Agarwal, B. (2001). Participatory Exclusions, Community Forestry, and Gender: An Analysis for South Asia and a Conceptual Framework. World Development, 29(10), 1623–1648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Agrawala, S. (1998). Structural and Process History of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climatic Change, 39, 621–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Allum, N., Sturgis, P., Tabourazi, D., and Brunton-Smith, I.. (2008). Science Knowledge and Attitudes across Cultures: A Meta-analysis. Public Understanding of Science, 17, 35–54.Google Scholar

Anderson, E. (2006). The Epistemology of Democracy. Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology, 3(1–2), 8–22.Google Scholar

Arendt, H. (1958). What Was Authority? In Friedrich, C. J., ed., Authority. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 81–112.Google Scholar

Arendt, H. (2006). Between Past and Future. London: Penguin.Google Scholar

Aristotle, . (1984). Rhetoric. In Barnes, J., ed., The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation, vol. 2. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Aristotle, . (1996). The Politics and the Constitution of Athens. Ed. Everson, Stephen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224.Google Scholar

Bächtiger, A. (2014). On Perfecting the Deliberative Process: The (Essential) Virtues and (Non-Negligible) Vices of Contestation. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar

Bächtiger, A., Niemeyer, S., Neblo, M., Steenbergen, M. R., and Steiner, J.. (2010). Disentangling Diversity in Deliberative Democracy: Competing Theories, Their Blind Spots and Complementarities. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 18(1), 32–63.Google Scholar

Barben, D., Fisher, E., Selin, C., and Guston, D. H.. (2008). Anticipatory Governance of Nanotechnology: Foresight, Engagement, and Integration. In Hackett, E. J., Amsterdamska, O., Lynch, M., and Wajcman, J., eds., The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, Third Edition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 979–1000.Google Scholar

Barber, B. (1984). Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Barnes, B., and Edge, D., eds. (1982). Science in Context: Readings in the Sociology of Science. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Barnett, A., and Carty, P.. (2008). The Athenian Option: Radical Reform for the House of Lords. Exeter: Imprint Academic.Google Scholar

Bauer, M., Allum, N., and Miller, S.. (2007). What Can We Learn from 25 Years of PUS Survey Research? Liberating and Expanding the Agenda. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 79–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beatty, J. (2006). Masking Disagreement among Scientific Experts. Episteme, 3, 52–67.Google Scholar

Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi.Google Scholar

Benhabib, S. (1996). Toward a Deliberative Model of Democratic Legitimacy. In Benhabib, S., ed., Democracy and Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Bohman, J. (1996) Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity, and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Bohman, J. (1998). Survey Article: The Coming of Age of Deliberative Democracy. Journal of Political Philosophy, 6(4), 400–425.Google Scholar

Bohman, J. (1999). Democracy as Inquiry, Inquiry as Democratic: Pragmatism, Social Science, and the Cognitive Division of Labor. American Journal of Political Science, 43(2), 590–607.Google Scholar

Bohman, J. (2005a). Legitimate Institutions for Democratic Renewal: Constitutional, Democratic, and Deliberative. Paper presented to the Citizen-Designed Democratic Processes Workshop, Peter Wall Institute, University of British Columbia. 10–11 June.Google Scholar

Bohman, J. (2005b). From Demos to Demoi: Democracy Across Borders. Ratio Juris, 18, 293–314.Google Scholar

Bohman, J. (2006). Deliberative Democracy and the Epistemic Benefits of Diversity. Episteme, 3(3), 175–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bohman, J., and Richardson, H. S.. (2009). Liberalism, Deliberative Democracy, and ‘Reasons that All Can Accept’. Journal of Political Philosophy, 17(3), 253–274.Google Scholar

Bouvier, A. (2010). Passive Consensus and Active Commitment in the Sciences. Episteme, 7(3), 185–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Braun, K., and Schultz, S.. (2010). ‘… a certain amount of engineering involved’: Constructing the Public in Participatory Governance Arrangements. Public Understanding of Science, 19(4), 403–419.Google Scholar

Brewer, S. (1998). Scientific Expert Testimony and Intellectual Due Process. Yale Law Journal, 107, 1535–1679.Google Scholar

Brown, M. B. (2008). Fairly Balanced: The Politics of Representation on Government Advisory Committees. Political Research Quarterly, 61(4), 547–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brown, M. B. (2009). Science in Democracy: Expertise, Institutions and Representation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Brown, M. B. (2013). Review of Philip Kitcher, Science in a Democratic Society. Minerva, 51, 389–397.Google Scholar

Brown, M. B. (2014). Expertise and Deliberative Democracy. In Elstub, S. and McLaverty, P., eds., Deliberative Democracy: Issues and Cases. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 50–68.Google Scholar

Brown, M. B. (2015). Politicizing Science: Conceptions of Politics in Science and Technology Studies. Social Studies of Science, 45(1), 3–30.Google Scholar

Brown, P. (1992). Popular Epidemiology and Toxic Waste Contamination: Lay and Professional Ways of Knowing. Journal of Health and Social Behaviour, 33(3), 267–281.Google Scholar

Brown, P., Zavestoski, S., McCormick, S., Mayer, B., Morello-Frosch, R., and Altman, R. Gasior. (2004). Embodied Health Movements: New Approaches to Social Movements in Health. Sociology of Health & Illness, 26, 50–80.Google Scholar

Bucchi, M. (1998). Of Deficits, Deviations and Dialogues: Theories of Public Communication of Science. In Bucchi, M. and Trench, B., (eds.), Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, pp. 57–76.Google Scholar

Bucchi, M. (2009). Beyond Technocracy: Science, Politics and Citizens. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Burgess, M. (2011). Full Circle: The Emphasis on Trustworthy Expertise in Public Deliberations on Biotechnology. Paper presented at workshop on Scientific Authority in Democratic Societies, Peter Wall Institute, University of British Columbia, 27–28 June.Google Scholar

Bush, V. (1945). A Report to the President by Vannevar Bush, Director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development. Washington: United States Government Printing Office.Google Scholar

Callon, M. (1999). The Role of Lay People in the Production and Dissemination of Scientific Knowledge. Science, Technology & Society, 4(1), 81–94.Google Scholar

