# Introduction: Digital participatory biodiversity science

Lorna Heaton and Florian Charvolin

Lorna Heaton, Département de communication, Université de Montréal,
lorna.heaton@umontreal.ca

Florian Charvolin, CNRS, Centre Max Weber, Lyon, florian.charvolin@gmail.com

Key words: digital, participation, biodiversity, expertise, authority, infrastructure

## Introduction

We are living in an age where biodiversity is being lost at an unprecedented rate, and the global environment is subject to increasing sources of stress. Largely as a result of human activity, over one million plant and animal species are now threatened with extinction, many within decades. While the climate crisis has received more media attention, the underlying causes of biodiversity loss are the same, and some 30-40% of natural solutions to global warming involve preserving biodiversity.

The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), adopted at the UN Biodiversity Conference (COP15), in 2022 will guide global action on nature through 2030. However, knowledge alone cannot provide enough leverage to trigger government and policy action. It can only inform means to address publicly such a complex and multi-faceted problem.

In this context, digital technologies play a pivotal role.

Fig. 1. Volunteer digitizing plant specimens at Marie-Victorin Hebarium
<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Source: Lorna Heaton

Naturalist collections are a key source of authoritative data on biodiversity, but their collection and curation requires considerable resources, both human and material. This situation has been seized upon as an opportunity to engage a larger number and wider scope of people in producing biodiversity data collections (Kelling et al., 2009). Collaborative web platforms and mobile applications offer new possibilities for observation and recording, leading Gabrys (2016) to refer to the computerization of environmentalism. These technologies participate in (re)structuring amateur practice and facilitate the participation of the general public in scientific research, as well as increasing the volume of data produced.

In addition, by allowing for consultation, aggregation and analysis of scientific data, databases and online collaborative platforms enable new ways of working together and of (re)using data, thereby shaping conservation strategies and predictive environmental models (Bowker, 2000; Granjou et al., 2014). The networked production and circulation of big data brings naturalistic and experimental scientific approaches closer together (Strasser, 2019; Hine, 2008; Waterton, Ellis & Wynne, 2013). Observation and collection methods and expertise become a bridge between molecular biology and natural history, and the theater of proof expands beyond the confines of peer communities and laboratories. Citizens can “see their data” as they produce and upload it using smartphone applications, thus shortening the chain between local capture and centralized scientific interpretation (Fortun, 2012). But this same mediation can paradoxically also benefit certain dominant actors by redistributing control over the knowledge produced, thereby reducing the public's stake in it (Youatt, 2008, Polleri, 2019).

The increased networking of research between distant laboratories, scientific unions and lay-people also produces tensions around geographical and ecological variations in the generation and relevance of knowledge about biodiversity (Kohler, 2002). Planetary scale initiatives, like the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) that seeks to strengthen the science-
policy interface for biodiversity governance at a global level, or the Global
Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), an international network and data
infrastructure aimed at providing open access to biodiversity data, operate on the
premise that knowledge about biodiversity is universal, and easily transportable and
interpretable from one context to another. They present a gloss of unity typical of
knowledge infrastructures that blurs the local operation of science (Bowker & Star,
1999), and its practical accomplishment embedded in specific sociohistorical contexts
(Lynch, 1997; Pickering, 1992; Wynne, 1996).

Yet biodiversity data originate in the field and are attached to their location. This is a
notable difference between the IPCC work on climate change and the IPBES network
(Borie et al., 2021). Traditional types of natural history expertise, operating on a
regional scale, are challenged by these new forms of data collection. The latter rely
increasingly on photographs and mechanical validation, and less on communitarian
links and interpersonal relationships (Newman et al., 2012).

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>Fig.2 Flyer of the annual campaign “Oiseaux des Jardins” organized by the Ligue pour la Protection des Oiseaux and the Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle.</figcaption></figure>

Source: LPO.

