Article published In:
Pragmatics and Society: Online-First Articles

Dealing with the dual demands of expertise and democracy

How experts create proximity to the public without undermining their status as experts

ORCID logo | University of Groningen
ORCID logo | Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
ORCID logo | University of Groningen | University of the WitwatersrandJohannesburg
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.
Keywords: ordinary democracy, public participation, expertise, epistemics, reported speech, conversation analysis, discursive psychology
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Materials and methods
    • 2.1The corpus
    • 2.2Analytic procedure
  • 3.Analysis
    • 3.1Animating the public’s voice
    • 3.2Speaking on behalf of ‘the consumer’
    • 3.3Presenting the public’s hypothetical opinions
  • 4.Conclusion and discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 2 November 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.22071.pad
References (49)
References
Bongelli, Ramona, Ilaria Riccioni, Alessandra Fermani, and Gill Philip. 2020. “Hypothetical Questions in Everyday Italian Conversations.” Lingua 2461, 102951. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Buttny, Richard. 2009. “Wal-Mart’s Presentation to the Community: Discursive Practices in Mitigating Risk, Limiting Public Discussion, and Developing a Relationship.” Discourse & Communication 3 (3): 235–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. “Citizen Participation, Metadiscourse, and Accountability: a Public Hearing on a Zoning Change for Wal-Mart”. Journal of Communication 60 (4): 636–659. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. “Accounting for “How we know” about the Safety/Risks with Hydrofracking: an Inter-Governmental Hearing on the Revised Environmental Impact Statement on whether to Permit Hydrofracking in New York State.” Journal of Risk Research 22 (3): 334–345. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Buttny, Richard, and Jodi R. Cohen. 2015. “Public Meeting Discourse.” In The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction, ed. by Karen Tracy, Cornelia Ilie, and Todd Sandel, 1242–1252. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clayman, Steven E. 2002. “Tribune of the People: Maintaining the Legitimacy of Aggressive Journalism.” Media, Culture & Society 24 (2): 191–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. “Speaking on Behalf of the Public in Broadcast News Interviews.” In Reporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction, ed. by Elizabeth Holt, and Rebecca Clift, 221–243. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. “Questioning in Broadcast Journalism.” In ‘Why Do You Ask?’: The Function of Questions in Institutional Discourse, ed. by Alice Freed, and Susan Ehrlich, 256–278. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017. “The Micropolitics of Legitimacy: Political Positioning and Journalistic Scrutiny at the Boundary of the Mainstream.” Social Psychology Quarterly 80 (1): 41–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clayman, Steven E., and John Heritage. 2002. The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clift, Rebecca, and Elizabeth Holt. 2006. “Introduction.” In Reporting talk: Reported speech in Interaction, ed. by Elizabeth Holt, and Rebecca Clift, 1–15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collins, Harry, and Robert Evans. 2007. Rethinking Expertise. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Committee on Biotechnology and Food. 2002. Food and Genes: A Public Debate on Biotechnology and Food. The Hague: Department of Agriculture, Nature Preservation and Fisheries (in Dutch).Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 1999. “Coherent Voicing: on Prosody in Conversational Reported Speech.” In Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse, ed. by Wolfram Bublitz, Uta Lenk, and Eija Ventolaj, 11–35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Edwards, Derek, and Jonathan Potter. 2005. “Discursive Psychology, Mental States and Descriptions.” In Conversation and Cognition, ed. by Hedwig te Molder, and Jonathan Potter, 241–259. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E. 1997. “Speaking Conditionally: Some Contexts for If-Clauses in Conversation.” In On Conditionals Again, ed. by René Dirven, and Angeliki Athanasiadou, 387–415. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Funtowicz, Silvio O., and Jerome R. Ravetz. 1993. “Science for the Post-Normal Age.” Futures 25 (7): 739–755. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Ervin. 1979. “Footing.” Semiotica 251: 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hanssen, Lucien, Jan Gutteling, Luuk Lagerwerf, Jos Bartels, and Willem Roeterdink. 2001. In the Margins of the Public Debate on “Food and Genes”: Research under Commission of the Committee Biotechnology and Food. Enschede: Twente University (in Dutch).Google Scholar
