In contentious natural resource debates, the credibility of scientists is at risk. In this case study, citizens in contending communities and scientists in a forest management controversy constructed the scientists’ credibility differently. Shared values and views of the nature of science and objectivity were primary factors for constructing scientists’ credibility. Citizens who expected value-free, objective scientists to authenticate their knowledge were concerned about how the values of scientists on the opposite side affected research framing. Citizens who emphasized limited objectivity were less skeptical of scientists. Scientists acknowledged their values but defended their credibility in terms of professional standards, balance and resource constraints. In short, scientists’ credibility is relative because each individual has unique values and views of the nature of science and objectivity. Through a collaborative policymaking process, citizens and scientists should develop shared values and visions to reconstruct a temporary, intersubjective sense of credibility.
AllenG.M.GouldE.M. (1986) “Complexity, Wickedness, and Public Forests,” Journal of Forestry84(4): 20–3.
2.
AscherW. (2004) “Scientific Information and Uncertainty: Challenges for the Use of Science in Policymaking,” Science and Engineering Ethics10: 437–55.
3.
BarnesB. (2005) “The Credibility of Scientific Expertise in a Culture of Suspicion,” Interdisciplinary Science Reviews30(1): 11–18.
4.
BeecherN.HarrisonE.GoldsteinN.McDanielM.FieldP.SusskindL. (2005) “Risk Perception, Risk Communication, and Stakeholder Involvement for Biosolids Management and Research,” Journal of Environmental Quality34: 122–8.
5.
BenguiguiG. (1987) “The Scientist, the Fisherman and the Oyster Farmer,” in BlumeS.BundersJ.LeydesdorffL.WhitleyR. (eds) The Social Direction of the Public Sciences: Causes and Consequences of Co-operation between Scientists and Non-scientific Groups, pp. 117–33. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
6.
BradshawG.A.BorchersJ.G. (2000) “Uncertainty as Information: Narrowing the Science-Policy Gap,” Conservation Ecology4(1): 7. URL (consulted July 2008): http://www.consecol.org/vol4/iss1/art7/
7.
BrunnerR.SteelmanT.A. (2005) “Beyond Scientific Management,” in BrunnerR.SteelmanT.A.Coe-JuellL.CromleyC.M.EdwardsC.M.TuckerD.W.Adaptive Governance: Integrating Science, Policy, and Decision Making, pp. 1–46. New York: Columbia University Press.
8.
CashD.W.ClarkW.C.AlcockF.DicksonN.M.EckleyN.GustonD.H.JägerJ. (2003) “Knowledge Systems for Sustainable Development,” Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences USA100(14): 8086–91.
9.
CavanaghN.McDanielsT.AxelrodL.SlovicP. (2000) “Perceived Ecological Risks to Water Environments from Selected Forest Industry Activities,” Forest Science46(3): 344–55.
10.
ChengA.S.DanielsS.E. (2003) “Examining the Interaction between Geographic Scale and Ways of Knowing in Ecosystem Management: A Case Study of Place-based Collaborative Planning,” Forest Science49(6): 841–54.
ClarkT.W. (2002) The Policy Process: A Practical Guide for Natural Resource Professionals. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
13.
CollinsH.M.EvansR. (2002) “The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience,” Social Studies of Science32(2): 235–96.
14.
CorburnJ. (2005) Street Science: Community Knowledge and Environmental Health Justice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
15.
DaviesG.BurgessJ. (2004) “Challenging the ‘View from Nowhere’: Citizen Reflections on Specialist Expertise in a Deliberative Process,” Health and Place10(4): 349–61.
16.
DouglasH. (2004) “The Irreducible Complexity of Objectivity,” Synthese138: 453–73.
17.
EarleT.C.CvetkovichG.T. (1995) Social Trust: Toward a Cosmopolitan Society. Westport, CT: Praeger.
18.
EdenS. (1999) “‘We Have the Facts’: How Business Claims Legitimacy in the Environmental Debate,” Environment and Planning A31: 1295–309.
19.
EdenS.DonaldsonA.WalkerG. (2006) “Green Groups and Grey Areas: Scientific Boundary-Work, Nongovernmental Organisations, and Environmental Knowledge,” Environmental and Planning A38: 1061–76.
20.
EhrmannJ.R.StinsonB.L. (1999) “Joint Fact-Finding and the Use of Technical Experts,” in SusskindL.McKearnenS.Thomas-LarmerJ. (eds) The Consensus Building Handbook, pp. 375–99. London: SAGE Publications.
21.
FreudenburgW.R. (2008) “Rethinking the Threats to Scientific Balance in Contexts of Litigation and Regulation,” Environmental Health Perspectives116(1): 142–7.
22.
FrewerL.J.HowardC.HedderleyD.ShepherdR. (1996) “What Determines Trust in Information about Food-related Risks? Underlying Psychological Constructs,” Risk Analysis16(4): 473–86.
