Netherlands.”Policy Sciences, 42, 303–22.
26.
KennedyJ. J. (1991). “Integrating Gender Diverse and Interdisciplinary Professionals into Traditional Department of Agriculture-Forest Service culture.”Society and Natural Resources, 4, 165–76.
27.
KennedyJ. J.KrannichR. S.QuigleyT. M.CramerL. A.1993 (November). “Employee Perceptions of USDA-Forest Service Values and the Agency Reward System.” Paper presented at the 1993 Society of American Foresters’ Annual Convention, Indianapolis, IN.
28.
LaFolletteC. (1979). Saving all the Pieces: Old-Growth Forests in Oregon. Corvallis, OR. Oregon Student Public Interest Research Group.
29.
LandeR. (1988). “Demographic Models of the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina).”Oecologia, 75, 601–07.
30.
LockhartC. (1997). “Political Culture and Political Change.” In Culture Matters: Essays in Honor of Aaron Wildavsky Edited by EllisR. J.ThompsonM.91–104. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
31.
LuomaJ. R. (1999). The Hidden Forest: The Biography of an Ecosystem. New York, NY: Henry Holt.
32.
MartelloM. L. (2004). “Expert Advice and Desertification Policy: Past Experience and Current Challenges.”Global Environmental Politics, 4, 85–106.
33.
McCarthyC.SabatierP.LoomisJ.1991 (March). “Attitudinal Change in the Forest Service: 1960-1990.” Paper presented at the 1991 Annual Meeting of the Western Political Science Association, Seattle, WA.
34.
MillerC. A.EdwardsP.2001. Changing the Atmosphere: Expert Knowledge and Environmental Governance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
35.
PokornyB.SchanzH. (2003). “Empirical Determination of Political Cultures as a Basis for Effective Coordination of Forest Management Systems.”Society and Natural Resources, 16, 887–908.
36.
ReardonJ.2001. “The Human Genome Diversity Project: A Case Study in Coproduction.”Social Studies of Science31:357-388.
37.
SabatierP. A.LoomisJ.McCarthyC. (1995). “Hierarchical Controls, Professional Norms, Local Constituencies, and Budget Maximization: An Analysis of U.S. Forest Service Planning Decisions.”American Journal of Political Science, 39, 204–42.
38.
SchrepferS. R. (1983). The Fight to Save the Redwoods: A History of Environmental Reform, 1917-1978. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
39.
SchwarzM.ThompsonM. (1990). Divided We Stand: Redefining Politics, Technology, and Social Choice. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
40.
ShapinS. (1992). “Discipline and Bounding: The History and Sociology of Science as Seen Through the Externalism-Internalism Debate.”History of Science, 30, 333–69.
41.
SherV. M. (1993). “Travels With Strix: The Spotted Owl’s Journey Through the Federal Courts.”Public Land Law Review, 14, 41–79.
42.
SouléM. E. (1985). “What is Conservation Biology?”Bioscience, 35, 727–34.
43.
SwedlowB.2001. “Postscript: Aaron Wildavsky, Cultural Theory, and Budgeting.” In WildavskyA.Budgeting and Governing, Edited by SwedlowB.335–357. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
44.
SwedlowB.2002a. Scientists, Judges, and Spotted Owls: Policymakers in the Pacific Northwest. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. University of California, Berkeley.
45.
SwedlowB.2002b. “Toward Cultural Analysis in Policy Analysis: Picking up Where Aaron Wildavsky Left Off.”Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis4:267–285.
46.
SwedlowB.2003. “Scientists, Judges, and Spotted Owls: Policymakers in the Pacific Northwest.”Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum8:187–278.
47.
SwedlowB.2006a. “Introduction.” In WildavskyA.2006a, xi–xli.
48.
SwedlowB.2006b. “Science in the Regulatory Process: Studying a Representative Sample of U.S. and European Cases.”STEP AHEAD4:9-10.
49.
SwedlowB.2007. “Using the Boundaries of Science to do Boundary-work among Scientists: Pollution and Purity Claims.”Science and Public Policy34:633-643.
50.
SwedlowB.2008. “Beyond Liberal and Conservative: Two-Dimensional Conceptions of Ideology and the Structure of Political Attitudes and Values.”Journal of Political Ideologies13:155–178.
51.
SwedlowB.2009. “Reason for Hope? The Spotted Owl Injunctions and Policy Change.”Law & Social Inquiry34:825–867.
52.
SwedlowB.KallD.ZhouZ.HammittJ. K.WienerJ. B.2009. “Theorizing and Generalizing about Risk Assessment and Regulation through Comparative Nested Analysis of Representative Cases.”Law & Policy31:236–269.
53.
SwedlowB.KallD.ZhouZ.HammittJ. K.WienerJ. B.2010. “Precautionary Regulation in Europe and the United States: A Comparative Analysis of 100 Representative Risks, 1970-2004.” In The Reality of Precaution: Comparing Risk Regulation in the United States and Europe, Edited by WienerJonathan B.RogersMichael D.HammittJames K.SandPeter H.Washington, DC: Resources for the Future Press.
54.
ThomasJ. C.MohaiP. (1995). “Racial, Gender, and Professional Diversification in the Forest Service from 1983 to 1992.”Policy Studies Journal, 23, 296–309.
55.
ThomasJ. W.ForsmanE. D.LintJ. B.MeslowE. C.NoonB. R.VernerJ. (1990). A Conservation Strategy for the Northern Spotted Owl. Portland, OR: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management; United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service; United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service.
56.
ThompsonM.EllisR.WildavskyA. (1990). Cultural Theory. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
57.
TippleT. J.WellmanJ. D. (1991). “Herbert Kaufman’s The Forest Ranger Thirty Years Later: From Simplicity and Homogeneity to Complexity and Diversity.”Public Administration Review, 51, 421–28.
58.
TuinstraW. (2008). “European Air Pollution Assessments: Co-Production of Science and Policy.”International Environmental Agreements, 8, 35–49.
59.
TuinstraW.HordijkL.KroezeC. (2006). “Moving Boundaries in Transboundary Air Pollution: Co-Production of Science and Policy Under the Convention of Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution.”Global Environmental Change, 16, 349–63.
60.
VerweijM.ThompsonM. eds. 2006. Clumsy Solutions for a Complex World: Governance, Politics, and Plural Perceptions. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan.
61.
WildavskyA. (2006a). Cultural Analysis: Politics, Public Law, and Administration, Edited by SwedlowB.New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
62.
WildavskyA.(1986) 2006b. “Industrial Policies in American Political Cultures.” In Cultural Analysis: Politics, Public Law, and Administration, Edited by SwedlowB.89-108. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
63.
WildavskyA.(1995) 2006c. “Change in Political Culture.” In Cultural Analysis: Politics, Public Law, and Administration, Edited by SwedlowB.203–19. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
64.
YaffeeS. L. (1994). The Wisdom of the Spotted Owl: Policy Lessons for a New Century. Washington, DC: Island Press.
