PDA

View Full Version : Call for Commentators on Rifkin's article



Technology Studies
06-15-1992, 06:02 AM
PLEASE POST THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON ANY OF YOUR NETWORKS AND
DISTRIBUTE AS WIDELY AS POSSIBLE. YOUR HELP IS GREATLY APPRECIATED.
THANK YOU!
---------------------------------------

Dear Colleague:

Below is the abstract of a forthcoming article to appear in
TECHNOLOGY STUDIES (TS), an international, multidisciplinary
journal, the first issue of which is scheduled to appear in
1993. TS provides Open Peer Commentary on important and
controversial current research in the field of technology
studies. Several commentaries will be published alongside this
article, and will be followed by the author's rejoinder. To be
considered as a commentator on this article, or to suggest
other appropriate commentators, please send E-mail advice to:

GATTIKER3@HG.ULETH.CA

or write to:

Urs E. Gattiker, 4401 University Drive, Lethbridge, AB, Canada
T1K 3M4 [Phone: (403) 320-6966 (MST-mornings); Fax: (403) 329-
2038]

To help us put together a balanced list of commentators, PLEASE
GIVE SOME INDICATION OF THE AREAS OF EXPERTISE YOU WILL BRING
to bear on the topic if you are selected as a commentator.
__________________________________________________ _____________


TITLE: Who Need Not be Heard: Deciding Who is Not an Expert
AUTHOR: Willy D. Rifkin

When listening to an individual speak in a technical
arena, we decide whether to regard him or her as an expert or
not an expert. This process of evaluation is examined in this
article with use of the concept of expert status. Expert
status represents a high participation status in a
conversation. I apply conversation analysis to a formal
setting, hearings of a water board concerned with toxic waste
issues. Two dialogues illustrate how Water Board members
decide whose testimony is worth hearing. Board members
regulate testimony by applying the criterion of "relevance"
stated in the hearing rules. "Relevance" appears to stand for
a range of factors involving the information offered, a
testifier's identity, and norms and rituals of the hearing
process. This finding has implications for managers' decisions
about what is "relevant" -- and whose voice is worth hearing --
in technical decisionmaking.
__________________________________________________ _____________


Thank you for your consideration of this matter. I look
forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Urs E. Gattiker | E-Mail: Internet: Gattiker3@HG.ULeth.CA |
| Editor | BitNet: Gattiker3%HG.UNCAEDU.BitNet |
| TECHNOLOGY STUDIES (TS) | from CompuServe: Internet:Gattiker3@hg.uleth.ca|
| Faculty of Management | from MCI Mail: To: Urs E. Gattiker (ems) |
| University of Lethbridge| EMS: INTERNET / MCI ID: 376-5414 |
| Lethbridge, Alberta | MBX: gattiker3@hg.uleth.ca |
| T1K 3M4 | |
| | Phone: (403) 320-6966 (every morning-MST) |
| CANADA | (403) 329-2109 (Stella Kedoin-Assistant)|
| | Fax: (403) 329-2038 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
: T E C H N O L O G Y S T U D I E S :
: :
| THE ONLY TECHNOLOGY JOURNAL WITH O P E N - P E E R C O M M E N T A R Y |
| |
| S U B M I S S I O N S A R E W E L C O M E !! |
| |
| Technology Studies is to be indexed or abstracted in: |
| Sociological Abstracts, Ergonomics Abstracts, Geographical Abstracts |
| and other leading abstracting and indexing services |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+