23.
FuntowiczS.O.RavetzJ.R. (1991) “A New Scientific Methodology for Global Environmental Issues,” in CostanzaR. (ed.) Ecological Economics, pp. 137–52. New York: Columbia University Press.
24.
GierynT.F. (1999) Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
25.
HarawayD. (1988) “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective,” Feminist Studies14(3): 575–99.
26.
HardingS. (1991) Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking from Women’s Lives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
27.
IrwinA. (1995) Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development. London: Routledge.
28.
JasanoffS. (1990) The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
29.
JasanoffS. (2003) “(No?) Accounting for Expertise,” Science and Public Policy30(3): 157–62.
30.
KarlH.A.SusskindL.E.WallaceK.H. (2007) “A Dialogue, Not a Diatribe: Effective Integration of Science and Policy through Joint Fact Finding,” Environment45(1): 20–34.
31.
KinchyA.J.KleinmanD.L. (2003) “Organizing Credibility: Discursive and Organizational Orthodoxy on the Borders of Ecology and Politics,” Social Studies of Science33(6): 869–96.
32.
KorfmacherK.S. (1998) “Invisible Successes, Visible Failures: Paradoxes of Ecosystem Management in the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study,” Coastal Management26: 191–211.
33.
KorfmacherK.S. (2001) “The Politics of Participation in Watershed Modeling,” Environmental Management27(2): 161–76.
34.
KorfmacherK.S. (2002) “Science and Ecosystem Management in the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study,” Ocean and Coastal Management45: 277–300.
35.
KreutzbergG.W. (2005) “Scientists and the Marketplace of Opinions,” EMBO Reports6(5): 393–6.
36.
LachD.ListP.SteelB.ShindlerB. (2003) “Advocacy and Credibility of Ecological Scientists in Resource Decisionmaking: A Regional Study,” BioScience53(2): 170–8.
37.
LachapelleP.R.McCoolS.F. (2005) “Exploring the Concept of ‘Ownership’ in Natural Resource Planning,” Society and Natural Resources18: 279–85.
38.
LackeyR.T. (2001) “Values, Policy, and Ecosystem Health,” BioScience51(6): 437–43.
39.
LackeyR.T. (2007) “Science, Scientists, and Policy Advocacy,” Conservation Biology21(1): 12–7.
40.
LonginoH.E. (2002) The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
41.
LuomaJ.R. (1997) “Whittling Dixie: Highly Automated ‘Supermills’ Are Devouring Vast Tracts of Hardwoods, as a New Kind of Forestry Slices through the Southland,” Audubon (Nov.–Dec.): 38–45, 97–100.
McComasK.A. (2001) “Public Meetings about Local Waste Management Problems: Comparing Participants to Nonparticipants,” Environmental Management27(1): 135–47.
44.
McCoolS.F.GuthrieK. (2001) “Mapping the Dimensions of Successful Public Participation in Messy Natural Resources Management Situations,” Society and Natural Resources14: 309–23.
45.
McCoolS.F.StankeyG.R. (2004) “Indicators of Sustainability: Challenges and Opportunities at the Interface of Science and Policy,” Environmental Management33(3): 294–305.
46.
McDanielsT.L.AxelrodL.J.CavanaghN.S.SlovicP. (1997) “Perception of Ecological Risk to Water Environments,” Risk Analysis17(3): 341–52.
47.
McDowellG.R. (2003) “Engaged Universities: Lessons from the Land-Grant Universities and Extension,” Annals, AAPSS585: 31–50.
48.
McFarlaneB.L. (2005) “Public Perception of Risk to Forest Biodiversity,” Risk Analysis25(3): 543–53.
49.
ManuelJ. (1999) “Do Wood Chip Mills Threaten the Sustainability of North Carolina Forests?,” North Carolina Insight18: 66–93.
50.
MertonR.K. (1968) “Science and Democratic Social Structure,” in Social Theory and Social Structure: 1968 Enlarged Edition, pp. 604–15. New York: The Free Press.
51.
MillsT.J.ClarkR.N. (2001) “Roles of Research Scientists in Natural Resource Decision-Making,” Forest Ecology and Management153: 189–98.
52.
National Research Council (1996) Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
53.
NielsenL.A. (2001) “Science and Advocacy are Different—And We Need to Keep Them That Way,” Human Dimensions of Wildlife6: 39–47.
54.
OzawaC.P. (1991) Recasting Science: Consensual Procedures in Public Policy Making. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
55.
OzawaC.P. (1996) “Science in Environmental Conflicts,” Sociological Perspectives39(2): 219–30.
56.
ParkinsJ.R.MitchellR.E. (2005) “Public Participation as Public Debate: A Deliberative Turn in Natural Resource Management,” Society and Natural Resources18: 529–40.