In short, the participatory turn in biodiversity monitoring and these new
sociotechnical configurations are changing scientific practice. The process redefines
what qualifies as scientific knowledge, as more diverse actors intervene at different
stages of knowledge production and dissemination (Callon, Lascoumes & Barthe,
2009; Heaton et al., 2018; Nowotny, Scott & Gibbons, 2001). Involving non-
professionals using digital technologies blurs the boundaries of how science is done,
its sources of legitimacy and its contributors.
The number of participatory or citizen science projects, particularly those that integrate a digital component, has grown exponentially over the past decade (Mazumdar et al., 2018). The creation of citizen science associations, and of a dedicated journal, are contributing to a rapidly growing academic literature, much of which is descriptive or prescriptive in nature (Turnhout et al., 2020). In this context, perspectives developed within science and technology studies provide several insights that encourage us to look deeper into this phenomenon.

Science and technology studies insist on the need to examine how monitoring processes are constructed, as science in the making. Secondly, STS perspectives criticize the claim to universally valid knowledge and argue for its situated character (Haraway, 2020/1988). Finally, information infrastructures are generally invisible unless they break down. In this context, following a process of “infrastructural inversion” (Bowker & Star, 1999), data need to be re-anchored in their material conditions of extraction to shed light on the material conditions that make monitoring possible.

From those insights, we raise salient research questions, in particular:

* How do participatory science platforms reconfigure relations of expertise and authority, and thus power relationships?

* How do digital biodiversity platforms expose and enact the realities they make visible?

* How do digital instruments shape participatory biodiversity science, its expertise and vice versa?

* How do digital participatory science initiatives deal with frictions between their local participatory conditions and interoperability for reliable biodiversity data?

* How do digital initiatives and their respective milieux enrich each other locally?

Answers come from examining such issues around digital participatory science initiatives.

## Expertise and authority

Participatory science projects and their instrumentation are grounded in and enact certain models of participation. The ways in which different human and non-human components are assembled leads to the valuing of certain activities and shapes how they may be carried out. For example, digital participatory science programs organize, express or facilitate particular modes of engagement with environmental problems (Gabrys, Pritchard & Barratt, 2016; Couvet & Prévot, 2015; Kimura & Kinchy, 2016).

Expert and lay knowledge cultures interact in certain ways (Wynne, 1996), and actors from different origins and contexts of activity and with asymmetries of position negotiate the legitimacy of different registers of knowledge (Epstein, 1996; Collins & Evans, 2007; Millerand, Heaton & Myles, 2018). New forms of networked expertise (Pfister, 2011) allow for knowledge co-construction or the integration of counter-expertise. Like Dickel & Franzen (2016), we need to ask: how do participatory science platforms reconfigure relations of expertise and authority, and thus power relationships?
Questioning the ability of the various projects to (re)configure actors and their practices, as well as the spaces of negotiation and play that they open up, highlights the performativity of these spaces. Seen in this light, they appear not only as bridging mechanisms between already constituted actors, but also as sites where these actors are constituted.

## Representation, visibility and invisibility in scientific practice

Science and technology studies scholars have long analysed the many different kinds of relations that are accomplished or dismantled in the work people do with scientific representational forms (Coopmans et al., 2014; Lynch & Woolgar, 1990). However, few have compared traditional naturalist ways of observing (Lynch & Law, 1990) and digitally mediated or enhanced ones.

Screen displays and inscription devices such as interactive maps and checklists are now deployed to make certain information accessible and encourage participation. Not only do data collection protocols condition the representation of the object and thus the collector's relation to it (Charonnet, 2019), the resulting data represents phenomena in different ways. In these distributed networks, certain data are considered worthy of being reported and made visible, while other information is discarded as insignificant.

Some scholars interpret the process of digitization as a way of hiding the “missing masses” (Denis, 2018). One may ask to what extent lay contributors are the new, invisible technicians (Barley & Bechky, 1994; Shapin, 1989) of biodiversity science. How do digital biodiversity platforms expose and enact the realities they make visible?

## Infrastructure

In biodiversity, as in science generally, claims to universality rest on making successful discursive linkages, coordinations and correspondences among disparate local practices (Bowker & Star, 1999). Digital technologies both enable and frame massive participation. Local observations become valid data once they are treated and aggregated into global databases. Some STS literature focuses on issues of standardization that arise as the scale and scope of these infrastructures increase (Latour, 1987, Star, 1989, Pickering, 1992).

