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.
Group items matching
in title, tags, annotations or url
1More
The Right Solar Panel! - 1 views
If We Had Followed This Plan, We'd Be Living on Mars By Now | Smart News - 2 views
1More
Mind's circuit diagram to be revealed by mammoth map - life - 07 February 2011 - New Sc... - 0 views
1More
The BBC Trust Report on Science | through the looking glass - 0 views
3More
Sociology and History: Shapin on the Merton Thesis « Ether Wave Propaganda - 1 views
‹ Previous
21 - 40 of 146
Next ›
Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page