57.
PielkeR.A.Jr. (2004) “When Scientists Politicize Science: Making Sense of Controversy overThe Skeptical Environmentalist,” Environmental Science and Policy7: 405–17.
58.
PollakM.F. (2006) “Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Understanding,” in National Science Board (ed.) Science and Engineering Indicators 2006. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. URL (last accessed 10 May 2010): http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/c7/c7h.htm
59.
PomeroyD. (1993) “Implications of Teachers’ Beliefs about the Nature of Science: Comparison of the Beliefs of Scientists, Secondary Science Teachers, and Elementary Teachers,” Science Education77(3): 261–78.
RavetzJ. (2003) “Models as Metaphors,” in KasemirB.JägerJ.JaegerC.C.GardnerM.T. (eds) Public Participation in Sustainability Science: A Handbook, pp. 62–77. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
62.
RhoadsB.L.WilsonD.UrbanM.HerricksE.E. (1999) “Interaction between Scientists and Nonscientists in Community-based Watershed Management: Emergence of the Concept of Stream Naturalization,” Environmental Management24(3): 297–308.
63.
RykielE.J.Jr. (2001) “Scientific Objectivity, Value Systems, and Policymaking,” BioScience51(6): 433–6.
64.
SarewitzD. (2004) “How Science Makes Environmental Controversies Worse,” Environmental Science and Policy7(5): 385–403.
65.
ScottJ.M.RachlowJ.L.LackeyR.T.PidgornaA.B.AycriggJ.L.FeldmanG.R.SvancaraL.K.RuppD.A.StanishD.I.SteinhorstR.K. (2007) “Policy Advocacy in Science: Prevalence, Perspectives, and Implications for Conservation Biologists,” Conservation Biology21(1): 29–35.
66.
SiegristM.CvetkovichG. (2000) “Perception of Hazards: The Role of Social Trust and Knowledge,” Risk Analysis20(5): 713–19.
67.
SlovicP. (1999) “Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk-Assessment Battlefield,” Risk Analysis19(4): 689–701.
68.
SmithP.D.McDonoughM.H. (2001) “Beyond Public Participation: Fairness in Natural Resource Decision Making,” Society and Natural Resources14(3): 239–49.
69.
SteelB.ListP.LachD.ShindlerB. (2004) “The Role of Scientists in the Environmental Policy Process: A Case Study from the American West,” Environmental Science and Policy7: 1–13.
70.
SteelB.S.LachD.SatyalV.A. (2006) “Ideology and Scientific Credibility: Environmental Policy in the American Pacific Northwest,” Public Understanding of Science15: 481–95.
71.
StraussA.L.CorbinJ.M. (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 2nd edn.Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
72.
SusskindL.FieldP. (1996) Dealing with an Angry Public: The Mutual Gains Approach to Resolving Disputes. New York: The Free Press.
73.
TeshS. (1999) “Citizen Experts in Environmental Risk,” Policy Sciences32: 39–58.
74.
TytlerR.DugganS.GottR. (2001) “Public Participation in an Environmental Dispute: Implications for Science Education,” Public Understanding of Science10(4): 343–64.
75.
Van AsseltM.B.A.RotmansJ. (2003) “From Projects to Program in Integrated Assessment Research,” in KasemirB.JägerJ.JaegerC.C.GardnerM.T. (eds) Public Participation in Sustainability Science: A Handbook, pp. 215–27. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
76.
VogelJ.LowhamE. (2007) “Building Consensus for Constructive Action: A Study of Perspectives on Natural Resource Management,” Journal of Forestry105(1): 20–6.
77.
WagnerR.G.FlynnJ.GregoryR.MertzC.K.SlovicP. (1998) “Acceptable Practices in Ontario’s Forests: Differences between the Public and Forestry Professionals,” New Forests16: 139–54.
78.
WallingtonT.J.MooreS.A. (2005) “Ecology, Values, and Objectivity: Advancing the Debate,” 55(10): 873–8.
79.
WeberJ.M.WordC.S. (2001) “The Communication Process as Evaluative Context: What Do Nonscientists Hear When Scientists Speak?,” BioScience51(6): 487–95.
80.
WingS. (2003) “Objectivity and Ethics in Environmental Health Science,” Environmental Health Perspectives111(14): 1809–18.
81.
WynneB. (1991) “Knowledges in Context,” Science, Technology and Human Values16(1): 111–21.
82.
YearleyS. (1992) “Skills, Deals and Impartiality: The Sale of Environmental Consultancy Skills and Public Perceptions of Scientific Neutrality,” Social Studies of Science22(3): 435–53.
83.
YoungN.MatthewsR. (2007) “Experts’ Understanding of the Public: Knowledge Control in a Risk Controversy,” Public Understanding of Science16: 123–44.