Others suggest strategies such as generification (Pollock et al., 2007; Heaton, 2018) or decentralized coordination (Holbern et al., 2019; Sterner et al., 2020) that may enable local specificities to co-exist with global databases. Such approaches challenge universal validity as a prerequisite to robust knowledge, particularly if the chains of recording, treatment and circulation of biodiversity data involve abstraction and the “dematerialization” and decontextualisation of naturalist sightings (Latour, 1995). How do digital participatory science initiatives deal with frictions between remaining embedded in their local and societal conditions of existence in order to encourage participation (Haywood, 2014; Newman et al., 2017), and achieving interoperability and producing reliable biodiversity data (Edwards et al., 2011)?

## Contributions of the papers
In pursuing how to conceptualize “the next generation of STS encounters with digital artefacts, environments and interactions” (Vertesi & Ribes, 2019), this special section asks: How do digital instruments influence or shape participatory biodiversity science, its expertise and vice versa? In this SaC special section, the papers analyze changes in biodiversity knowledge, expertise and infrastructures as enacted in participatory science initiatives that have a digital component (Kimura & Kinchy, 2019). The participatory digital biodiversity initiatives involve groups of heterogeneous actors - indigenous peoples, amateur naturalists, hunters, researchers and academics – in a variety of local geographical contexts (France, Finland, Canada), all with ties to international networks.

In that sense, the articles all describe ways of doing things with asymmetries of position. They recognize the heterogeneity of knowledge that results when the scientific community mixes with civil society. One paper embeds interplay between indigenous people and researchers, others discuss amateurs’ renewed reliance on a culture of gift or on technical mediations, or deal with how digital reporting requires the renegotiation of wildlife monitoring. They ask: How do digital initiatives and their respective milieux interact and enrich each other locally? And how are local achievements transported and made visible in other contexts?

The paper by Taru Peltola and Outi Ratamäki examines issues of data quality and epistemic power in the context of wolf management in Finland. Digitally mediated participation in wolf monitoring sustains a controversy over the size of the wolf population, wolf behaviour and the number of hunting permits issued. Although digital tools expand opportunities for various social groups to take part in biodiversity research, they may assign citizens tasks that make them mere assistants of professional researchers, thus maintaining conventional power relations in research processes. The digital participatory tool used in Finland enforces strict scientific criteria for data validity and offers limited possibilities for citizens to use the data produced. In preparing the latest wolf management plan, Finnish wolf policy stakeholders compared the digital tool used in Finland with another tool used in Scandinavia. This comparison allowed the stakeholders to imagine other ways of reorganising collaboration and sharing epistemic power more equally. In line with the growing interest in envisioning alternative techno-scientific practices in science and technology studies, such alternative wolf ‘data stories’ demonstrate that even subtle changes in digital designs could make participatory architectures more responsive to multiple knowledge needs without compromising the high quality of evidence needed for public decision-making. Peltola and Ratamäki’s research illustrates how different normative ideas about wolf data are inscribed in digital devices and highlights the importance of acknowledging participant expectations concerning data and participation in contested situations—such as conservation or natural resource conflicts.

The paper by Beckett Sterner and Steve Elliot examines how two sets of principles for biodiversity data governance influence participation, particularly with relation to Indigenous peoples. The organisation and governance of large digital biodiversity data repositories can address or perpetuate the colonial history of biodiversity science and current inequities. But some researchers and Indigenous peoples are developing and implementing new strategies to challenge assumptions about who, and whose
interests, should count in this type of scientific infrastructure. Two notable efforts are the FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) and CARE (Collective benefit, Authority, Responsibility, Ethics) Principles for scientific data management and governance. The authors use the concept of fit-for-use data that attends to both social and technical considerations regarding agents and data purposes. They show how these principles influence the governance of biodiversity data portals. The FAIR Principles, already widely adopted by biodiversity researchers, prioritize machine agents and efficient computation, while the CARE Principles prioritize Indigenous Peoples and their data sovereignty. Both illustrate the potential of actors' strategies to design and implement governance principles for data fitness-of-use; they change assumptions about who are important participants in data science.

