Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Public Understanding of Science
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (1)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Burchell, K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Empiricist selves and contingent "others": the performative function of the discourse of scientists working in conditions of controversy

Kevin Burchell

BIOS, London School of Economics, k.burchell{at}lse.ac.uk

The objective of this article is to report the results of 18 semi-structured interviews, conducted in the UK during the spring of 2003, with scientists working in the locally controversial area of crop genetics. Results suggest that, when talking about their own beliefs and actions, most of the scientists utilized what can be referred to as an empiricist repertoire, in which beliefs and actions are seen to derive from the natural world, an objective and rigorous method, and an ethical framework. By contrast, when talking about the beliefs and actions of four key "others," most of the scientists relied upon a contrasting contingent repertoire, in which beliefs and actions are seen to derive from personal shortcomings, inclinations and self interest, and to be in contradiction of an ethical framework. It is suggested that the extent to which the discourse of these crop geneticists followed this pattern may be related to the conditions of controversy within which they were working at the time of the interviews. The small number of cases that contradict this pattern are also examined. The implications of this for relationships between science and the public are briefly discussed.

Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 16, No. 2, 145-162 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/0963662507060587


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Public Understanding of ScienceHome page
M. Augoustinos, A. Russin, and A. LeCouteur
Representations of the stem-cell cloning fraud: from scientific breakthrough to managing the stake and interest of science
Public Understanding of Science, November 1, 2009; 18(6): 687 - 703.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Science CommunicationHome page
S. R. Davies
Constructing Communication: Talking to Scientists About Talking to the Public
Science Communication, June 1, 2008; 29(4): 413 - 434.
[Abstract] [PDF]