Callon, M., Lascoumes, P., and Barthe, Y.. (2009). Acting in an Uncertain World: An Essay on Technical Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chambers, S. (2004). Behind Closed Doors: Publicity, Secrecy and the Quality of Deliberation. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 12(4), 389–410.Google Scholar

Christiano, T. (2012). Rational Deliberation among Experts and Citizens. In Parkinson, J. and Mansbridge, J., eds., Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 27–51.Google Scholar

Cohen, J. (1989). Belief and Acceptance. Mind, 98, 367–389.Google Scholar

Cohen, J. (1992). An Essay on Belief and Acceptance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Cohen, J. (1997 [1989]). Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy. In Bohman, J. and Rehg, W., eds., Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 67–92.Google Scholar

Cohen, J. (2009). Reflections on Deliberative Democracy. In Christiano, T. and Christman, J., eds., Contemporary Debates in Political Philosophy. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 247–264.Google Scholar

Collins, H., and Evans, R.. (2007). Rethinking Expertise. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Cooke, M. (1994). Language and Reason: A Study of Habermas’s Pragmatics. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Crouch, C. (2004). Post-Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Cutler, F., Johnston, R., Carty, R. K., Blais, A., and Fournier, P.. (2008). Deliberation, Information, and Trust: The British Columbia Citizens’ Assembly as Agenda Setter. In Warren, M. E. and Pearse, H., eds., Designing Deliberative Democracy: The British Columbia Citizen’s Assembly. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Dahan-Dalmedico, A. (2008). Climate Expertise: Between Scientific Credibility and Geopolitical Imperatives. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 33(1), 71–81.Google Scholar

Dahl, R. (1970). After the Revolution: Authority in a Good Society. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Dahl, R. (1985). Controlling Nuclear Weapons: Democracy Versus Guardianship. Syracuse, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar

Dahl, R. (1989). Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

de Vries, G. (2007). What Is Political in Sub-politics?: How Aristotle Might Help STS. Social Studies of Science, 37(5), 781–809.Google Scholar

Delannoi, G., and Dowlen, O.. (2010). Sortition: Theory and Practice. Exeter: Imprint Academic.Google Scholar

Dewey, J. (1927). The Public and Its Problems. Chicago: The Swallow Press.Google Scholar

Dewey, J. (1981a). Authority and Social Change. In Boydston, J. A., ed., John Dewey, The Later Works: 1925–1953, Vol. 11. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, pp. 130–145.Google Scholar

Dewey, J. (1981b). Creative Democracy – The Task Before Us. In Boydston, J. A., ed., John Dewey, The Later Works: 1925–1953, Vol. 14. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar

Donner, W. (2007). John Stuart Mill on Education and Democracy. In Urbinati, N. and Zakaras, A., eds., J. S. Mill’s Political Thought: A Bicentennial Reassessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 250–274.Google Scholar

Douglas, H. E. (2009). Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal. Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Dowlen, O. (2009). The Political Potential of Sortition: A Study of the Random Selection of Citizens for Public Office. Exeter: Imprint Academic.Google Scholar

Dryzek, J. S. (2000). Deliberative Democracy and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Dryzek, J. S. (2010). Foundations and Frontiers of Deliberative Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Dryzek, J. S., and Niemeyer, S., (2006). Reconciling Pluralism and Consensus as Political Ideals. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 634–649.Google Scholar

Durant, D. (2011) Models of Democracy in Social Studies of Science. Social Studies of Science, 41(5), 691–714.Google Scholar

Durant, J., Evans, G., and Thomas, P., (1989). The Public Understanding of Science. Nature, 340, 11–14.Google Scholar

Dzur, A. W. (2012). Four Theses on Participatory Democracy: Toward the Rational Disorganization of Government Institutions. Constellations, 19(2): 305–324.Google Scholar

Dzur, A. W., and Levin, D. L.. (2007). The Primacy of the Public: In Support of Bioethics Commissions as Deliberative Forums. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 17(2), 133–142.Google Scholar

Elster, J., ed. (1998). Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Epstein, S. (1996). Impure Science: AIDS, Activism and the Politics of Knowledge. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Estlund, D. (1993). Making Truth Safe for Democracy. In Copp, D., Hampton, J., and Roemer, J. E., eds., The Idea of Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 71–100.Google Scholar

Estlund, D. (2008). Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Evans, G., and Durant, J.. (1995). The Relationship between Knowledge and Attitudes in the Public Understanding of Science in Britain. Public Understanding of Science, 3, 57–74.Google Scholar

Ezrahi, Y. (1971). The Political Resources of American Science. Science Studies, 1, 117–133.Google Scholar

Ezrahi, Y. (1990). The Descent of Icarus: Science and the Transformation of Contemporary Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Felt, U., and Wynne, B.. (2007). Taking European Knowledge Society Seriously. Report of the Expert Group on Science and Governance to the Science, Economy and Society Directorate. Directorate General for Research, European Commission.Google Scholar

Ferejohn, J. (2008). Conclusion: The Citizens’ Assembly Model. In Warren, M. E. and Pearse, H., eds., Designing Deliberative Democracy: The British Columbia Citizen’s Assembly. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 192–213.Google Scholar

Fiorino, D. J. (1990). Citizen Participation and Environmental Risk: A Survey of Institutional Mechanisms. Science, Technology & Human Values, 15(2), 226–243.Google Scholar

Fischer, F. (2000). Citizens, Experts and the Environment: The Politics of Local Knowledge. Durham and London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar

Fischer, F. (2009). Democracy and Expertise: Reorienting Policy Inquiry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fishkin, J. S. (1997). The Voice of the People. Public Opinion and Democracy. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Fishkin, J. S. (2009). When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Fishkin, J. S., and Luskin, R. C.. (2005). Experimenting with a Democratic Ideal: Deliberative Polling and Public Opinion. Acta Politica, 40(3), 284–298.Google Scholar

Fishkin, J. S., He, B., Luskin, R. C., and Siu, A.. (2010). Deliberation in an Unlikely Place: Deliberative Polling in China. British Journal of Political Science, 40(2), 435–448.Google Scholar

