Article published In:
Pragmatics and Society: Online-First ArticlesDealing with the dual demands of expertise and democracy
How experts create proximity to the public without undermining their status as experts
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].
References (49)
Bongelli, Ramona, Ilaria Riccioni, Alessandra Fermani, and Gill Philip. 2020. “Hypothetical
Questions in Everyday Italian
Conversations.” Lingua 2461, 102951. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
. 2010. “Citizen
Participation, Metadiscourse, and Accountability: a Public Hearing on a Zoning Change for
Wal-Mart”. Journal of
Communication 60 (4): 636–659. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
. 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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Clayman, Steven E. 2002. “Tribune of the People:
Maintaining the Legitimacy of Aggressive Journalism.” Media, Culture &
Society 24 (2): 191–210. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
2017. “The Micropolitics of
Legitimacy: Political Positioning and Journalistic Scrutiny at the Boundary of the
Mainstream.” Social Psychology
Quarterly 80 (1): 41–64. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Clayman, Steven E., and John Heritage. 2002. The
News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the
Air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Funtowicz, Silvio O., and Jerome R. Ravetz. 1993. “Science
for the Post-Normal
Age.” Futures 25 (7): 739–755. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
. 2012. “Epistemics
in Action: Action Formation and Territories of Knowledge.” Research on Language & Social
Interaction,
45
(1): 1–29. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hilgartner, Stephen. 2000. Science
on Stage: Expert Advice as Public Drama. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
. 2000. “Reporting
and Reacting: Concurrent Responses to Reported Speech”. Research on Language and Social
Interaction,
33
(4), 425–454. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Holt, Elizabeth, and Rebecca Clift (eds.). 2006. Reporting
talk: Reported Speech in
Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Potter, Jonathan. 1996. Representing
Reality: Discourse, Rhetoric and Social
Construction. London: Sage. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Raymond, Geoffrey. 2003. “Grammar
and Social Organization: Yes/No Interrogatives and the Structure of Responding.” American
Sociological
Review 68 (6), 939–967. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
. 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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Turnhout, Esther, Willemijn Tuinstra, and Willem Halffman. 2019. Environmental
Expertise: Connecting Science, Policy, and
Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)