Winiecki2008

From emcawiki
Revision as of 05:59, 14 October 2018 by SaulAlbert (talk | contribs) (Text replacement - "Discourse and Society" to "Discourse & Society")
Jump to: navigation, search
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
DOI https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926508095892
ISBN
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title
Chapter

Download BibTex

Abstract

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 Don Winiecki First Published November 1, 2008 Others Download PDFPDF download for 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 Article information No Access Article Information Volume: 19 issue: 6, page(s): 765-781 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