Difference between revisions of "Winiecki2008"
SaulAlbert (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "Discourse and Society" to "Discourse & Society") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
|Author(s)=Don Winiecki | |Author(s)=Don Winiecki | ||
| − | |Title= | + | |Title=The expert witnesses and courtroom discourse: applying micro and macro forms of discourse analysis to study process and the 'doings of doings' for individuals and for society |
| − | The expert witnesses and courtroom discourse: applying micro and macro forms of discourse analysis to study process and the 'doings of doings' for individuals and for society | ||
|Tag(s)=EMCA;conversation analysis; courts/legal proceedings; discourse analysis; Foucault/Foucaultian; membership categorization analysis; subject/subjectivity; subjectification; | |Tag(s)=EMCA;conversation analysis; courts/legal proceedings; discourse analysis; Foucault/Foucaultian; membership categorization analysis; subject/subjectivity; subjectification; | ||
|Key=Winiecki2008 | |Key=Winiecki2008 | ||
| Line 11: | Line 10: | ||
|Volume=19 | |Volume=19 | ||
|Number=6 | |Number=6 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Pages=765–781 |
| − | | | + | |URL=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0957926508095892 |
| − | |Abstract= | + | |DOI=10.1177/0957926508095892 |
| − | + | |Abstract=The expert witness in legal proceedings is both a historically necessary part of modern legal proceedings in a society increasingly influenced by science and technology, and a much maligned figure often accused of purporting 'junk science' and of acting as an ethically empty mercenary. While much of the social action that attempts these various subjectifications is done outside of courtrooms, this article takes as its object verbal interaction in actual court proceedings that involve an expert witness. The study takes a combined conversation analytic (specifically, non-sequential, or membership categorization analyses) and discourse analytic (specifically post-structural) perspective. Findings focus on the particular use of categorizations by lawyers, judges and the expert witness in terms of rules of the law and of relevant science in the process of court proceedings and the way those categorizations are then used in subsequent court activities and decisions. | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | The expert witness in legal proceedings is both a historically necessary part of modern legal proceedings in a society increasingly influenced by science and technology, and a much maligned figure often accused of purporting 'junk science' and of acting as an ethically empty mercenary. While much of the social action that attempts these various subjectifications is done outside of courtrooms, this article takes as its object verbal interaction in actual court proceedings that involve an expert witness. The study takes a combined conversation analytic (specifically, non-sequential, or membership categorization analyses) and discourse analytic (specifically post-structural) perspective. Findings focus on the particular use of categorizations by lawyers, judges and the expert witness in terms of rules of the law and of relevant science in the process of court proceedings and the way those categorizations are then used in subsequent court activities and decisions. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 12:07, 20 November 2019
| Winiecki2008 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Winiecki2008 |
| Author(s) | Don Winiecki |
| Title | The expert witnesses and courtroom discourse: applying micro and macro forms of discourse analysis to study process and the 'doings of doings' for individuals and for society |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, conversation analysis, courts/legal proceedings, discourse analysis, Foucault/Foucaultian, membership categorization analysis, subject/subjectivity, subjectification |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2008 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Discourse & Society |
| Volume | 19 |
| Number | 6 |
| Pages | 765–781 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1177/0957926508095892 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
The expert witness in legal proceedings is both a historically necessary part of modern legal proceedings in a society increasingly influenced by science and technology, and a much maligned figure often accused of purporting 'junk science' and of acting as an ethically empty mercenary. While much of the social action that attempts these various subjectifications is done outside of courtrooms, this article takes as its object verbal interaction in actual court proceedings that involve an expert witness. The study takes a combined conversation analytic (specifically, non-sequential, or membership categorization analyses) and discourse analytic (specifically post-structural) perspective. Findings focus on the particular use of categorizations by lawyers, judges and the expert witness in terms of rules of the law and of relevant science in the process of court proceedings and the way those categorizations are then used in subsequent court activities and decisions.
Notes
