Performing trustworthiness: The ‘credibility work’ of prominent sociologists

To the limited extent that sociologists have considered non-academics’ trust in sociologists, legitimacy has become entwined with the idea of a value-free, ‘objective’ sociology. However, broader philosophical/sociological work suggests that credibility signals are more complex, with e.g. non-partisanship being separate to ‘epistemic responsibility’ (Anderson 2012). In this paper, I explore the nature of ‘credibility work’ in practice via interviews with 15 prominent English sociologists, making three contributions. Firstly, I find that some sociologists deliberately pursue credibility, a phenomenon largely ignored in previous research. They do this primarily by ‘performing’ non-partisanship or epistemic responsibility within interactions. Secondly, this credibility work does not require the pursuit of ‘objectivity’; sociologists can signal epistemic responsibility despite partisanship, or pursue ‘dispassionate advocacy’. Third, the extent and nature of credibility work varies by context; some sociologists benefit from partisanship, while others feel no need for credibility work. I conclude by stressing the need for further research

Networking expertise: Discursive coalitions and collaborative networks of experts in a public creationism controversy in the UK

Experts do play a particular role in public socio-scientific debates, even more so if they form heterogeneous coalition with other actors and experts. A case study about a public science education controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution/creationism in the UK press is used to investigate in detail how connections and coalitions between experts and other actors involved in the controversy emerged and played out. The research focuses on the question of what role collaborative and other networks of experts played in terms of influence, visibility, credibility, consensus and weight of argument. Issues that are considered in the research are the status of the members of the coalitions forming during the debate and how it is displayed in media representations and letters and petitions, and also how these networks and coalitions of experts perform in relation to each other

Introduction: looking beyond the walls

In its consideration of the remarkable extent and variety of non-university researchers, this book takes a broader view of ‘knowledge’ and ‘research’ than in the many hot debates about today’s knowledge society, ‘learning age’, or organisation of research. It goes beyond the commonly held image of ‘knowledge’ as something produced and owned by the full-time experts to take a look at those engaged in active knowledge building outside the university walls

Exploring the “impact” in Impact sourcing ventures: a sociology of space perspective

Using qualitative methods this paper explores the lived experience of individuals employed in impact sourcing ventures. In doing so, the paper attempts to understand “impact” from the point of view of beneficiaries. The paper, drawing on Georg Simmel’s work on the sociology of space, explores how space influences the lived experience of beneficiaries in ImS ventures. The findings highlight the various strategies adopted by beneficiaries to navigate the dialectical tensions experienced as a result of living and working in the new (ImS workplace) and the old (community) space. The paper also draws attention to the multifaceted nature of impact

Policy as a Crime Scene

This paper explores how policy constructs the objects it seeks to regulate, taking as its case the setting of penal policy in contemporary Scotland. It employs two distinctive theoretical frames to develop the analysis: Science and Technology Studies (STS) and ‘scene theory’ a body of work in cultural studies. These offer distinctive lenses that bring into focus how the technologies of policy – statistical reports, independent Commissions, research advice – help produce populations that require intervention. The penal policy setting in question, we argue, can be understood in the same way as a crime scene, where investigators must re-construct forensically a narrative that will be legally validated. In line with the theme of this book, it offers a reflexive account of how researchers themselves are drawn into and participate as key witnesses in the scene, testifying to ‘facts’ about a crime that may have never taken place. The article aims to make the case for the potential of STS and scene theory in producing insights about our understanding of policy, particularly criminal justice policy. In doing this, it also offers a critique of the formation of the criminological discipline in a way that has side-lined policy as an ‘administrative’ rather than critical intellectual issue

From 'trading zones' to 'buffer zones': Art and metaphor in the communication of psychiatric genetics to publics

Psychiatric genetics has a difficult relationship with the public given its unshakeable connection to eugenics. Drawing from a five-year public engagement programme that emerged from an internationally renowned psychiatric genetics centre, we propose the concept of the Buffer Zone to consider how an exchange of viewpoints between groups of people – including psychiatric geneticists and lay publics - who are often uneasy in one another’s company can be facilitated through the use of art and metaphor. The artwork at the exhibitions provided the necessary socio-cultural context for scientific endeavours, whilst also enabled public groups to be part of, and remain in, the conversation. Crucial to stress is that this mitigation was not to protect the science; it was to protect the discussion

Climate stories: Why do climate scientists and sceptical voices participate in the climate debate?

Public perceptions of the climate debate predominantly frame the key actors as climate scientists versus sceptical voices; however, it is unclear why climate scientists and sceptical voices choose to participate in this antagonistic and polarised public battle. A narrative interview approach is used to better understand the underlying rationales behind 22 climate scientists’ and sceptical voices’ engagement in the climate debate, potential commonalities, as well as each actor’s ability to be critically self-reflexive. Several overlapping rationales are identified including a sense of duty to publicly engage, agreement that complete certainty about the complex assemblage of climate change is unattainable and that political factors are central to the climate debate. We argue that a focus on potential overlaps in perceptions and rationales as well as the ability to be critically self-reflexive may encourage constructive discussion among actors previously engaged in purposefully antagonistic exchange on climate change