Emergent technologies against the background of everyday life: Discursive psychology as a technology assessment tool

Public Understanding of Science

Volumn 20, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 810-825

  Veen, Mario ^a   Gremmen, Bart ^a   te Molder, Hedwig ^a   van Woerkum, Cees ^a  

^a WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

celiac disease; discourse analysis; discursive psychology; emergent technologies; interaction experts publics; technology assessment

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; CELIAC DISEASE; HUMAN; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; PSYCHOLOGY;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; CELIAC DISEASE; HUMANS; PSYCHOLOGY; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 80055118770     PISSN: 09636625     EISSN: 13616609     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0963662510364202     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Akrich M.Shaping Technology/Building Society. Bijker W.Law J., ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1992:205-24.
2. Akrich M.,Latour B.Shaping Technology/Building Society. Bijker W.Law J., ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1992:259-64.
3. Antaki C.,Ardévol E.,Núñez F.,Vayreda A.'For She Who Knows Who She Is': Managing Accountability in Online Forum Messages.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 2005;11 (1): 114-32.
4. Bouwman L.I.,te Molder H.,Koelen M.M.,Van Woerkum C.M.J.I Eat Healthfully but I Am Not a Freak: Consumers' Everyday Life Perspective on Healthful Eating.Appetite. 2009;53 (3): 390-8.
5. Burchell K.Empiricist Selves and Contingent 'Others': The Performative Function of the Discourse of Scientists Working in Conditions of Controversy.Public Understanding of Science. 2007;16 (2): 145-62.
6. Ciacci C.,Iavarone A.,Sinisicalchi M.,Romano R.,De Rosa A.Psychological Dimensions of Celiac Disease: Toward an Integrated Approach.Digestive Diseases and Sciences. 2002;47 (9): 2082-7.
7. Clayman S.,Heritage J.The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2002:.
8. Cook H.,Pieri E.,Robbins P.The Scientists Think and the Public Feels: Expert Perceptions of the Discourse of GM Food.Discourse and Society. 2004;15 (4): 433-49.
9. Edwards D.Script Formulations: An Analysis of Event Descriptions in Conversation.Journal of Language and Social Psychology. 1994;13 (3): 211-47.
10. Edwards D.,Potter J.Discursive Psychology. London: SAGE; 1992:.
11. Edwards D.,Potter J.How to Analyze Talk in Institutional Settings. McHoul A.Rapley M., ed. New York: Continuum; 2001:12-24.
12. Felt U.,Fochler M.,Müller A.,Strassnig M.Unruly Ethics: On the Difficulties of a Bottom-up Approach to Ethics in the Field of Genomics.Public Understanding of Science. 2009;18 (3): 354-71.
13. Garud R.,Ahlstrom D.Technology Assessment: A Socio-cognitive Perspective.Journal of Engineering and Technology Management. 1997;14 (1): 25-48.
14. Gilbert N.,Mulkay M.Opening Pandora's Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists' Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1984:.
15. Goodman S.The Generalizability of Discursive Research.Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2008;5 (4): 265-75.
16. Hallert C.,Grännö C.,Hultén S.,Midhagen G.,Ström M.,Svensson H.,Valdimarsson T.Living with Coeliac Disease: Controlled Study of the Burden of Illness.Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology. 2002;37 (1): 39-42.
17. Harvey M.Drama, Talk, and Emotion: Omitted Aspects of Public Participation.Science, Technology, & Human Values. 2009;34 (2): 139-61.
18. Horlick-Jones T.,Walls J.,Kitzinger J.Bricolage in Action: Learning about, Making Sense of, and Discussing, Issues about Genetically Modified Crops and Food.Health, Risk and Society. 2007;9 (1): 83-103.
19. Kerr A.,Cunningham-Burley S.,Tutton R.Shifting Subject Positions: Expert and Lay People in Public Dialogue.Social Studies of Science. 2007;37 (3): 385-411.
20. KomduurR.te MolderH. (submitted) "The Role of Genes in Talking about Overweight: An Analysis of Discourse on Genetics, Overweight and Health Risks in Relation to Nutrigenomics.".
21. Komduur R.,Korthals M.,te Molder H.The Good Life: Living for Health and a Life without Risks? On the Present Script of Nutrigenomics.British Journal of Nutrition. 2009;101 (3): 307-16.
