In 2008, a grassroots opposition movement succeeded in stopping California’s aerial spray program for eradicating the light brown apple moth. The movement included a small core of citizen experts who focused on refuting the technical assessments that the state used to justify the aerial spray program. This article analyzes the rhetoric of the opposition movement, especially its written technical discourse, to find out how the movement established expert authority and why the movement’s rhetorical success represents a cautionary tale for public deliberation in an era of democratized expertise.

The questions are, by now, familiar in our technologically advanced society: How can or should ordinary citizens influence public policy decisions when the problems under consideration call for the...

Abstract In the field of conservation, the distinction between academic research and advocacy appears to be undergoing a shift as the number of PhD-level researchers at conservation advocacy organizations grows. Drawing on my case study of one researcher at a prominent conservation nongovernmental organization (NGO), I have shown how this shift is manifested in the communication of NGO research. My study includes a discourse analysis of this researcher's publications from the forums of both scholarship and advocacy including, as a representation of discourse in the latter forum, gray literature (reports, books, and other texts produced and distributed outside the channels of the academic and publishing industry). I have also drawn on my interviews with this researcher about her publications. My study highlights specific features typical of her rhetoric that result from her occupying a hybridized cultural and professional space where research and advocacy overlap. Notes 1My study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the university where I completed this work. 2All quotes from Brandon are taken from an interview I conducted with her on March 5, 2005. 3Further examples illustrating my points here and elsewhere can be found in CitationLindeman (2006), the larger study that is the basis for this article.

Two versions of a biological opinion written by different teams in the U.S. Fish and Wild-life Service illuminate how different rhetorical strategies reflect different values. The historical narrative in the earlier biological opinion, which is used to argue for vigorous action to protect endangered species along the Missouri River, is largely erased in the later opinion that privileges human uses of the river system. This analysis emphasizes the problematic nature of authorship when the concept is applied to a document produced in an organization or agency. Moreover, examining how authors control information reveals the power technical writers have to influence meaning making.