Flathman, R. E. (1980). The Practice of Political Authority: Authority and the Authoritative. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Fournier, P., van der Kolk, H., Carty, R. K., Blais, A., and Rose, J.. (2011). When Citizens Decide: Lessons from Citizens’ Assemblies on Electoral Reform. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Fox Keller, E. (2011). What Are Climate Scientists to Do? Spontaneous Generations: A Journal for the History and Philosophy of Science, 5(1), 19–26.Google Scholar

Fraser, N. (1990). Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy. Social Text, 25/26, 56–80.Google Scholar

Freudenburg, W. R., and Muselli, V.. (2013). Reexamining Climate Change Debates: Scientific Disagreement or Scientific Certainty Argumentation Methods (SCAMs)? American Behavioural Scientist 57(6), 777–795.Google Scholar

Fricker, M. (1998). Rational Authority and Social Power: Towards a Truly Social Epistemology. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series, 98, 159–177.Google Scholar

Friedman, R. B. (1990). On the Concept of Authority in Political Philosophy. In Raz, J., ed., Authority. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 56–91.Google Scholar

Friedrich, C. J. (1958). Authority, Reason and Discretion. In Friedrich, C. J., ed., Authority. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 27–48.Google Scholar

Fuerstein, M. (2014). Democratic Consensus as an Essential By-product. Journal of Political Philosophy, 22(3), 282–301.Google Scholar

Fuller, S. (1988). Social Epistemology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

Fuller, S. (2000). The Governance of Science: Ideology and the Future of the Open Society. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar

Fung, A. (2003). Recipes for Public Spheres: Eight Institutional Choices and Their Consequences. Journal of Political Philosophy, 11: 338–367.Google Scholar

Fung, A., and Wright, E. O., eds. (2003). Deepening Democracy: Institutional Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance. London: Verso.Google Scholar

Gastil, J., Richards, R. C., and Knobloch, K. R. (2014). Vicarious Deliberation: How the Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review Influenced Deliberation in Mass Elections. International Journal of Communication, 8, 62–89.Google Scholar

Gauchat, G. (2012). Politicization of Science in the Public Sphere: A Study of Public Trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010. American Sociological Review, 77(2), 167–187.Google Scholar

Geuss, R. (1981). The Idea of a Critical Theory: Habermas and the Frankfurt School. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Gieryn, T. F. (1983). Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists. American Sociological Review, 48(6), 781–795.Google Scholar

Gieryn, T. F. (1999). Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Gilbert, M. (1987). Modelling Collective Belief. Synthese, 73(1), 185–204.Google Scholar

Gilbert, M. (1989). On Social Facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Gilbert, M. (1996). Modelling Collective Belief. In Living Together: Rationality, Sociality, and Obligation. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 195–214.Google Scholar

Gilbert, M. (2006). A Theory of Political Obligation: Membership, Commitment, and the Bonds of Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goldman, A. I. (1999). Knowledge in a Social World. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Goldman, A. I. (2006). Experts: Which Ones Should You Trust? In Crease, R. P. and Selinger, E., eds., The Philosophy of Expertise. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 14–38.Google Scholar

Goodin, R. E. (2005). Sequencing Deliberative Moments. Acta Politica, 40, 182–196.Google Scholar

Goodin, R. E. (2006). Talking Politics: Perils and Promise. European Journal of Political Research, 45(2), 235–261.Google Scholar

Goodin, R. E. (2008). Innovating Democracy: Democratic Theory and Practice After the Deliberative Turn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Green, J. (2010). The Eyes of the People: Democracy in an Age of Spectatorship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Greenberg, D. (2001). Science, Money, and Politics: Political Triumph and Ethical Erosion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Gunnarsson, L. (1994). Diskurs ohne Konsens. Deutsche Zeitschrift fur Philosophie, 42(2), 324–325.Google Scholar

Guston, D. H. (1999). Evaluating the First U.S. Consensus Conference: The Impact of the Citizen’s Panel on Telecommunications and the Future of Democracy. Science, Technology & Human Values, 24, 451–482.Google Scholar

Guston, D. H. (2001). Boundary Organizations in Environmental Policy and Science: An Introduction. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 26(4), 399–408.Google Scholar

Guston, D. H. (2005). On Consensus and Voting in Science: From Asilomar to the National Toxicology Program. In Frickel, S. and Moore, K., eds., The New Political Sociology of Science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, pp. 378–404.Google Scholar

Gutmann, A., and Thompson, D.. (1996). Democracy and Disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Gutmann, A., and Thompson, D.. (2004). Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Habermas, J. (1971a). Knowledge and Human Interests. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar

Habermas, J. (1971b). Toward a Rational Society: Protest, Science, and Politics. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar

Habermas, J. (1974). Theory and Practice. Trans. Viertel, John. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar

Habermas, J. (1981). The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume One: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Trans. McCarthy, Thomas. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar

Habermas, J. (1994). Three Normative Models of Democracy. Constellations, 1(1), 1–10.Google Scholar

Habermas, J. (1996). Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Trans. Rehg, William. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Habermas, J. (1997). Popular Sovereignty as Procedure. In Bohman, J. and Rehg, W., eds., Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 35–66.Google Scholar

Hajer, M. (2009). Authoritative Governance: Policy Making in the Age of Mediatization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hajer, M. (2011). Inside the Science-Policy Interface: Reflections of a Deliberative Practitioner. Paper presented at workshop on Scientific Authority in Democratic Societies, Peter Wall Institute, University of British Columbia. 27–28 June.Google Scholar

Hajer, M., and Wagenaar, H. (2003). Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hansen, J. E. (2007). Scientific Reticence and Sea Level Rise. Environmental Research Letters, 2(2), 1–6.Google Scholar

Hansen, M. H. (1999). The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes. University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar

Hansen, M. H. (2013). Reflections on Aristotle’s Politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Hardwig, J. (1985). Epistemic Dependence. Journal of Philosophy, 82, 335–349.Google Scholar

Hardwig, J. (1994). Toward an Ethics of Expertise. In Wuste, D. E., ed., Professional Ethics and Social Responsibility. New York: Rowan and Littlefield.Google Scholar

Haskell, T. L. (1984). Introduction. In Haskell, T. L., ed., The Authority of Experts: Studies in History and Theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. ix–xxxix.Google Scholar

Haskell, T. L. (1998). Objectivity Is Not Neutrality: Explanatory Schemes in History. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

