Aside from questions over appropriateness of expertise being a rather slippery issue, there is very little information given about the expertise of a speaker. We found lot of reliance on phrases such as ‘scientists have found’ and ‘experts say’. Personally I think we need to address this issue before we can even get on to matters of whether experts are the right ones or not. Although expertise may be implied through editing, and TV in particular can flag up institutional association and title, we rarely saw a contributor’s disciplinary background specified. Especially significant I thought, in broadcast reports about new research we found little explicit reference to whether or not a particular contributor was involved in the research being reported (online reports often refer to someone as ‘lead author’ or ‘co-author’). This lack of definition makes it hard for audiences to judge a contributor’s independence, whether they are speaking on a topic they have studied in depth or if they are simply working from anecdote.
1More
Mind-reading scan identifies simple thoughts - health - 26 May 2011 - New Scientist - 0 views
1More
The BBC Trust Report on Science | through the looking glass - 0 views
2More
What Happens If Science Becomes a Low-Yield Activity? « The Scholarly Kitchen - 1 views
1 - 7 of 7
Showing 20▼ items per page