1887
Volume 12, Issue 4
  • ISSN 1878-9714
  • E-ISSN: 1878-9722
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper examines public meetings in the Netherlands where experts and officials interact with local residents on the human health effects of livestock farming. Using Conversation Analysis, we reveal a ‘weapon of the weak’: a practice by which the residents resist experts’ head start in information meetings. It is shown how residents draw on the given question-answer format to challenge experts and pursue an admission of, for example, methodological shortcomings. We show how the residents’ first question functions as a ‘foot-in-the-door’, providing them with a strong basis for skepticism. By systematically challenging the expert responses, the residents exploit the interaction’s sequential organization, with the effect that the goal becomes them rather than . Consequently, the withholding of consent becomes the residents’ ‘weapon’. Finally, we argue that in an age where expertise is increasingly contested, it is crucial to understand how, and to what end, this contestation may occur.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ps.20032.bur
2021-10-29
2021-12-04
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Beach, Wayne
    1995 “Conversation Analysis: ‘Okay’ as a Clue for Understanding Consequentiality.” InThe Consequentiality of Communication, ed. byStuart Sigman, 121–161. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Black, Laura, James Leighter, and John Gastil
    2009 “Communicating Trust, Community, and Process in Public Meetings: A Reflection on How Close Attention to Communication Can Contribute to the Future of Public Participation.” International Journal of Public Participation3: 143–159. 10.16997/jdd.91
    https://doi.org/10.16997/jdd.91 [Google Scholar]
  3. Boholm, Åsa
    2008 “The Public Meeting as a Theater of Dissent: Risk and Hazard in Land and Environmental Planning.” Journal of Risk Research11: 119–140. 10.1080/13669870701633852
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13669870701633852 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bolden, Galina, and Jeffrey Robinson
    2011 “Soliciting Accounts with Why-Interrogatives in Conversation.” Journal of Communication61 (1): 94–119. 10.1111/j.1460‑2466.2010.01528.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01528.x [Google Scholar]
  5. Breeman, Gerard, Catrien Termeer, and Maartje van Lieshout
    2013 “Decision-making on Mega-Stables: Understanding and Preventing Citizens’ Distrust.” NJAS-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences66: 39–47. 10.1016/j.njas.2013.05.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2013.05.004 [Google Scholar]
  6. Buttny, Richard
    2010 “Citizen Participation, Metadiscourse, and Accountability: A public Hearing on a Zoning Change for Wal-Mart.” Journal of Communication60 (4): 636–659. 10.1111/j.1460‑2466.2010.01507.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01507.x [Google Scholar]
  7. Buttny, Richard, and Jodi Cohen
    2007 “Drawing on the Words of Others at Public Hearings: Zoning, Wal-Mart and the Threat to the Aquifer.” Language in Society36: 735–756. 10.1017/S0047404507070674
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404507070674 [Google Scholar]
  8. 2015 “Public Meeting Discourse.” InThe International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction, ed. byKaren Tracy, Cornelia Ilie, and Todd Sandel, 1242–1252. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi036
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi036 [Google Scholar]
  9. Carvalho, Anabela, Zara Pinto-Coelho, and Eunice Seixas
    2019 “Listening to the Public-Enacting Power: Citizen Access, Standing and Influence in Public Participation Discourses.” Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning21 (5): 563–576. 10.1080/1523908X.2016.1149772
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2016.1149772 [Google Scholar]
  10. Clayman, Steven
    2002 “Tribune of the People: Maintaining the Legitimacy of Aggressive Journalism.” Media, Culture & Society24 (2): 197–216. 10.1177/016344370202400203
    https://doi.org/10.1177/016344370202400203 [Google Scholar]
  11. Davies, Sarah
    2011 “The Rules of Engagement: Power and Interaction in Dialogue Events.” Public Understanding of Science22 (1): 65–79. 10.1177/0963662511399685
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662511399685 [Google Scholar]
  12. Drew, Paul and John Heritage
    1992Talk at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Edwards, Derek
    2000 “Extreme Case Formulations: Softeners, Investment, and Doing Nonliteral.” Research on Language and Social Interaction33 (4): 347–373. 10.1207/S15327973RLSI3304_01
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3304_01 [Google Scholar]
  14. 2006 “Facts, Norms and Dispositions: Practical Uses of the Modal Verb Would in Police Interrogations.” Discourse Studies8 (4): 475–501. 10.1177/1461445606064830
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445606064830 [Google Scholar]
  15. Edwards, Derek, and Jonathan Potter
    1992Discursive Psychology. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Emmertsen, Sofie
    2007 “Interviewers’ Challenging Questions in British Debate Interviews.” Journal of Pragmatics39 (3): 570–591. 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.011 [Google Scholar]
  17. Felt, Ulrike, Maximilian Fochler, Annina Müller, and Michael Strassnig