He, B., and Warren, M. E.. (2011). Authoritarian Deliberation: The Deliberative Turn in Chinese Political Development. Perspectives on Politics, 9(2), 269–289.Google Scholar

Hermet, G. (2007). L’hiver de la Démocratie ou le Nouveau Régime. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar

Hibbing, J. R., and Theiss-Morse, E.. (2002). Stealth Democracy: Americans’ Beliefs about How Government Should Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hilgartner, S. (1990) The Dominant View of Popularization: Conceptual Problems, Political Uses. Social Studies of Science, 20(3), 519–539.Google Scholar

Hobbes, T. (1968 [1651]). Leviathan. Harmondsworth: Pelican Books.Google Scholar

Hoggan, J. (2009). Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming. Vancouver/Toronto/Berkeley: Greystone Books.Google Scholar

Hong, L., and Page, S. E.. (2001). Problem Solving by Heterogeneous Agents. Journal of Economic Theory, 97(1), 123–163.Google Scholar

Hong, L., and Page, S. E.. (2004). Groups of Diverse Problem Solvers Can Outperform Groups of High-Ability Problem Solvers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, 101(46), 16385–16389.Google Scholar

Hulme, M. (2009). Why We Disagree about Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hulme, M. (2013). Does Science Need to Be Consensual to Be Authoritative?Google Scholar

Hulme, M., and Mahony, M.. (2010). Climate Change: What Do We Know about the IPCC? Progress in Physical Geography, 34(5), 705–718.Google Scholar

Hulme, M., and Ravetz, J.. (2009). Show Your Working: What ‘Climategate’ Means. BBC News, 1 Dec. Available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8388485.stm.Google Scholar

Inhofe, J. (2012). The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future. Washington, DC: WND Books.Google Scholar

Janis, I. L. (1982 [1972]). Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar

Jasanoff, S. (1990). The Fifth Branch: Scientific Advisors as Policy Makers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Jasanoff, S. (2003). Technologies of Humility: Citizen Participation in Governing Science. Minerva, 41, 223–244.Google Scholar

Jasanoff, S. (2005a). Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Jasanoff, S. (2005b). ‘Let them eat cake’: GM Foods and the Democratic Imagination. In Leach, M., Scoones, I., and Wynne, B. eds., Science and Citizenship: Globalization and the Challenge of Engagement. London and New York: Zed Books, pp. 183–198.Google Scholar

Kadlec, A., and Friedman, W.. (2007). Deliberative Democracy and the Problem of Power. Journal of Public Deliberation, 3(2), Article 8: 1–26.Google Scholar

Kahan, D., Wittlin, M., Peters, E., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L., Braman, D., and Mandel, G. N.. (2011). The Tragedy of the Risk-Perception Commons: Culture Conflict, Rationality Conflict, and Climate Change. Yale Law School, Public Law Working Paper No. 230.Google Scholar

Kantrowitz, A. (1967). Proposal for an Institution for Scientific Judgment. Science, 156, 763–764.Google Scholar

Kantrowitz, A. (1976). The Science Court Experiment: An Interim Report. Science, 193, 653–656.Google Scholar

Kappel, K. (2008). Liberal Democracy and Epistemic Neutrality. Paper presented at the conference Epistemological Conceptions of the Open Society, University of Edinburgh, 8 April.Google Scholar

Karinen, R., and Guston, D. H.. (2009). Toward Anticipatory Governance: The Experience with Nanotechnology. In Kaiser, M., Kurath, M., Maasen, S., and Rehmann-Sutter, C., eds., Governing Future Technologies: Nanotechnology and the Rise of an Assessment Regime. Berlin: Springer, pp. 217–232.Google Scholar

Keane, J. (2009). The Life and Death of Democracy. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar

Kerr, R. A. (2007). Pushing the Scary Side of Global Warming. Nature, 316, 1412–1415.Google Scholar

King, A., and Crewe, I.. (2013). The Blunders of Our Governments. London: Oneworld Publications.Google Scholar

Kitcher, P. (2001). Science, Truth and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Kitcher, P. (2011). Science in a Democratic Society. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Press.Google Scholar

Kleinman, D. L., Delborne, J. A., and Anderson, A. A.. (2011). Engaging Citizens: The High Cost of Citizen Participation in High Technology. Public Understanding of Science, 20(2), 221–240.Google Scholar

Knight, J., and Johnson, J.. (1997). What Sort of Equality Does Deliberative Democracy Require? In Bohman, J. and Rehg, W., eds., Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 279–320.Google Scholar

Knight, J., and Johnson, J.. (2011). The Priority of Democracy: Political Consequences of Pragmatism. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Knobloch, K., Gastil, J., Reedy, J., and Walsh, K. Cramer. (2013). Did They Deliberate? Applying an Evaluative Model of Democratic Deliberation to the Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review. Journal of Applied Communications Research, 41(2), 105–125.Google Scholar

Kuklinski, J. H., Quirk, P. J., Jerit, J., Schwieder, D., and Rich, R. F.. (2000). Misinformation and the Currency of Democratic Citizenship. Journal of Politics, 62(3), 790–816.Google Scholar

Kuran, T. (1997). Private Truths, Public Lies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Lafont, C. (2015). Deliberation, Participation, and Democratic Legitimacy: Should Deliberative Mini-publics Shape Public Policy? Journal of Political Philosophy, 32(1), 40–63.Google Scholar

Lahsen, M. (1999). The Detection and Attribution of Conspiracies: The Controversy over Chapter 8. In Marcus, G. E., ed., Paranoia Within Reason: A Casebook on Conspiracy as Explanation. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 111–136.Google Scholar

Landemore, H. (2013). Democratic Reason: Politics, Collective Intelligence, and the Rule of the Many. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Lane, M. (2011). When the Experts Are Uncertain: Scientific Knowledge and the Ethics of Democratic Judgment. Paper presented at the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, Harvard University, 1 December.Google Scholar

Lang, A. (2008). Agenda-Setting in Deliberative Forums: Expert Influence and Citizen Autonomy in the British Columbia Citizens’ Assembly. In Warren, M. E. and Pearse, H., eds., Designing Deliberative Democracy: The British Columbia Citizen’s Assembly. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 85–105.Google Scholar

Laski, H. (1931). The Limitations of the Experts. Fabian tract 235. London: The Fabian Society.Google Scholar

