Foundations of Science

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 69–88 | Cite as

Identifying Difference, Engaging Dissent: What is at Stake in Democratizing Knowledge?

  • L. King
  • B. Morgan-Olsen
  • J. Wong


Several prominent voices have called for a democratization of science through deliberative processes that include a diverse range of perspectives and values. We bring these scholars into conversation with extant research on democratic deliberation in political theory and the social sciences. In doing so, we identify systematic barriers to the effectiveness of inclusive deliberation in both scientific and political settings. We are particularly interested in what we call misidentified dissent, where deliberations are starkly framed at the outset in terms of dissenting positions without properly distinguishing the kinds of difference and disagreement motivating dissent.


Social epistemology Deliberative democracy Mouffe Longino Kitcher 


  1. Bohman, J. (2003). Public deliberation, democracy and the limits of pluralism. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 29(1), 85–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Broome, J. (2012). Climate matters: Ethics in a warming world. NY: Norton.Google Scholar
  3. Ceccarelli, L. (2011). Manufactured scientific controversy: Science, rhetoric, and public debate. Rhetoric & Public Affairs: 195–228.Google Scholar
  4. Chambers, S. (2003). Deliberative democratic theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 6, 307–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chambers, S. (2009). Rhetoric and the public sphere: Has deliberative democracy abandoned mass democracy? Political Theory, 37(3, June), 323–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen, J. (1996). Procedure and substance in deliberative democracy. In S. Benhabib (Ed.), Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Dryzek, J. S. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Emcke, C. (2000). Between choice and coercion: Identities, injuries and different forms of recognition. Constellations, 7(4), 483–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Estlund, D. M. (2009). Democratic authority: A philosophical framework. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fishkin, J. S., & Luskin, R. C. (2005). Experimenting with a democratic ideal: Deliberative polling and public opinion. Acta Politica, 40(3, September), 284–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing (Oxford). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Friel, H. (2010). The Lomborg deception: Setting the record straight about global warming. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Fuller, S. (2008). Dissent over descent: Intelligent design’s challenge to Darwinism. London: Icon.Google Scholar
  14. Fung, A. (2006). Empowered participation: Reinventing urban democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Goodin, R. E., & Dryzek, J. (2006). Deliberative impacts: The macro-political uptake of mini-publics. Politics and Society, 34(2, June), 219–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Guston, D. H. (2007). The center for nanotechnology in society and the prospects for anticipatory governance. In N. Cameron & M. Ellen Mitchell (Eds.), Nanoscale issues and perspectives for the nano century (pp. 377–392). New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  17. Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and intervening: Introductory topics in the philosophy of natural science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jackman, S., & Sniderman, P. M. (2006). The limits of deliberative discussion: A model of everyday political arguments. Journal of Politics, 68(2, May), 272–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kellert, S., Longino, H., & Waters, C. K. (2006). Introduction: The pluralist stance. In S. Kellert, H. Longino, & C. K. Waters (Eds.), Scientific pluralism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. vii-xxix.Google Scholar
  21. King, L. A. (2003). Deliberation, legitimacy, and multilateral democracy. Governance, 16(1, January), 23–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kitcher, P. (2002). The third way: Reflections on Helen Longino’s the fate of knowledge. Philosophy of Science, 69(4), 549–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kitcher, P. (2003). Science, truth and democracy. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Kitcher, P. (2011). Science in a democratic society. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  25. Laudan, L. (1981). A confutation of convergent realism. Philosophy of Science, 48(1, March), 19–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lewis, P. J. (2001). Why the pessimistic induction is a fallacy. Synthese, 129(3, December), 371–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lomborg, B. (2004). The skeptical environmentalist: Measuring the real state of the world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Longino, H. (1993). Subjects, power and knowledge. In L. Alcoff & E. Potter (Eds.), Feminist epistemologies (pp. 101–120). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Longino, H. (2002). The fate of knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  30. MacKenzie, M. K., & O’Doherty, K. (2011). Deliberating future issues: Minipublics and salmon genomics. Journal of Public Deliberation, 7(1), 1–27.Google Scholar
  31. Martineau, W. (2012). Misrecognition and cross-cultural understanding: Shaping the space for a “fusion of horizons”. Ethnicities, 12(April), 161–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Miller, B. (2013). When is consensus knowledge based? Distinguishing shared knowledge from mere agreement. Synthese, 190(7, May), 1293–1316.Google Scholar
  33. Miller, D. (1992). Deliberative democracy and social choice. Political Studies, 40(special issue), 54–67.Google Scholar
  34. Morgan-Olsen, B. (2010). Conceptual exclusion and public reason. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 40(2), 213–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mouffe, C. (1993). The return of the political. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  36. Mouffe, C. (1999). Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism? Social Research, 66, 745–758.Google Scholar
  37. Mouffe, C. (2005). The limits of John Rawls’ pluralism. Politics, Philosophy, and Economics, 4(2, June), 221–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mutz, D. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Nadasdy, P. (2002). Property’ and Aboriginal Land Claims in the Canadian Subarctic: Some theoretical considerations. American Anthropologist, 104(March), 247–261.Google Scholar
  40. Nagel, T. (2008). Public education and intelligent design. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 36(2, Spring), 187–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Niemeyer, S. (2011). The emancipatory effect of deliberation: Empirical lessons from mini-publics. Politics and Society, 39(1, March), 103–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Peter, F. (2009). Democratic legitimacy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Pincione, G., & Téson, F. R. (2006). Rational choice and democratic deliberation: A theory of discourse failure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Psillos, S. (1996). Scientific realism and the ‘pessimistic induction’. Philosophy of Science, 63(Proceedings), S306–S314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as fairness: A restatement. In E. Kelly, (Ed.), Cambridge, MA: Belknap.Google Scholar
  46. Rawls, J. (2005). Political liberalism (Expanded ed.). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Saunders, L. M. (1997). Against deliberation. Political Theory, 25(3, June), 347–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Scanlon, T. M. (1996). The difficulty of tolerance. In D. Heyd (Ed.), Toleration: An elusive virtue (pp. 226–239). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Sunstein, C. R. (2002). The law of group polarization. Journal of Political Philosophy, 10(2, June), 175–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sunstein, C. R. (2007). 2.0. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Tansey, J., & Burgess, M. M. (2006). Complexity of public interest in ethical analysis of genomics: Ethical reflections on salmon genomics/aquaculture. Journal of Integrative Assessment, 6(2), 37–57.Google Scholar
  52. Thompson, D. F. (2008). Deliberative democratic theory and empirical political science. Annual Review of Political Science, 11(June), 497–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Van Bouwel, J. (2009). The problem with(out) consensus: The scientific consensus, deliberative democracy, and agonistic pluralism. In J. Van Bouwel (Ed.), The Social Sciences and Democracy (pp. 121–142). London: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Williams, N. (1986). The Yolngu and their land: A system of land tenure and the fight for its recognition. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Young, I. (2001). Inclusion and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Political Science, Wilfrid Laurier UniversityWaterlooCanada
  2. 2.Philosophy, Loyola UniversityChicagoUSA
  3. 3.Philosophy, Wilfrid Laurier UniversityWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations