Difference between revisions of "Padmos2024"
(Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Padmos, H., H. te Molder & T. Koole |Title=Dealing with the dual demands of expertise and democracy: How experts create proximity to the...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) m (AndreiKorbut moved page Padmos et al. 2024 to Padmos2024 without leaving a redirect) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BibEntry | {{BibEntry | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
| − | |Author(s)=Padmos | + | |Author(s)=Henrike Padmos; Hedwig te Molder; Tom Koole |
|Title=Dealing with the dual demands of expertise and democracy: How experts create proximity to the public without undermining their status as experts | |Title=Dealing with the dual demands of expertise and democracy: How experts create proximity to the public without undermining their status as experts | ||
|Tag(s)=EMCA; ordinary democracy; public participation; expertise; epistemics; reported speech; discursive psychology; conversation analysis | |Tag(s)=EMCA; ordinary democracy; public participation; expertise; epistemics; reported speech; discursive psychology; conversation analysis | ||
| − | |Key= | + | |Key=Padmos2024 |
|Year=2024 | |Year=2024 | ||
|Language=English | |Language=English | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
|Volume=15 | |Volume=15 | ||
|Number=6 | |Number=6 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Pages=858–883 |
| − | | | + | |URL=https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/journals/10.1075/ps.22071.pad |
| + | |DOI=10.1075/ps.22071.pad | ||
|Abstract=Credible expertise is no longer a given in our contemporary democracy: for knowledge to be authoritative, experts must take into account a wider audience than just scientific colleagues. This study uses conversation analysis and discursive psychology to investigate how experts deal with this role in practice. We show that experts in a Dutch public hearing on GM food orient to ‘speaking on behalf of the public’ without undermining their status as experts. They do this by (1) animating but not overlapping the voices of the public (2) speaking on behalf of ‘the consumer’ and (3) presenting hypothetical public opinions. In this way, experts reconcile what they treat as the dual requirement of distance to support an expert opinion and the proximity to the public required for good democracy. We further discuss what implications this research has for the role of experts in a modern democracy. | |Abstract=Credible expertise is no longer a given in our contemporary democracy: for knowledge to be authoritative, experts must take into account a wider audience than just scientific colleagues. This study uses conversation analysis and discursive psychology to investigate how experts deal with this role in practice. We show that experts in a Dutch public hearing on GM food orient to ‘speaking on behalf of the public’ without undermining their status as experts. They do this by (1) animating but not overlapping the voices of the public (2) speaking on behalf of ‘the consumer’ and (3) presenting hypothetical public opinions. In this way, experts reconcile what they treat as the dual requirement of distance to support an expert opinion and the proximity to the public required for good democracy. We further discuss what implications this research has for the role of experts in a modern democracy. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 11:18, 24 June 2025
| Padmos2024 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Padmos2024 |
| Author(s) | Henrike Padmos, Hedwig te Molder, Tom Koole |
| Title | Dealing with the dual demands of expertise and democracy: How experts create proximity to the public without undermining their status as experts |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, ordinary democracy, public participation, expertise, epistemics, reported speech, discursive psychology, conversation analysis |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2024 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Pragmatics and Society |
| Volume | 15 |
| Number | 6 |
| Pages | 858–883 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1075/ps.22071.pad |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Credible expertise is no longer a given in our contemporary democracy: for knowledge to be authoritative, experts must take into account a wider audience than just scientific colleagues. This study uses conversation analysis and discursive psychology to investigate how experts deal with this role in practice. We show that experts in a Dutch public hearing on GM food orient to ‘speaking on behalf of the public’ without undermining their status as experts. They do this by (1) animating but not overlapping the voices of the public (2) speaking on behalf of ‘the consumer’ and (3) presenting hypothetical public opinions. In this way, experts reconcile what they treat as the dual requirement of distance to support an expert opinion and the proximity to the public required for good democracy. We further discuss what implications this research has for the role of experts in a modern democracy.
Notes