Florian Charvolin analyzes amateurs' contributions to biodiversity knowledge when social ties among distant participants are maintained primarily through their use of a database. Faune France is a major French biodiversity database. Most of the data it contains is produced by amateur naturalists who are not paid for what they report. This lack of remuneration is seen to be either exploitive by those who study inequalities of access and participation in amateur circles, or an opportunity for empowerment by those who promote new digital solutions to naturalist reporting. After analyzing accounts by Faune France steering committee members and statistics on contributor behavior, Charvolin found that personal motivations or local social networks and considerations did not fully explain the desire to contribute to Faune France. Instead, participation is associated with a special attachment to the living thing observed: birds, butterflies, frogs, etc. Attachment is linked to a multisensory encounter with the object of attachment and emphasizes the role of natural agency in building social commitments. Participants view reporting their observations on Faune France as both a gift and a responsibility. Data is given freely to an indeterminate other, be it the distant scientist or other participants on the internet. The gift stems from a sensitivity to and a sense of responsibility for the life observed. This study asks that we reconsider lay participation in digital biodiversity initiatives from the point of view of the users who are neither exploited, empowered or nor lured into participating. Instead, they are cautious and thoughtful about the final destination of their data and the possibilities for its misuse.

Finally, the article by Lorna Heaton points out a more general feature of biodiversity digital citizen science initiatives: the role of mediating practices that unfold as amateurs and professionals connect with one another. An examination of several digital participatory science initiatives studied between 2013 and 2017 illustrates the diversity of amateur participation using digital technologies at every step of the knowledge process – from contributing data from local field observations, to identifying species, quality control and validation, to digitizing plant specimens for inclusion in transnational databases. Increasingly, chains of instruments, people and devices are involved in compiling, organizing and documenting biodiversity data collections. Collaborative platforms and databases emerge, not only as the product of scientific activity or as tools, but as elements that are endowed with a certain performativity through the ordering possibilities they suggest or impose. Attending to practices in this variety of contexts raises questions about organizational innovations and novel forms of division of labour in participatory science. The participation of large numbers of people with varied backgrounds and expertise results in an increasingly distributed and less linear type of biodiversity science. As the product of
numerous interventions, data are best seen as relational; their authorship or ownership need not be their defining characteristic. Indeed, the data generating technologies and practices of participatory science initiatives themselves generate a kind of untethered relational potential that deserves exploration.

## Conclusion

In this SaC special section, each article proposes specific answers to the questions posed in the Introduction. Since each situation and context is unique, trying to produce a single, overarching answer is not only impossible, it goes against key STS precepts. Taken together, the articles address the limits of infrastructure studies; these often neglect the behaviour of participants who use these infrastructures, and do not question which groups have a stake in them. This research often avoids issues of intermediaries' viewpoints or how intermediary links are constituted.

The routinization of practice can make us forget how socio-technical mediation frames, directs and constrains action. Participation goes hand in hand with the mediated distribution of power that influences behaviour -- what Foucault (1994) calls the "conduct of conduct." The generalization of the internet renders such conduct conspicuous, shared and less amenable to clear assignment to centres of power. At the same time, it allows individuals more liberty for action and manoeuvre.

The articles here investigate the risks taken and experienced by those who participate in digital biodiversity monitoring, in a context where data validation depends on new audiences and extended versions of the peer communities. Digital technologies blur the previously clear-cut dichotomies between the producer and the user, actors and intermediaries, the distribution of agency among living beings, or the relationship between strategic considerations and practical technicalities in human initiatives. These technologies connect the local achievements of biodiversity monitoring with extended outcomes which were previously beyond reach -- be they achieved by transferring knowledge, mimicking other practices or making data interoperable in infrastructures.

Some 40 years of STS research on symmetric explanations of scientific conduct and relationships with lay people notwithstanding, the articles here suggest the need to revisit long-time notions such as the role of biopower, illusion and imaginaries; all remain relevant to conditions for effective inclusion. This new research agenda seeks a common explanatory language encompassing many aspects: human and nonhumans, material, technical and symbolic mediations in coordinating human activity. It asks questions about the moral and political obligations experienced by the forces contributing to digital environmental surveillance.

## REFERENCES

Barley, S. R. &. Bechky, B. A. (1994) In the backrooms of science the work of technicians in science labs, *Work and Occupations*, 21(1), pp. 85-126.

