Suchergebnisse

AbstractThe empirical hypothesis that is explored in this article is: if we think with our bodies then we must think about the countryside with our bodies too. Working toward this end, the article begins by briefly reviewing the literature on embodied knowledge. From here, attention turns to the rough, empirical ground of everyday life. Before doing this, however, discussion centres briefly on methods, where the methodological implications of studying the 'more‐than‐representational' are discussed. The remainder of the article is devoted to examining the findings of fieldwork conducted in rural Iowa. In this discussion, attention centres specifically on how understanding the countryside is an embodied, lived event.

This article investigates why science often does not speak with one voice within the context of environmental controversies. I argue that sociologists must be willing to turn to those processes and phenomena that are internal to science. In doing this, we find that many environmental conflicts are products, at least in part, of science itself. What is it about science that helps to breed these conflicts? In answering this question, this article first reflects upon the effects that disciplinary and methodological diversity have on scientific disputes. Attention then turns to the topics of proof and consensus, highlighting how these terms have often been employed to amplify conflict. I then speak to how science presupposes values. The article concludes by making policy-relevant suggestions about how to `do' environmental science in a way that acknowledges its various epistemic bright- and blind-spots.

In this paper, I seek to add to the sociological and geographical literature on odor by documenting the processes through which perceptions of agricultural odors are mediated and contested. Specifically, its empirical focus is on how residents living near a large-scale hog facility within the state of Iowa actively 'do' smell. In doing this, this papers draws not only from the historical, anthropological, and sociological literature on odor, but also from the field of animal (rural) geography. The findings of this research are organized around the following themes: (1) rural–urban transgressions; (2) inside–outside policing; (3) ties to local social network; (4) perceptions of agriculture; (5) a sense of powerlessness; and (6) shaping smell through sight. When taken together, an understanding of agricultural odor is provided that is both active (in that it is something we 'do') and historical (recognizing that such 'doing' always occurs within a particular sociohistorical milieu).

This article highlights that in our rush to call for the democratization of science and expertise we must not forget to speak to what type of democratization we are calling for. In short, not all participatory forms are the same. In developing this argument, I examine one such form that has yet to receive much attention from science and technology studies scholars: the agricultural field day. In examining the field day, we find that its orientation—that is, toward either the conventional or sustainable model of agriculture—shapes significantly its democratic approach to knowledge coproduction. To help inform how we understand conventional and sustainable field days, I turned to two conceptual frameworks of participation: namely, that of Wynne and Funtowicz and Ravetz. In doing this, we find that conventional field days mirror closely that form of public participation detailed by Funtowicz and Ravetz, while sustainable field days reflect that conceptualized by Wynne.