Latour, B. (1991). The Impact of Science Studies on Political Philosophy. Science, Technology & Human Values, 16(1), 3–19.Google Scholar

Latour, B. (2003). What If We Talked Politics a Little? Contemporary Political Theory, 2(2), 143–164.Google Scholar

Latour, B. (2004a). The Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Latour, B. (2004b). Why Has Critique Run Out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern. Critical Inquiry, 30(2), 225–248.Google Scholar

Latour, B. (2007). Turning Around Politics: A Note on Gerard de Vries’s Paper. Social Studies of Science, 37(5), 811–820.Google Scholar

Leib, E. J. (2004). Deliberative Democracy in America: A Proposal for a Popular Branch of Government. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar

Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., and Hmielowski, J. D.. (2011). Politics and Global Warming: Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and the Tea Party. Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/PoliticsGlobalWarming2011.pdf.Google Scholar

Lewandowsky, S., Oberauer, K., and Gignac, G.. (2013a). Nasa Faked the Moon Landing–Therefore (Climate) Science Is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science. Psychological Science, 5, 622–633.Google Scholar

Lewandowsky, S., Mann, M. E., Bauld, L., Hastings, G., and Loftus, E. F.. (2013b). The Subterranean War on Science. Observer, 26(9), November.Google Scholar

Lewandowsky, S., Cook, J., Oberauer, K., Brophy, S., Lloyd, E. A., and Marriott, M.. (2015). Recurrent Fury: Conspiratorial Discourse in the Blogosphere Triggered by Research on the Role of Conspiracist Ideation in Climate Denial. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 3(1), 142–178.Google Scholar

Lezaun, J., and Soneryd, S.. (2007). Consulting Citizens: Technologies of Elicitation and the Mobility of Publics. Public Understanding of Science, 16(3), 279–297.Google Scholar

Longino, H. (2002). The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Lovbrand, E., Pielke, R., and Beck, S.. (2011). A Democracy Paradox in Studies of Science and Technology. Science, Technology & Human Values, 36, 474–496.Google Scholar

Lukes, S. (1990). Perspectives on Authority. In Raz, J., ed., Authority. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp. 203–218.Google Scholar

Lyotard, J.-F. (1988). The Differend: Phrases in Dispute. Trans. Van Den Abbeele, Georges. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar

Macalister, T., and Carter, H.. (2009). Britain’s Farmers Still Restricted by Chernobyl Nuclear Fallout. The Guardian, 12 May.Google Scholar

Macdonald, M. (1956). Natural Rights. In Laslett, P. and Runciman, W. G., eds., Philosophy, Politics and Society. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

MacKenzie, M. K., and Moore, A.. (2016). Good Ways of Being Passive. Paper presented at workshop on the Ethics of Political Participation, University of Loughborough, 21 June.Google Scholar

MacKenzie, M. K., and O’Doherty, K. (2011). Deliberating Future Issues: Minipublics and Salmon Genomics. Journal of Public Deliberation, 7(1).Google Scholar

MacKenzie, M. K., and Warren, M. E.. (2012). Two Trust-Based Uses of Minipublics in Democratic Systems. In Parkinson, J. and Mansbridge, J., eds., Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 95–124.Google Scholar

Mackie, G. (2006) Does Deliberation Change Minds? Politics, Philosophy & Economics 5(3), 279–303.Google Scholar

MacLean, S., and Burgess, M. M. (2009). In the Public Interest: Assessing Expert and Stakeholder Influence in Public Deliberation about Biobanks. Public Understanding of Science, 19(4), 486–496.Google Scholar

Mair, P. (2013). Ruling the Void: The Hollowing of Western Democracy. London and New York: Verso.Google Scholar

Manin, B. (1987). On Legitimacy and Political Deliberation. Political Theory, 15(3), 338–368.Google Scholar

Manin, B. (1997). The Principles of Representative Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Manin, B. (2005). Democratic Deliberation: Why We Should Promote Debate Rather Than Discussion. Paper delivered at the Program in Ethics and Public Affairs Seminar, Princeton University, 13 October.Google Scholar

Mann, M. E. (2012). The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar

Mansbridge, J. (1996). Using Power/Fighting Power. In Benhabib, S., ed., Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 46–66.Google Scholar

Mansbridge, J., Bohman, J., Chambers, S., Estlund, D., Follesdal, A., Fung, A., Lafont, C., Manin, B., and Marti, J. L.. (2010). The Place of Self-Interest and the Role of Power in Deliberative Democracy. Journal of Political Philosophy, 18(1), 64–100.Google Scholar

Mansbridge, J., Bohman, J., Chambers, S., Christiano, T., Fung, A., Parkinson, J., Thompson, D., and Warren, M. E.. (2012). A Systemic Approach to Deliberative Democracy. In Parkinson, J. and Mansbridge, J., eds., Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–26.Google Scholar

Markell, P. (1997) Contesting Consensus: Re-reading Habermas on the Public Sphere. Constellations, 3(3), 377–400.Google Scholar

Markowitz, G., and Rosner, D.. (2002). Deceit and Denial: The Deadly Politics of Industrial Pollution. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Marres, N. (2007). The Issues Deserve More Credit: Pragmatist Contributions to the Study of Public Involvement in Controversy. Social Studies of Science, 37(5), 759–780.Google Scholar

McCormick, J. P. (2011). Machiavellian Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McGarity, T. O., and Wagner, W.. (2008). Bending Science: How Special Interests Corrupt Public Health Research. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

McKee, M., and Diethelm, P.. (2010). How the Growth of Denialism Undermines Public Health. BMJ, 341, c6950.Google Scholar

McKitrick, R., and Michaels, P. J.. (2004). A Test of Corrections for Extraneous Signals in Gridded Surface Temperature Data. Climate Research, 26(2), 159–173.Google Scholar

Mercier, H., and Sperber, D.. (2011). Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34, 57–111.Google Scholar

Michaels, D. (2008). Doubt Is Their Product: How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens Your Health. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Mill, J. S. (1974 [1843]). A System of Logic Ratiocinative and Inductive. In Robson, J. M., ed., The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume VIII: A System of Logic Ratiocinative and Inductive Part II. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Mill, J. S. (1977a [1861]). Considerations on Representative Government. In Robson, J. M., ed., The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XIX: Essays on Politics and Society Part 2. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, pp. 371–577.Google Scholar

