There are many ideas on how much influence experts have on a society and how much influence society has on the expert. Without one or the other, neither would exist. Either that, or this world would be quite different if it was made up of only experts or only the common citizen. If the world were made up of only the common citizen, everyone would be taking care of his or her own. Nobody would be working for the expert, voting for the expert, criticizing the expert, looking up on the expert, or even preparing to be an expert himself or herself. But without the common citizen, the expert would have nobody to impress, nobody to influence, nobody to work for, and nobody to guide, or even nobody to get feedback from.
             In the book "Citizens, Experts, and the Environment", by Frank Fischer, the author writes about the relationship between the citizen and the expert. In the book, "Confronting the Experts", by Brian Martin, the author also writes about the relationship between the citizen and the expert and the conflicts between the experts vs. the expert. He also includes a few case articles from different individuals who wrote about their experiences with experts. Another well-known author is Thomas Kuhn, who came up with the term paradigm, which deals with shaping how you deal with things. Kuhn described it as a collection of beliefs shared by scientists, a set of agreements about how problems are to be understood.
             In Fischer's book, Fischer focuses on public policy. He questions the role of citizens, whether citizens are knowledgeable enough to participate in a world where technology is way over our heads, or have the expert make the decisions for everyone because after all, they are the experts. He adds that citizen participation is low and that it can have some kind of impact on democracy. He defines citizen participation as deliberation on issues affecting one's own life . So ...