SSOAR Logo
    • Deutsch
    • English
  • English 
    • Deutsch
    • English
  • Login
SSOAR ▼
  • Home
  • About SSOAR
  • Guidelines
  • Publishing in SSOAR
  • Cooperating with SSOAR
    • Cooperation models
    • Delivery routes and formats
    • Projects
  • Cooperation partners
    • Information about cooperation partners
  • Information
    • Possibilities of taking the Green Road
    • Grant of Licences
    • Download additional information
  • Operational concept
Browse and search Add new document OAI-PMH interface
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Download PDF
Download full text

(145.9Kb)

Citation Suggestion

Please use the following Persistent Identifier (PID) to cite this document:
https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-224457

Exports for your reference manager

Bibtex export
Endnote export

Display Statistics
Share
  • 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

[journal article]

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... view more

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.... view less

Document language
English

Publication Year
2007

Page/Pages
p. 145-162

Journal
Public Understanding of Science, 16 (2007) 2

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

Status
Postprint; peer reviewed

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


GESIS LogoDFG LogoOpen Access Logo
Home  |  Legal notices  |  Operational concept  |  Privacy policy
© 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  |  Legal notices  |  Operational concept  |  Privacy policy
© 2007 - 2025 Social Science Open Access Repository (SSOAR).
Based on DSpace, Copyright (c) 2002-2022, DuraSpace. All rights reserved.