Mill, J. S. (1977b [1859]). On Liberty. In Robson, J. M., ed., The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XVIII: Essays on Politics and Society Part I. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, pp. 213–310.Google Scholar

Mill, J. S. (1986 [1831]). The Spirit of the Age. In Robson, A. and Robson, J. M., eds., The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXII: Newspaper Writings December 1822–July 1831 Part I. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, pp. 227–234, 238–245, 252–257, 289–294, 304–306.Google Scholar

Miller, J. D. (1983). Scientific Literacy: A Conceptual and Empirical Review. Daedalus, 112(2), 29–48.Google Scholar

Miller, J. D. (2004). Public Understanding of, and Attitudes Toward, Scientific Research: What We Know and What We Need to Know. Public Understanding of Science, 13(3), 273–294.Google Scholar

Montford, A. W. (2010). The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science. London: Stacey International.Google Scholar

Moore, A. (2010a). Beyond Participation: Opening Up Political Theory in STS. Social Studies of Science, 40(5), 793–799.Google Scholar

Moore, A. (2010b). Public Bioethics and Deliberative Democracy. Political Studies, 58(4), 715–730.Google Scholar

Moore, A. (2012). Following from the Front: Theorizing Deliberative Facilitation. Critical Policy Studies, 6(2), 146–162.Google Scholar

Moore, A. (2014a). Deference in Numbers: Consensus, Dissent and Judgement in Mill’s Account of Authority. Political Studies, 62(S1), 187–201.Google Scholar

Moore, A. (2014b). Democratic Reason, Democratic Faith, and the Problem of Expertise. Critical Review, 26(1–2), 101–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Moore, A., and Stilgoe, J. (2009). Experts and Anecdotes the Role of ‘Anecdotal Evidence’ in Public Scientific Controversies. Science, Technology & Human Values, 34(5), 654–677.Google Scholar

Mouffe, C. (1996). Democracy, Power and the Political. In Benhabib, S., ed., Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 245–256.Google Scholar

Muirhead, R. (2014). The Politics of Getting It Right. Critical Review, 26(1–2), pp. 115–128.Google Scholar

Mukherjee, S. (2010). The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar

Norris, P. (2002). Democratic Phoenix: Reinventing Political Activism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Nyhan, B., and Reifler, J.. (2010). When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32(2), 303–330.Google Scholar

Ober, J. (2008). Democracy and Knowledge: Innovation and Learning in Classical Athens. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

O’Doherty, K. C., and Burgess, M. M.. (2008). Engaging the Public on Biobanks: Outcomes of the BC Biobank Deliberation. Public Health Genomics, 12(4), 203–215.Google Scholar

Offe, C., and Preuss, U. K.. (1991). Democratic Institutions and Moral Resources. In Held, D., ed., Political Theory Today. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 143–171.Google Scholar

O’Leary, K. (2006). Saving Democracy: A Plan for Real Representation in America. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Oreskes, N. (2004a). Science and Public Policy: What’s Proof Got to Do with It? Environmental Science & Policy, 7(5), 369–383.Google Scholar

Oreskes, N. (2004b). Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change. Science, 306(5702), 1686.Google Scholar

Oreskes, N., and Conway, E. M.. (2010). Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. New York: Bloomsbury Press.Google Scholar

Owens, S. (2011). Three Thoughts on the Third Wave. Critical Policy Studies, 5(3), 329–333.Google Scholar

Papadopolous, Y. (2012). On the Embeddedness of Deliberation: Why Elite Innovations Matter More. In Parkinson, J. and Mansbridge, J., eds., Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 125–150.Google Scholar

Pareek, M., and Pattison, H. M.. (2000). The Two-Dose Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) Immunisation Schedule: Factors Affecting Maternal Intention to Vaccinate. British Journal of General Practice, 50(461), 969–971.Google Scholar

Parkinson, J. (2006a). Deliberating in the Real World: Problems of Legitimacy in Deliberative Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Parkinson, J. (2006b). Rickety Bridges: Using the Media in Deliberative Democracy. British Journal of Political Science, 36(1), 175–183.Google Scholar

Parkinson, J. (2012). Democratizing Deliberative Systems. In Parkinson, J. and Mansbridge, J., eds., Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 151–172.Google Scholar

Parkinson, J., and Mansbridge, J., eds. (2012). Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Peirce, C. S. (1935). Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, Volumes V and VI: Pragmatism and Pragmaticism and Scientific Metaphysics. Hartshorne, C., and Weis, P., eds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Peters, R. S. (1967). Authority. In Quinton, A., ed., Political Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 82–96.Google Scholar

Pettit, P. (1997). Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Pettit, P. (2000). Democracy: Electoral and Contestatory. In Shapiro, I. and Macedo, S., eds., Nomos XLII: Designing Democratic Institutions. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar

Pettit, P. (2004). Depoliticizing Democracy. Ratio Juris, 17(1), 52–65.Google Scholar

Pettit, P. (2012). On the People's Terms: A Republican Theory and Model of Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Pielke, R. A. (2004). When Scientists Politicize Science: Making Sense of Controversy Over the Skeptical Environmentalist. Environmental Science & Policy, 7, 405–417.Google Scholar

Pielke, R. A. (2007). The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Pierson, R. (1994). The Epistemic Authority of Expertise. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 1, 398–405.Google Scholar

Plato, (1995). The Statesman. Trans. Waterfield, R. and ed. Annas, J. and Waterfield, R.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Plato, (2000). The Republic. Trans. Griffith, T. and ed. Ferrari, G.R.F.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Plato, (2010). Protagorus. Trans. Jowett, B.. London: Aeterna Publishing.Google Scholar

Polanyi, M. (1962). The Republic of Science: Its Political and Economic Theory. Minerva, 1, 54–74.Google Scholar

Poortinga, W, and Pidgeon, N. F.. (2003). Exploring the Dimensionality of Trust in Risk Regulation. Risk Analysis, 23, 961–972.Google Scholar

Pornpitakpan, C. (2004). The Persuasiveness of Source Credibility: A Critical Review of Five Decades’ Evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(2), 243–281.Google Scholar