Borie, M., Mahony, M., Obermeister, N., Hulme, M. (2021) Knowing like a global expert organization: Comparative insights from the IPCC and IPBES, *Global Environmental Change*, 68, 102261.
Bowker, G. C. (2000) Biodiversity, Datadiversity, *Social Studies of Science*, 30(5) pp. 643-683.DOI:10.1177/030631200030005001

Bowker, G.C. & Star, S.L. (1999) *Sorting things out*, (Cambridge: MIT Press).

Callon, M., Lascoumes, P., & Barthe, Y. (2009) *Agir dans un monde incertain: essai sur la démocratie technique*, (Paris: Seuil).

Charonnet, E. (2019) De prises en (sur)prises, l'attachement du lépidoptériste ou comment « contacter » un papillon, *ethnographiques.org*, n° 38 https://www.ethnographiques.org

Collins, H., & Evans, R. (2007). *Rethinking expertise*, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

Coopmans, C., Vertesi, J., Lynch, M. & Woolgar, S. (Eds.). (2014) *Representation in scientific practice revisited*, (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).

Couvet, D., & Prevot, A. C. (2015). Citizen-science programs: Towards transformative biodiversity governance. *Environmental Development, 13*, pp. 39-45.

Denis, J. (2018) *Le travail invisible des données*, (Paris: Presses de l'Ecole des Mines).

Dickel, S., & Franzen, M. (2016) The" Problem of Extension" revisited: new modes of digital participation in science, *Journal of Science Communication*, 15(1).
https://jcom.sissa.it/archive/15/01/JCOM_1501_2016_A06

Edwards, P. N., Mayernik, M. S., Batcheller, A. L., Bowker, G. C., & Borgman, C. L. (2011) Science friction: Data, metadata, and collaboration, *Social Studies of Science*, 41(5), pp. 667-690.

Epstein, S. (1996) *Impure science: AIDS, activism, and the politics of knowledge*, (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press).

Fortun, K. (2012) Biopolitics and the informating of environmentalism. In Rajan, K. S. (Ed.), *Lively capital: Biotechnologies, ethics, and governance in global markets*, pp. 306-326, (Durham : Duke University Press).

Foucault, M. (1994) *Dits et écrits IV*, (Paris: Gallimard).

Gabrys J. (2016). *Program Earth*, (Minneapolis : University of Minnesota Press).

Gabrys, J., Pritchard, H., & Barratt, B. (2016) Just good enough data: Figuring data citizenship through air pollution sensing and data stories, *Big Data & Society*, 3(2), 2053951716679677.

Granjou, C., Mauz, I., Barbier, M. & Breucker, P. (2014) Making taxonomy environmentally relevant: Insights for an all taxa biodiversity inventory, *Environmental Science and Policy*, 38, pp. 254-262.

Haraway, D. (2020/1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. In *Feminist theory reader* (pp. 303-310), (London: Routledge).
Haywood, B. K. (2014) A “sense of place” in public participation in scientific research, *Science Education*, 98(1), pp. 64-83.

Heaton, L. (2018) La standardisation et la générification ; le cas de ebird, In L. Heaton, F. Millerand, P. Dias da Silva & S. Proulx (Eds.), *La reconfiguration du travail scientifique en biodiversité : pratiques amateurs et technologies numériques*, pp.131-145, (Montreal: Presses Universitaires de Montréal).

Heaton L., Millerand F., Dias da Silva P. & Proulx S, (Eds.) (2018) *La reconfiguration du travail scientifique en biodiversité : pratiques amateurs et technologies numériques*, (Montréal: Presses Universitaires de Montréal).

Hine, C. (2008) *Systematics as Cyberscience: Computers, Change, and Continuity in Science*, (Cambridge: MIT Press).

Hobern, D., Baptiste, B., Copas, K., Guralnick, R., Hahn, A., van Huis, E., et al. (2019). Connecting data and expertise: a new alliance for biodiversity knowledge. *Biodiversity. Data Journal*, 7. doi: 10.3897/BDJ.7.e33679

Kelling, S., Hochachka, W. M., Fink, D., Riedewald, M., Caruana, R., Ballard, G., & Hooker, G. (2009) Data-intensive science: a new paradigm for biodiversity studies, *BioScience*, 59(7), pp. 613-620.

Kimura, A. H. & Kinchy, A. (2016) Citizen science: Probing the virtues and contexts of participatory research. *Engaging Science, Technology, and Society*, 2, pp. 331-361.