    2009 “Unruly Ethics: On the Difficulties of a Bottom-up Approach to Ethics in the Field of Genomics.” Public Understanding of Science18 (3): 354–371. 10.1177/0963662507079902
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662507079902 [Google Scholar]
  18. Freedman, Jonathan, and Scott Fraser
    1966 “Compliance without Pressure: The Foot-in the-Door Technique.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology4 (2): 195–202. 10.1037/h0023552
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0023552 [Google Scholar]
  19. Garfinkel, Harold
    1963 “A Conception of, and Experiments with, ‘Trust’ as a Condition of Stable Concerted Actions.” InMotivation and Social Interaction: Cognitive Approaches, ed. byO. J. Harvey, 187–238. New York: Ronald Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Hayano, Kaoru
    2013 “Question Design in Conversation.” InThe Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. byJack Sidnell and Tanya Stivers, 395–414. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Heinemann, Trine
    2008 “Questions of Accountability: Yes-no Interrogatives that Are Unanswerable.” Discourse Studies10 (1): 55–71. 10.1177/1461445607085590
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607085590 [Google Scholar]
  22. Heinemann, Trine, and Véronique Traverso
    2009 “Complaining in Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics41 (12): 2381–2384. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.006 [Google Scholar]
  23. Heritage, John
    1984 “A Change-of-State-Token and Aspects of Its Sequential Placement.” InStructures of Social Action, ed. byMaxwell Atkinson and John Heritage, 299–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 2002 “The Limits of Questioning: Negative Interrogatives and Hostile Question Content.” Journal of Pragmatics34 (10–11): 1427–1446. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)00072‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00072-3 [Google Scholar]
  25. 2015 “Well-Prefaced Turns in English Conversation: A Conversation-Analytic Perspective.” Journal of Pragmatics88: 88–104. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.08.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.08.008 [Google Scholar]
  26. Heritage, John, and Steven Clayman
    2010Talk in Action: Interactions, Identities and Institutions. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781444318135
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444318135 [Google Scholar]
  27. Heritage, John, and Geoffrey Raymond
    2012 “Navigating Epistemic Landscapes: Acquiescence, Agency and Resistance in Responses to Polar Questions.” InQuestions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives, ed. byJan-Peter de Ruiter, 179–192. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139045414.013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139045414.013 [Google Scholar]
  28. Heritage, John, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen
    1994 “Constituting and Maintaining Activities across Sequences: And-prefacing as a Feature of Question Design.” Language in Society23: 1–29. 10.1017/S0047404500017656
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500017656 [Google Scholar]
  29. Hutchby, Ian
    1996 “Power in Discourse: The Case of Arguments on a British Talk Radio Show.” Discourse & Society7 (4): 481–497. 10.1177/0957926596007004003
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926596007004003 [Google Scholar]
  30. IJzermans, Joris, Lidwien Smit, Dick Heederik, and Thomas Hagenaars
    2018Veehouderij en gezondheid omwonenden-III [Livestock farming and neighbouring residents’ health]. NIVEL-report.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Jefferson, Gail
    2004 “Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction.” InConversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, ed. byGene Lerner, 13–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.125.02jef
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef [Google Scholar]
  32. Kerr, Anne, Sarah Cunningham-Burley, and Richard Tutton
    2007 “Shifting Subject Positions: Experts and Lay People in Public Dialogue.” Social Studies of Science37: 385–411. 10.1177/0306312706068492
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312706068492 [Google Scholar]
  33. Koshik, Irene
    2003 “Wh-questions Used as Challenges.” Discourse Studies5 (1): 51–77. 10.1177/14614456030050010301
    https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456030050010301 [Google Scholar]
  34. 2005Beyond Rhetorical Questions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.16
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.16 [Google Scholar]
  35. Myers, Greg
    2003 “Discourse Studies of Scientific Popularization: Questioning the Boundaries.” Discourse Studies5 (2): 265–279. 10.1177/1461445603005002006
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445603005002006 [Google Scholar]
  36. 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 & Communication8: 137–154. 10.1177/1750481313507152
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481313507152 [Google Scholar]
  37. Molotch, Harvey and Deirdre Boden
    1985 “Talking Social Structure: Discourse, Domination and the Watergate Hearings.” American Sociological Review50: 273–288. 10.2307/2095539
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2095539 [Google Scholar]
  38. Oreskes, Naomi and Erik Conway
