Lynch2005a
| Lynch2005a | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Lynch2005a |
| Author(s) | Michael Lynch, Simon Cole |
| Title | Science and technology studies on trial: dilemmas of expertise |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Ethnomethodology, Courtroom Interaction, Expertise |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2005 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Social Studies of Science |
| Volume | 35 |
| Number | 2 |
| Pages | 269–311 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1177/0306312705048715 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This paper discusses materials from a legal case, People v. Hyatt (2001). This was a criminal case in which one of the authors (Simon Cole) agreed to appear as an expert witness for the defense. Cole’s expertise derived from his research in the field of Science and Technology Studies (STS), and so his appearance in the case exemplified STS research engaging in a public controversy about a contested form of ‘scientific’ knowledge. Cole’s STS work and his testimony proved useful to defendants seeking to restrict the admissibility of forensic fingerprint evidence in court, but before he could testify in the Hyatt trial, his own expertise was subjected to an admissibility hearing. During his testimony, Cole faced a number of dilemmas as he attempted to accommodate his own conception of science and STS with the terms and procedures recognized by the court. The hearing was transcribed, and the coauthors of this paper discussed the details of the transcript. Their discussion itself was recorded and transcribed, and portions of the two transcripts are juxtaposed in this paper. The paper discusses Cole’s difficulties and the dilemmas they exemplify, as a situated demonstration of some of the difficulties STS scholars face in their attempts to engage the ‘public sphere’.
Notes
