oa Dealing with the dual demands of expertise and democracy

References

1. Bongelli, Ramona, Ilaria Riccioni, Alessandra Fermani, and Gill Philip
   2020 “Hypothetical Questions in Everyday Italian Conversations.” Lingua2461, 102951. 10.1016/j.lingua.2020.102951
   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2020.102951 [Google Scholar]
2. Buttny, Richard
   2009 “Wal-Mart’s Presentation to the Community: Discursive Practices in Mitigating Risk, Limiting Public Discussion, and Developing a Relationship.” Discourse & Communication3 (3): 235–254. 10.1177/1750481309337207
   https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481309337207 [Google Scholar]
3. 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]
4. Buttny, Richard
   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 Research22 (3): 334–345. 10.1080/13669877.2017.1378251
   https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2017.1378251 [Google Scholar]
5. Buttny, Richard, and Jodi R. Cohen
   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]
6. Clayman, Steven E.
   2002 “Tribune of the People: Maintaining the Legitimacy of Aggressive Journalism.” Media, Culture & Society24 (2): 191–210. 10.1177/016344370202400203
   https://doi.org/10.1177/016344370202400203 [Google Scholar]
7. Clayman, Steven E.
   2007 “Speaking on Behalf of the Public in Broadcast News Interviews.” InReporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction, ed. byElizabeth Holt, and Rebecca Clift, 221–243. New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486654
   https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486654 [Google Scholar]
8. Clayman, Steven E.
   2010 “Questioning in Broadcast Journalism.” In ‘Why Do You Ask?’: The Function of Questions in Institutional Discourse, ed. byAlice Freed, and Susan Ehrlich, 256–278. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195306897.003.0012
   https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195306897.003.0012 [Google Scholar]
9. Clayman, Steven E.
   2017 “The Micropolitics of Legitimacy: Political Positioning and Journalistic Scrutiny at the Boundary of the Mainstream.” Social Psychology Quarterly80 (1): 41–64. 10.1177/0190272516667705
   https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272516667705 [Google Scholar]
10. Clayman, Steven E., and John Heritage
    2002 The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511613623
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613623 [Google Scholar]
11. Clift, Rebecca, and Elizabeth Holt
    2006 “Introduction.” InReporting talk: Reported speech in Interaction, ed. byElizabeth Holt, and Rebecca Clift, 1–15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486654.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486654.002 [Google Scholar]
12. Collins, Harry, and Robert Evans
    2007 Rethinking Expertise. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226113623.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226113623.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
13. Committee on Biotechnology and Food
    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]
14. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
    1999 “Coherent Voicing: on Prosody in Conversational Reported Speech.” InCoherence in Spoken and Written Discourse, ed. byWolfram Bublitz, Uta Lenk, and Eija Ventolaj, 11–35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.63.05cou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.63.05cou [Google Scholar]
15. Edwards, Derek, and Jonathan Potter
    2005 “Discursive Psychology, Mental States and Descriptions.” InConversation and Cognition, ed. byHedwig te Molder, and Jonathan Potter, 241–259. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511489990.012
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511489990.012 [Google Scholar]
16. Ford, Cecilia E.
    1997 “Speaking Conditionally: Some Contexts for If-Clauses in Conversation.” InOn Conditionals Again, ed. byRené Dirven, and Angeliki Athanasiadou, 387–415. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.143.21for
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.143.21for [Google Scholar]
17. Funtowicz, Silvio O., and Jerome R. Ravetz
    1993 “Science for the Post-Normal Age.” Futures25 (7): 739–755. 10.1016/0016‑3287(93)90022‑L
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-3287(93)90022-L [Google Scholar]
18. Goffman, Ervin
    1979 “Footing.” Semiotica251: 1–29. 10.1515/semi.1979.25.1‑2.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1979.25.1-2.1 [Google Scholar]
19. 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]
20. Heinrichsmeier, Rachel
    2021 “Who Gets to Speak: the Role of Reported Speech for Identity Work in Complaint Stories.” Journal of Pragmatics1741: 43–54. 10.1016/j.pragma.2020.12.017
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.12.017 [Google Scholar]
21. Hepburn, Alexa, and Galina B. Bolden
    2013 “The Conversation Analytic Approach to Transcription.” InThe Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. byJack Sidnell, and Tanya Stivers, 57–76. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781118325001
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118325001 [Google Scholar]
22. Heritage, John
    2002 “Designing Questions and Setting Agendas in the News Interview”. InStudies in Language and Social Interaction, ed. byPhillip J. Glenn, Jenny Mandelbaum, and Curtis D. LeBaron, 57–91. London, UK and New York, NY: Routledge. 10.4324/9781410606969
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410606969 [Google Scholar]
23. Heritage, John
    2012 “Epistemics in Action: Action Formation and Territories of Knowledge.” Research on Language & Social Interaction, 45 (1): 1–29. 10.1080/08351813.2012.646684
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684 [Google Scholar]
24. 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. 10.1177/019027250506800103
    https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250506800103 [Google Scholar]
25. Heritage, John, and Tanya Stivers