    2010Merchants of Doubt. How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. New York: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Pomerantz, Anita
    1980 “Telling My Side: “Limited Access” as a “Fishing” Device.” Sociological Inquiry50 (3–4): 186–198. 10.1111/j.1475‑682X.1980.tb00020.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00020.x [Google Scholar]
  40. 1986 “Extreme Case Formulations: A Way of Legitimizing claims.” Human Studies9: 219–229. 10.1007/BF00148128
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00148128 [Google Scholar]
  41. Potter, Jonathan
    1996Representing Reality: Discourse, Rhetoric and Social Construction. London: Sage. 10.4135/9781446222119
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446222119 [Google Scholar]
  42. Raymond, Geoffrey
    2003 “Grammar and Social Organization: Yes/No Interrogatives and the Structure of Responding.” American Sociological Review68 (6): 939–967. 10.2307/1519752
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1519752 [Google Scholar]
  43. 2018 “Which Epistemics? Whose Conversation Analysis?” Discourse Studies20 (1): 57–89. 10.1177/1461445617734343
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445617734343 [Google Scholar]
  44. Raymond, Geoffrey, and Jack Sidnell
    2019 “Interaction at the Boundaries of a World Known-in-Common: Initiating Repair with ‘What do you mean?’” Research on Language and Social Interaction52 (2): 177–192. 10.1080/08351813.2019.1608100
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2019.1608100 [Google Scholar]
  45. Raymond, Geoffrey, and Don Zimmerman
    2016 “Alignment and Misalignment in Sequence and Call-closings in Institutional Interaction.” Discourse Studies18 (6): 716–736. 10.1177/1461445616667141
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445616667141 [Google Scholar]
  46. Rendle-Short, Johanna
    2007 “Neutralism and Adversarial Challenges in the Political News Interview.” Discourse & Communication1 (4): 387–406. 10.1177/1750481307082205
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481307082205 [Google Scholar]
  47. Reynolds, Edward
    2015 “How participants in arguments challenge the normative position of an opponent.” Discourse Studies17 (3): 299–316. 10.1177/1461445615571198
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445615571198 [Google Scholar]
  48. RIVM [Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment]
    RIVM [Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment] 2018Q-koorts [Q Fever]. Available at: https://www.rivm.nl/Onderwerpen/Q/Q_koorts. (accessedSeptember 28, 2019).
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    1988 “From Interview to Confrontation: Observations of the Bush/Rather Encounter.” Research on Language and Social Interaction22 (1–4): 215–240. 10.1080/08351818809389304
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351818809389304 [Google Scholar]
  50. 1997 “Practices and Actions: Boundary Cases of Other-Initiated Repair.” Discourse Processes23: 499–545. 10.1080/01638539709545001
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539709545001 [Google Scholar]
  51. Scott, James C.
    1985Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. New Haven: Yale University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Sidnell, Jack, and Tanya Stivers
    (eds) 2013The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Sprain, Leah, and Lydia Reinig
    2018 “Citizens Speaking as Experts: Expertise Discourse in Deliberative Forums.” Environmental Communication12: 357–369. 10.1080/17524032.2017.1394894
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2017.1394894 [Google Scholar]
  54. Steensig, Jakob, and Paul Drew
    (eds.) 2008 “Introduction: Questioning and Affiliation/Disaffiliation in Interaction.” Discourse Studies10 (1): 5–15. 10.1177/1461445607085581
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607085581 [Google Scholar]
  55. Stivers, Tanya
    2005 “Parent Resistance to Physicians’ Treatment Recommendations: One Resource for Initiating a Negotiation of the Treatment Decision.” Health Communication18 (1): 41–47. 10.1207/s15327027hc1801_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327027hc1801_3 [Google Scholar]
  56. Stivers, Tanya, and Makoto Hayashi
    2010 “Transformative Answers: One Way to Resist a Question’s Constraints.” Language in Society39 (1): 1–25. 10.1017/S0047404509990637
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404509990637 [Google Scholar]
  57. Szerszynski, Branislaw
    1999 “Risk and Trust: The Performative Dimension.” Environmental Values8 (2): 239–252. 10.3197/096327199129341815
    https://doi.org/10.3197/096327199129341815 [Google Scholar]
  58. Ten Have, Paul
    2007Doing Conversation Analysis: A Practical Guide (2nd ed.). London: Sage. 10.4135/9781849208895
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849208895 [Google Scholar]
  59. Welsh, Ian, and Brian Wynne
    2013 “Science, Scientism and Imaginaries of Publics in the UK: Passive Objects, Incipient Threats.” Science as Culture22: 540–566. 10.1080/14636778.2013.764072
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14636778.2013.764072 [Google Scholar]
  60. Wynne, Brian
    2006 “Public Engagement as a Means of Restoring Public Trust in Science –Hitting the Notes, but Missing the Music?” Community Genetics9: 211–220.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ps.20032.bur
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ps.20032.bur
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error