22. Lamerichs J.,te Molder H.Computer-mediated Communication: From a Cognitive to a Discursive Model.New Media and Society. 2003;5 (4): 451-73.
23. Lamerichs J.,Koelen M.,te Molder H.Turning Adolescents into Analysts of their Own Discourse: Raising Reflexive Awareness of Everyday Talk to Develop Peer-based Health Activities.Qualitative Health Research. 2009;19 (8): 1162-75.
24. Lee A.,Newman J.M.Celiac Diet: Its Impact on Quality of Life.Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 2003;103 (11): 1533-5.
25. Levitt M.Public Consultation in Bioethics: What's the Point of Asking the Public when They Have neither Scientific nor Ethical Expertise?.Health Care Analysis. 2003;11 (1): 15-25.
26. Locke S.Golem Science and the Public Understanding of Science: From Deficit to Dilemma.Public Understanding of Science. 1999;8 (2): 75-92.
27. Locke S.The Public Understanding of Science - A Rhetorical Invention.Science, Technology, & Human Values. 2002;27 (1): 87-111.
28. Oudshoorn N.E.J.,Pinch T.J.How Users Matter: The Co-Construction of Technologies and Users. Oudshoorn N.Pinch T., ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2003:4-22.
29. Padmos H.,Mazeland H.,te Molder H.Analysing Citizenship Talk: Social Positioning in Political and Legal Decision-making Procedures. Hausendorf H.Bora A., ed. Amsterdam: John Benjamins; 2006:276-95.
30. Pomerantz A.Extreme Case Formulations: A Way of Legitimizing Claims.Human Studies. 1986;9 (2): 219-29.
31. Potter J.Representing Reality: Discourse, Rhetoric and Social Construction. London: SAGE; 1996:.
32. Potter J.,Wetherell M.Discourse and Social Psychology. London: SAGE; 1987:.
33. Rip A.,Misa T.,Schot J.Managing Technology in Society: The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment. London: Pinter Publishers; 1995:.
34. Silverstone R.,Haddon L.Communication by Design: The Politics of Information and Communication Technologies. Silverstone R.Mansell R., ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1996:25-32.
35. Consuming Technologies: Media and Information in Domestic Spaces. Silverstone R.Hirsch E., ed. London and New York: Routledge; 1992:.
36. Sneijder P.,te Molder H.Moral Logic and Logical Morality: Attributions of Responsibility and Blame in Online Discourse on Veganism.Discourse and Society. 2005;16 (5): 675-96.
37. StepniakD.Spaenij-DekkingL.MiteaC.MoesterM.de RuA.Baak-PabloR.van VeelenP.EdensL.KoningF. (2006) "Highly Efficient Gluten Degradation with a Newly Identified Prolyl Endoprotease: Implications for Celiac Disease," American Journal of Physiology - Gastrointestinal and Liver Physiology291: G621-G629.
38. te Molder H.The International Encyclopedia of Communication. Donsbach W., ed. Oxford, UK and Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell; 2008:1370-2.
39. te Molder H.F.M.,Gutteling J.Genes for your Food - Food for your Genes: Societal Issues and Dilemmas in Food Genomics. van Est R.Hanssen L.Crapels O., ed. The Hague: Rathenau Institute; 2003:117-28.
40. te MolderH.BovenhoffM.GremmenB.Van WoerkumC. (submitted) "Talking Future Technologies: How Celiac Disease Patients neither Accept nor Reject 'a Simple Pill.'".
41. Van Herzele A.,Van Woerkum C.M.J.Local Knowledge in Visually Mediated Practice.Journal of Planning Education and Research. 2008;27 (4): 444-55.
42. Veen M.,te Molder H.,Gremmen B.,Van Woerkum C.Quitting Is Not an Option: An Analysis of Online Diet Talk between Celiac Disease Patients.Health (London). 2010;14 (1): 23-40.
43. VeenM.te MolderH.GremmenB.Van WoerkumC. (submitted) "If You Can't Eat What You Like, Like What You Can: How Celiac Disease Patients and their Families Construct Dietary Restrictions as a Matter of Self-Determination.".
44. Wagner W.Vernacular Science Knowledge: Its Role in Everyday Life Communication.Public Understanding of Science. 2007;16 (1): 7-22.
45. Wynne B.Misunderstood Misunderstanding: Social Identities and Public Uptake of Science.Public Understanding of Science. 1992;1 (3): 281-304.
46. Wynne B.Public Engagement as a Means of Restoring Public Trust in Science: Hitting the Notes, but Missing the Music?.Community Genetics. 2006;9 (3): 211-20.
47. Young N.,Matthews R.Experts' Understanding of the Public: Knowledge Control in a Risk Controversy.Public Understanding of Science. 2007;16 (2): 123-44.