Heinrichsmeier, Rachel. 2021. “Who Gets to Speak: the Role of Reported Speech for Identity Work in Complaint Stories.” Journal of Pragmatics 1741: 43–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hepburn, Alexa, and Galina B. Bolden. 2013. “The Conversation Analytic Approach to Transcription.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. by Jack Sidnell, and Tanya Stivers, 57–76. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John. 2002. “Designing Questions and Setting Agendas in the News Interview”. In Studies in Language and Social Interaction, ed. by Phillip J. Glenn, Jenny Mandelbaum, and Curtis D. LeBaron, 57–91. London, UK and New York, NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. “Epistemics in Action: Action Formation and Territories of Knowledge.” Research on Language & Social Interaction, 45 (1): 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John, and Geoffrey Raymond. 2005. “The Terms of Agreement: Indexing Epistemic Authority and Subordination in Talk-in-Interaction.” Social Psychology Quarterly, 68 (1), 15–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John, and Tanya Stivers. 1999. “Online Commentary in Acute Medical Visits: a Method of Shaping Patient Expectations”. Social Science & Medicine 49 (11): 1501–1517. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilgartner, Stephen. 2000. Science on Stage: Expert Advice as Public Drama. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holt, Elizabeth. 1996. “Reporting on Talk: the Use of Direct Reported Speech in Conversation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 29 (3): 219–245. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. “Reporting and Reacting: Concurrent Responses to Reported Speech”. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33 (4), 425–454. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holt, Elizabeth, and Rebecca Clift (eds.). 2006. Reporting talk: Reported Speech in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 2004. “Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction”. In Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, ed. by Gene Lerner, 13–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Locke, Abigail, and Derek Edwards. 2003. “Bill and Monica: Memory, Emotion and Normativity in Clinton’s Grand Jury Testimony.” British Journal of Social Psychology 42 (2): 239–256. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mogendorff, Karen, Hedwig te Molder, Cees van Woerkum, and Bart Gremmen. 2014. “We Say: “ …,” They Say: “…”: How Plant Science Experts Draw on Reported Dialogue to Shelve User Concerns.” Discourse & Communication 8 (2): 137–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noordegraaf, Martine, Carolus van Nijnatten, and Ed Elbers. 2008. “Assessing Suitability for Adoptive Parenthood: Hypothetical Questions as Part of Ongoing Conversation.” Discourse studies 10 (5): 655–672. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Policy Document on Biotechnology. 2000. Dutch Parliament 2000–2001, 27. 4281, nr.1 (in Dutch).Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita. 1984. “Giving a Source or Basis: the Practice in Conversation of Telling ‘How I know’.” Journal of Pragmatics 8 (5–6): 607–625. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1986. “Extreme Case Formulations: A Way of Legitimizing Claims.” Human Studies 91: 219–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Potter, Jonathan. 1996. Representing Reality: Discourse, Rhetoric and Social Construction. London: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prettner, Robert, Hedwig te Molder, Maarten Hajer, and Rens Vliegenthart. 2021. “Staging Expertis in Times of COVID-19: An Analysis of the Science-Policy-Society Interface in the Dutch “Intelligent Lockdown””. Frontiers in Communication 61: 1–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey. 2003. “Grammar and Social Organization: Yes/No Interrogatives and the Structure of Responding.” American Sociological Review 68 (6), 939–967. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. “Grammar and Social Relations”. In ‘Why Do You Ask?’: The Function of Questions in Institutional Discourse, ed. by Alice Freed, and Susan Ehrlich, 87–107. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2013. “Ten Operations in Self-Initiated, Same-Turn Repair.” In Conversational Repair and Human Understanding, ed. by Makoto Hayashi, Geoffrey Raymond, and Jack Sidnell, 41–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Speer, Susan A. 2012. “Hypothetical Questions: A Comparative Analysis and Implications for “Applied” vs. “Basic” Conversation Analysis.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 45 (4): 352–374. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sprain, Leah, Martin Carcasson, and Andy J. Merolla. 2014. “Utilizing “on Tap” Experts in Deliberative Forums: Implications for Design.” Journal of Applied Communication Research 42 (2): 150–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stokoe, Elizabeth, and Derek Edwards. 2007. “‘Black This, Black That’: Racial Insults and Reported Speech in Neighbour Complaints and Police Interrogations.” Discourse & Society 18 (3): 337–372. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tracy, Karen, and Jessica M. F. Hughes. 2014. “Democracy-Appealing Partisanship: a Situated Ideal of Citizenship.” Journal of Applied Communication Research 42 (3): 307–324. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turnhout, Esther, Willemijn Tuinstra, and Willem Halffman. 2019. Environmental Expertise: Connecting Science, Policy, and Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Whitehead, Kevin A. 2020. “The Problem of Context in the Analysis of Social Action: the Case of Implicit Whiteness in Post-Apartheid South Africa.” Social Psychology Quarterly 83 (3): 294–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wooffitt, Robin. 2001. “Raising the Dead: Reported Speech and Medium-Sitter Interaction.” Discourse Studies 3 (3): 351–374. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wynne, Brian. 2006. “Public Engagement as a Means of Restoring Public Trust in Science – Hitting the Notes, but Missing the Music?” Community Genetics 9 (3): 211–220. DOI logoGoogle Scholar