SSOAR Logo
    • Deutsch
    • English
  • Deutsch 
    • Deutsch
    • English
  • Einloggen
SSOAR ▼
  • Home
  • Über SSOAR
  • Leitlinien
  • Veröffentlichen auf SSOAR
  • Kooperieren mit SSOAR
    • Kooperationsmodelle
    • Ablieferungswege und Formate
    • Projekte
  • Kooperationspartner
    • Informationen zu Kooperationspartnern
  • Informationen
    • Möglichkeiten für den Grünen Weg
    • Vergabe von Nutzungslizenzen
    • Informationsmaterial zum Download
  • Betriebskonzept
Browsen und suchen Dokument hinzufügen OAI-PMH-Schnittstelle
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Download PDF
Volltext herunterladen

(145.9 KB)

Zitationshinweis

Bitte beziehen Sie sich beim Zitieren dieses Dokumentes immer auf folgenden Persistent Identifier (PID):
https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-224457

Export für Ihre Literaturverwaltung

Bibtex-Export
Endnote-Export

Statistiken anzeigen
Weiterempfehlen
  • Share via E-Mail E-Mail
  • Share via Facebook Facebook
  • Share via Bluesky Bluesky
  • Share via Reddit reddit
  • Share via Linkedin LinkedIn
  • Share via XING XING

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

[Zeitschriftenartikel]

Burchell, Kevin

Abstract

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 scie... mehr

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.... weniger

Sprache Dokument
Englisch

Publikationsjahr
2007

Seitenangabe
S. 145-162

Zeitschriftentitel
Public Understanding of Science, 16 (2007) 2

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662507060587

Status
Postprint; begutachtet (peer reviewed)

Lizenz
PEER Licence Agreement (applicable only to documents from PEER project)


GESIS LogoDFG LogoOpen Access Logo
Home  |  Impressum  |  Betriebskonzept  |  Datenschutzerklärung
© 2007 - 2025 Social Science Open Access Repository (SSOAR).
Based on DSpace, Copyright (c) 2002-2022, DuraSpace. All rights reserved.
 

 


GESIS LogoDFG LogoOpen Access Logo
Home  |  Impressum  |  Betriebskonzept  |  Datenschutzerklärung
© 2007 - 2025 Social Science Open Access Repository (SSOAR).
Based on DSpace, Copyright (c) 2002-2022, DuraSpace. All rights reserved.