Posner, R. A. (2009). Law, Pragmatism, and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Prior, L. (2003) Belief, Knowledge and Expertise: The Emergence of the Lay Expert in Medical Sociology. Sociology of Health and Illness, 25(3), 41–57.Google Scholar

Przeworski, A. (1998). Deliberation and Ideological Domination. In Elster, J., ed., Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 140–160.Google Scholar

Przeworski, A. (1999). Minimalist Conception of Democracy: A Defense. In Shapiro, I. and Hacker-Cordón, C., eds., Democracy’s Value. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 23–55.Google Scholar

Putnam, H. (1992). A Reconsideration of Deweyan Democracy. In Putnam, H., Renewing Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Ranalli, B. (2012). Climate Science, Character, and the Hard Won Consensus. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 22(2), 183–210.Google Scholar

Rawls, J. 1999 [1971]. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: The Belnap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Raz, J. (1990). Authority and Justification. In Raz, J., ed., Authority. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 115–141.Google Scholar

Raz, J. (2006). The Problem of Authority: Revisiting the Service Conception. Minnesota Law Review, 90, 1003–1044.Google Scholar

Renn, O., Webler, T. and Weidemann, P., eds. (1995). Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse. Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar

Rescher, N. (1993). Pluralism: Against the Demand for Consensus. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Richardson, H. (2002). Democratic Autonomy: Public Reasoning about the Ends of Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Richardson, H. (2012). Relying on Experts as We Reason Together. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 22(2), 91–110.Google Scholar

Riley, J. (2007). Mill’s Neo-Athenian Model of Liberal Democracy. In Urbinati, N. and Zakaras, A., eds., J. S. Mill’s Political Thought: A Bicentennial Reassessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 221–247.Google Scholar

Rosanvallon, P. (2008). Counter-Democracy: Politics in an Age of Distrust. Trans. Goldhammer, A.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Rosanvallon, P. (2011). Democratic Legitimacy: Impartiality, Reflexivity, Objectivity. Trans. Goldhammer, A.. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Rose, N. (1999). Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Rosenblum, N. (1987). Studying Authority: Keeping Pluralism in Mind. In Pennock, J. R. and Chapman, J. W., eds., Authority Revisited. New York and London: New York University Press, pp. 102–130.Google Scholar

Rosenblum, N. (2008). On the Side of the Angels. An Appreciation of Parties and Partisanship. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Rousseau, J.-J. (1987). The Basic Political Writings. Trans. Cress, D. A.. Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company.Google Scholar

Rowe, G., and Frewer, L. J. (2000). Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation. Science, Technology & Human Values 25(1), 3–29.Google Scholar

Rummens, S. (2012). Staging Deliberation: The Role of Representative Institutions in the Deliberative Democratic Process. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 20(1), 23–44.Google Scholar

Ryan, A. (1998). Mill in a Liberal Landscape. In Skorupski, J., ed., The Cambridge Companion to Mill. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 497–540.Google Scholar

Ryan, A. (2007). Bureaucracy, Democracy, Liberty: Some Unanswered Questions in Mill’s Politics. In Urbinati, N. and Zakaras, A., eds., J. S. Mill’s Political Thought: A Bicentennial Reassessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 147–156.Google Scholar

Sanders, L. M. (1997). Against Deliberation. Political Theory, 25(3), 347–376.Google Scholar

Sarewitz, D. (2010). Curing Climate Backlash. Nature, 464, 4 March, 28.Google Scholar

Saward, M. (2010). The Representative Claim. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Schattschneider, E. E. (2004 [1942]). Party Government. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar

Schudson, M. (1998). The Good Citizen: A History of Civic Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Schudson, M. (2006). The Trouble with Experts – and Why Democracies Need Them. Theory and Society, 35(5/6), 491–506.Google Scholar

Schudson, M. (2015). The Rise of the Right to Know: Politics and the Culture of Transparency. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Schumpeter, J. A. (2003 [1943]). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Sclove, R. E. (1995). Democracy and Technology. New York and London: Guilford Press.Google Scholar

Shapiro, I. (1994). Three Ways to Be a Democrat. Political Theory, 22(1), 124–151.Google Scholar

Skorupski, J. (2006). Why Read Mill Today? London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Smith, G. (2009). Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Solomon, M. (2001). Social Empiricism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Solomon, M. (2006). Groupthink Versus the Wisdom of Crowds: The Social Epistemology of Deliberation and Dissent. The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 44(S1), 28–42.Google Scholar

Solomon, M. (2007). The Social Epistemology of NIH Consensus Conferences. In Kincaid, H. and McKitrick, J., eds., Establishing Medical Reality. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 167–177.Google Scholar

Solomon, S. (2009). Stakeholders or Experts? On the Ambiguous Implications of Public Participation in Science. In van Bouwel, J., ed., The Social Sciences and Democracy. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 39–61.Google Scholar

Specter, M. G. (2010). Habermas: An Intellectual Biography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Specter, M. (2009). Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Prevents Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet and Threatens Our Lives. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar

Steiner, J., and Dorff, R. H.. (1980). Decision by Interpretation: A New Concept for an Often Overlooked Decision Mode. British Journal of Political Science, 10, 1–13.Google Scholar

Steiner, J., Bächtiger, A., Spörndli, M., and Steenbergen, M.. (2004). Deliberative Politics in Action: Analysing Parliamentary Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Stevens, T. M. L. (2000). Bioethics in America: Origins and Cultural Politics. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar

Stone, P. (2011). The Luck of the Draw: The Role of Lotteries in Decision Making. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Sunstein, C. R. (1999). Agreement Without Theory. In Macedo, S., ed., Deliberative Politics: Essays on Democracy and Disagreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 123–150.Google Scholar

Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Going to Extremes: How Like Minds Unite and Divide. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Surowiecki, J. (2004). The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few. London: Abacus.Google Scholar

Tesh, S. N. (2000). Uncertain Hazards: Environmental Activists and Scientific Proof. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Thagard, P. (1997). Collaborative Knowledge. Noûs, 31, 242–261.Google Scholar

Thompson, D. F. (1976). John Stuart Mill and Representative Government. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Thompson, D. F. (1999). Democratic Secrecy. Political Science Quarterly, 114(2), 181–193.Google Scholar

