Ceccarelli, L. 2011. Manufactured scientific controversy: Science, rhetoric, and public debate. Rhetoric and Public Affairs 14: 195–228.
Colingridge, D., and C. Reeve. 1986. Science speaks to power: The role of experts in policy making. London: Frances Pinter.
Collins, H., and R. Evans. 2002. The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science 32: 35–296.
Collins, H., and R. Evans. 2003. King Canute meets the beach boys: Responses to the third wave. Social Studies of Science 33: 435–452.
Collins, H., and R. Evans. 2007. Rethinking expertise. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Collins, H., and T. Pinch. 1998. The golem: What you should know about science, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Collins, H., M. Weinel, and R. Evans. 2010. The politics and policy of the third wave: New technologies and society. Critical Policy Studies 4: 185–201.
Evans, R., and A. Plows. 2007. Listening without prejudice? Re-discovering the value of the disinterested citizen. Social Studies of Science 37: 827–853.
Fischer, F. 2009. Democracy and expertise: Reorienting policy inquiry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goldman, A.I. 2001. Experts: Which ones should you trust? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 63: 85–110.
Goodnight, G.Th. 1982. The personal, technical and public spheres of argument: A speculative inquiry into the art of public deliberation. Journal of the American Forensic Association 18: 214–227.
Goodwin, J. 1998. Forms of authority and the real ad verecundiam. Argumentation 12: 267–280.
Goodwin, J. 2000. Comments on [Jacobs’] “Rhetoric and dialectic from the standpoint of normative pragmatics.” Argumentation 14: 287–292.
Goodwin, J. 2001. Cicero’s authority. Philosophy and Rhetoric 34: 38–60.
Goodwin, J. 2007. Argument has no function. Informal Logic 27: 69–90.
Goodwin, J. 2009. The authority of the IPCC first assessment report and the manufacture of consensus. Presented at the National Communication Association convention, Chicago, IL; http://goodwin.public.iastate.edu/pubs/goodwinIPCC.pdf.
Goodwin, J. 2010a. The authority of Wikipedia. In Argument cultures, ed. Juko Ritola. Windsor, ONT: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (CD-ROM).
Goodwin, J. 2010b. Trust in experts as a principal-agent problem. In Dialectics, dialogue and argumentation: An examination of Douglas Walton’s theories of reasoning and argument, ed. Chris Reed and Christopher W. Tindale, 133–143. London: College Publications.
Goodwin, J., and M.F. Dahlstrom, 2011. Good reasons for trusting climate science communication. Presented at the American Meteorological Society convention, Seattle, WA; http://ams.confex.com/ams/91Annual/webprogram/Paper184847.html.
Govier, T. 2010. Conductive arguments and counter considerations. In A practical study of argument, 352–375. Belmont CA: Wadsworth.
Guston, D.H. 1999. Stabilizing the boundary between US politics and science: The role of the Office of Technology Transfer as a boundary organization. Social Studies of Science 29: 87–111.
Hardwig, J. 1985. Epistemic dependence. The Journal of Philosophy 82: 335–349.
Innocenti, B. Forthcoming. A normative pragmatic model of making fear appeals. Philosophy and Rhetoric.
Jackson, S. 1998. Disputation by design. Argumentation 12: 183–198.
Jackson, S. 2008. Predicaments of politicization in the debate over abstinence-only sex education. In Controversy, confrontation: Relating controversy analysis with argumentation theory, ed. F.H.v. Eemeren and B. Garssen, 215–230. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Jacobs, S. 2000. Rhetoric and dialectic from the standpoint of normative pragmatics. Argumentation 14: 261–286.
Johnson, R.H., and J.A. Blair. 1994. Logical self-defense. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Kauffeld, F.J. 1998. Presumptions and the distribution of argumentative burdens in acts of proposing and accusing. Argumentation 12: 245–266.
Kauffeld, F.J. 2002. Pivotal issues and norms in rhetorical theories of argumentation. In Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis, ed. F.H.v. Eemeren and P. Houtlosser, 97–118. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Kauffeld, F.J. 2009. What are we learning about the arguers’ probative obligations. In Concerning argument, ed. Scott Jacobs, 1–31. Washington, DC: National Communication Association.
Kutrovátz, G. 2010. Trust in experts: Contextual patterns of warranted epistemic dependence. Balkan Journal of Philosophy 2: 57–68.
Locke, J. 1975 . An essay concerning human understanding. ed. P.H. Nidditch. Oxford: Clarendon.
Paroske, M. 2009. Deliberating international science policy controversies: Uncertainty and AIDS in South Africa. Quarterly Journal of Speech 95: 148–170.
Priest, S.H., H. Bonfadelli, and M. Rusanen. 2003. The “trust gap” hypothesis: Predicting support for biotechnology across national cultures as a function of trust in actors. Risk Analysis 23: 751–766.
Shapiro, S.P. 1987. The social control of impersonal trust. American Journal of Sociology 93: 623–658.
Tindale, Ch.W. 1999. The authority of testimony. Protosociology 13: 96–116.
Walton, D. 1997. Appeal to expert opinion: Arguments from authority. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
Weinel, M. 2007. Primary source knowledge and technical decision-making: Mbeki and the AZT debate. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A38: 748–760.
Willard, C.A. 1996. Liberalism and the problem of knowledge: A new rhetoric for modern democracy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Woods, J., and D. Walton. 1974. Argumentum ad verecundiam. Philosophy and Rhetoric 7: 135–153.
Wynne, B. 2003. Seasick on the third wave? Subverting the hegemony of propositionalism: Response to Collins and Evans (2002). Social Studies of Science 33: 401–417.