    1999 “Online Commentary in Acute Medical Visits: a Method of Shaping Patient Expectations”. Social Science & Medicine49 (11): 1501–1517. 10.1016/S0277‑9536(99)00219‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00219-1 [Google Scholar]
26. Hilgartner, Stephen
    2000 Science on Stage: Expert Advice as Public Drama. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. 10.1515/9781503618220
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781503618220 [Google Scholar]
27. Holt, Elizabeth
    1996 “Reporting on Talk: the Use of Direct Reported Speech in Conversation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction29 (3): 219–245. 10.1207/s15327973rlsi2903_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi2903_2 [Google Scholar]
28. Holt, Elizabeth
    2000 “Reporting and Reacting: Concurrent Responses to Reported Speech”. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33(4), 425–454. 10.1207/S15327973RLSI3304_04
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3304_04 [Google Scholar]
29. Holt, Elizabeth, and Rebecca Clift
    (eds.) 2006 Reporting talk: Reported Speech in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486654
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486654 [Google Scholar]
30. 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]
31. Locke, Abigail, and Derek Edwards
    2003 “Bill and Monica: Memory, Emotion and Normativity in Clinton’s Grand Jury Testimony.” British Journal of Social Psychology42 (2): 239–256. 10.1348/014466603322127238
    https://doi.org/10.1348/014466603322127238 [Google Scholar]
32. 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 (2): 137–154. 10.1177/1750481313507152
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481313507152 [Google Scholar]
33. Noordegraaf, Martine, Carolus van Nijnatten, and Ed Elbers
    2008 “Assessing Suitability for Adoptive Parenthood: Hypothetical Questions as Part of Ongoing Conversation.” Discourse studies10 (5): 655–672. 10.1177/1461445608094217
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445608094217 [Google Scholar]
34. Policy Document on Biotechnology
    Policy Document on Biotechnology 2000 Dutch Parliament 2000–2001, 27. 4281, nr.1 (in Dutch).
    [Google Scholar]
35. Pomerantz, Anita
    1984 “Giving a Source or Basis: the Practice in Conversation of Telling ‘How I know’.” Journal of Pragmatics8 (5–6): 607–625. 10.1016/0378‑2166(84)90002‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(84)90002-X [Google Scholar]
36. Pomerantz, Anita
    1986 “Extreme Case Formulations: A Way of Legitimizing Claims.” Human Studies91: 219–229. 10.1007/BF00148128
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00148128 [Google Scholar]
37. Potter, Jonathan
    1996 Representing Reality: Discourse, Rhetoric and Social Construction. London: Sage. 10.4135/9781446222119
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446222119 [Google Scholar]
38. 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 Communication61: 1–12. 10.3389/fcomm.2021.668862
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2021.668862 [Google Scholar]
39. Raymond, Geoffrey
    2003 “Grammar and Social Organization: Yes/No Interrogatives and the Structure of Responding.” American Sociological Review68 (6), 939–967. 10.1177/000312240306800607
    https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240306800607 [Google Scholar]
40. Raymond, Geoffrey
    2010 “Grammar and Social Relations”. In ‘Why Do You Ask?’: The Function of Questions in Institutional Discourse, ed. byAlice Freed, and Susan Ehrlich, 87–107. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195306897.003.0005
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195306897.003.0005 [Google Scholar]
41. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    2013 “Ten Operations in Self-Initiated, Same-Turn Repair.” InConversational Repair and Human Understanding, ed. byMakoto Hayashi, Geoffrey Raymond, and Jack Sidnell, 41–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511757464
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511757464 [Google Scholar]
42. Speer, Susan A.
    2012 “Hypothetical Questions: A Comparative Analysis and Implications for “Applied” vs. “Basic” Conversation Analysis.” Research on Language and Social Interaction45 (4): 352–374. 10.1080/08351813.2012.724987
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.724987 [Google Scholar]
43. Sprain, Leah, Martin Carcasson, and Andy J. Merolla
    2014 “Utilizing “on Tap” Experts in Deliberative Forums: Implications for Design.” Journal of Applied Communication Research42 (2): 150–167. 10.1080/00909882.2013.859292
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2013.859292 [Google Scholar]
44. Stokoe, Elizabeth, and Derek Edwards
    2007 “‘Black This, Black That’: Racial Insults and Reported Speech in Neighbour Complaints and Police Interrogations.” Discourse & Society18 (3): 337–372. 10.1177/0957926507075477
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926507075477 [Google Scholar]
45. Tracy, Karen, and Jessica M. F. Hughes
    2014 “Democracy-Appealing Partisanship: a Situated Ideal of Citizenship.” Journal of Applied Communication Research42 (3): 307–324. 10.1080/00909882.2014.911940
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2014.911940 [Google Scholar]
46. Turnhout, Esther, Willemijn Tuinstra, and Willem Halffman
    2019 Environmental Expertise: Connecting Science, Policy, and Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316162514
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316162514 [Google Scholar]
47. 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 Quarterly83 (3): 294–313. 10.1177/0190272519897595
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272519897595 [Google Scholar]
48. Wooffitt, Robin
    2001 “Raising the Dead: Reported Speech and Medium-Sitter Interaction.” Discourse Studies3 (3): 351–374. 10.1177/1461445601003003005
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445601003003005 [Google Scholar]
49. Wynne, Brian
    2006 “Public Engagement as a Means of Restoring Public Trust in Science – Hitting the Notes, but Missing the Music?” Community Genetics9 (3): 211–220. 10.1159/000092659
    https://doi.org/10.1159/000092659 [Google Scholar]