Thompson, D. F. (2008). Deliberative Democratic Theory and Empirical Political Science. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 497–520.Google Scholar

Thorpe, C. (2007). Political Theory and Science and Technology Studies. In Wajcman, J., Lynch, M., Amsterdamska, O., and Hackett, E. J., eds., The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, Third Edition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 63–82.Google Scholar

Tocqueville, A. de (1990 [1840]). Democracy in America. (Vol. 2). New York: Vintage.Google Scholar

Tucker, A. (2008). Pre-emptive Democracy: Oligarchic Tendencies in Deliberative Democracy. Political Studies, 56(1), 127–147.Google Scholar

Turner, S. P. (2003). Liberal Democracy 3.0. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar

Turner, S. P. (2011). Double Heuristics. Paper presented at workshop on Scientific Authority in Democratic Societies, Peter Wall Institute, University of British Columbia, 27–28 June.Google Scholar

Urbinati, N. (2002). Mill on Democracy: From the Athenian Polis to Representative Government. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Urbinati, N. (2006). Representative Democracy: Principles and Genealogy. Chicago,: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Urbinati, N. (2007). The Many Heads of the Hydra: J. S. Mill on Despotism. In Urbinati, N. and Zakaras, A., eds., J. S. Mill’s Political Thought: A Bicentennial Reassessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 66–97.Google Scholar

Urbinati, N. (2010). Unpolitical Democracy. Political Theory, 38(1), 65–92.Google Scholar

Urbinati, N. (2014). Democracy Disfigured: Opinion, Truth, and the People. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Urbinati, N., and Warren, M. E.. (2008). The Concept of Representation in Contemporary Democratic Theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 387–412.Google Scholar

Urfalino, P. (2006). Apparent Consensus and Voting: Two Modes of Collective Decision-Making. Presented at the workshop The Mechanisms of Collective Decision-Making, Adriano Olivetti Foundation, Rome, April 29. Available at http://cespra.ehess.fr/docannexe.php?id=551.Google Scholar

Urfalino, P. (2007). La décision par consensus apparent: nature et propriétés. Revue Européenne des Sciences Sociales, 45, 47–70.Google Scholar

Urfalino, P. (2012). Reasons and Preferences in Medicine Evaluation Committees. In Landemore, H. and Elster, J., eds., Collective Wisdom: Principles and Mechanisms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 173–202.Google Scholar

Vibert, F. (2007). The Rise of the Unelected: Democracy and the New Separation of Powers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Waldron, J. (1995). The Wisdom of the Multitude: Some Reflections on Book 3, Chapter 11 of Aristotle’s Politics. Political Theory, 23(4), 563–584.Google Scholar

Warren, M. E. (1996a). Deliberative Democracy and Authority. The American Political Science Review, 90(1), 46–60.Google Scholar

Warren, M. E. (1996b). What Should We Expect from More Democracy?: Radically Democratic Responses to Politics. Political Theory, 24(2), 241–270.Google Scholar

Warren, M. E. (1999). What Is Political? Journal of Theoretical Politics, 11(2), 207–231.Google Scholar

Warren, M. E. (2001). Democracy and Association. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Warren, M. E. (2003). A Second Transformation of Democracy? In Cain, B. E., Dalton, R., and Scarrow, S., eds., Democracy Transformed? Expanding Political Opportunities in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 223–249.Google Scholar

Warren, M. E. (2009). Governance-Driven Democratization. Critical Policy Studies, 3(1), 3–13.Google Scholar

Warren, M. E. (2012). When, Where and Why Do We Need Deliberation, Voting and Other Means of Organizing Democracy? Paper presented at the Midwest Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, 12–15 April.Google Scholar

Warren, M. E., and Pearse, H., eds. (2008). Designing Deliberative Democracy: The British Columbia Citizen’s Assembly. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Weber, M. (1968). Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Ed. Roth, G. and Wittich, C.. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Weber, M., (1991). Politics as a Vocation. In Gerth, H. H. and Wright Mills, C., eds., From Max Weber. London: Routledge, pp. 77–128.Google Scholar

Weingart, P. (1999). Scientific Expertise and Political Accountability: Paradoxes of Science in Politics. Science and Public Policy, 26(3), 151–161.Google Scholar

Westbrook, R. B. (1998). Pragmatism and Democracy: Reconstructing the Logic of John Dewey’s Faith. In Dickstein, Morris, ed., The Revival of Pragmatism: New Essays on Social Thought, Law, and Culture. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, pp. 128–140.Google Scholar

White, J., and Ypi, L.. (2011). On Partisan Political Justification. American Political Science Review 105(2), 381–396.Google Scholar

Wildavsky, A. (1997). But Is It True?: A Citizen’s Guide to Environmental Health and Safety Issues. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Winch, P. (1967). Authority. In Quinton, A., ed., Political Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 97–111.Google Scholar

Winner, L. (1986). The Whale and the Reactor: A Search for Limits in an Age of High Technology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Wolff, R. P. (1970). In Defense of Anarchism. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar

Wolin, S. (1994). Norm and Form: The Constitutionalizing of Democracy. In Euben, J. P., Wallach, J. R., and Ober, J., eds., Athenian Political Thought and the Reconstruction of American Democracy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, pp. 29–58.Google Scholar

Wolin, S. (2004). Politics and Vision: Continuity and Innovation in Western Political Thought, Expanded Edition. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Wollheim, R. (1962). A Paradox in the Theory of Democracy. In Laslett, P. and Runciman, W. G., eds., Philosophy, Politics and Society (Second Series). Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp. 71–87.Google Scholar

Wynne, B. (1989). Sheepfarming After Chernobyl: A Case Study in Communicating Scientific Information. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 31(2), 10–39.Google Scholar

Wynne, B. (1996). May the Sheep Safely Graze? A Reflexive View of the Expert-Lay Knowledge Divide. In Wynne, B., Szerszynski, B., and Lash, S., eds., Risk, Environment, and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar

Yearley, S. (1995). The Environmental Challenge to Science Studies. In Jasanoff, S., Markle, G., Peterson, J. C., and Pinch, T., eds., Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: SAGE Publications, pp. 457–479.Google Scholar

Young, I. M. (1996). Communication and the Other: Beyond Deliberative Democracy. In Benhabib, S., ed., Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 120–135.Google Scholar