Kimura, A. H. & Kinchy, A. (2019). *Science by the people : Participation, power and the politics of environmental knowledge* (New Brunswick, NJ : Rutgers University Press).

Kohler, R. E. (2002) *Landscapes and labscapes: Exploring the lab-field border in biology*, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

Latour, B. (1995) The “Pédofil” of Boa Vista, *Common Knowledge*, 4(1), pp. 144-187.

Latour, B. (1987) *Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society*, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

Lynch, M. et Law, J. (1990) Lists, field guides, and the descriptive organization of seeing: birdwatching as an exemplary observational activity, In M. Lynch & S. Woolgar (Eds.), *Representation in scientific practice*, pp. 267-299, (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).

Lynch, M., & Woolgar, S. (Eds.). (1990) *Representation in scientific practice*, (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).

Lynch, M. (1997) *Scientific practice and ordinary action: Ethnomethodology and social studies of science*, (London: Cambridge University Press).

Mazumdar, S. et al. (2018) Citizen science technologies and new opportunities for participation, in Hecker, S. et al. (Eds) *Citizen Science, Innovation in open science, society and policy*, pp. 303-320, (London, UCL Press).

Millerand, F., Heaton, L. & Myles, D. (2018) Les reconfigurations sociales de l'expertise sur Internet. In Claveau, F., & Prud'homme, J. (Eds.), *Experts, sciences et sociétés*, (Montreal : Presses de l'Université de Montréal).
Newman, G., Wiggins, A., Crall, A., Graham, E., Newman, S. & Crowston, K. (2012) The future of citizen science: emerging technologies and shifting paradigms, *Frontiers in ecology and the environment*, 10(6), pp. 298-304.

Newman, G., Chandler, M., Clyde, M., McGreavy, B., Haklay, M., Ballard, H., ... & Gallo, J. (2017) Leveraging the power of place in citizen science for effective conservation decision making, *Biological Conservation*, 208, pp. 55-64.

Nowotny, H., Scott, P. & Gibbons, M. (2001) *Rethinking science. Knowledge and the public in the age of uncertainty*, (Cambridge: Polity Press).

Pfister, D. S. (2011) Networked expertise in the era of many-to-many communication: On Wikipedia and invention, *Social Epistemology*, 3(25), pp. 217-231.

Pickering, A. (Ed.). (1992) *Science as practice and culture*, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

Polleri M., (2019) Conflictual collaboration : citizen science and governance of radioactive contamination after Fukushima nuclear disaster, *American Ethnologist*, 46(2), pp. 214-226.

Pollock, N., Williams R. & D'Adderio L. (2007) Global software and its provenance: generification work in the production of organizational software packages, *Social Studies of Science*, 37 (2) pp. 254-280.

Shapin, S. (1989) The invisible technician, *American Scientist*, 7, pp. 554–563.

Star, S. L. (1989) The structure of ill-structured solutions: Boundary objects and heterogeneous distributed problem solving, In R. Gasser & M. N. Huhns (Eds.), *Distributed artificial intelligence*, pp. 37-54, (San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann).

Sterner, B. W., Gilbert, E. E., & Franz, N. M. (2020) Decentralized but Globally Coordinated Biodiversity Data. *Frontiers in Big Data, 3*, 519133.

Strasser, B. J. (2019) *Collecting Experiments*, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

Turnhout, E., Metze, T., Wyborn, C., Klenk, N., & Louder, E., (2020) The politics of co-production: participation, power, and transformation, *Current opinion in environmental sustainability*, 42, pp.15-21.

Vertesi, J. & Ribes, D. (Eds.) (2019) *Digital STS: a field guide for science & technology studies*, (Princeton: Princeton University Press).

Waterton, C., Ellis, R., & Wynne, B. (2013) *Barcoding nature: shifting cultures of taxonomy in an age of biodiversity loss*, (London: Routledge).

Wynne, B. (1996) May Sheep Safely Graze?: A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide, In S. Lash, B. Szerszynski & B. Wynne (Eds.), *Risk, environment and modernity: Towards a new ecology*, pp. 44-83, (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage).

Youatt, R. (2008) Counting species: Biopower and the Global Biodiversity Census, *Environmental Values*, 17, pp. 393-417.