This study examined the relation between professional affiliation and the framing of expert congressional testimony about nicotine's addictiveness. Experts were chosen from three different types of sponsoring organizations: the tobacco industry, government, and independent research organizations, both pro- and anti-tobacco. The study sought to identify common technical biases and policy concerns that could define an overall “expert” attitude, as well as differences where the experts’ framing of nicotine addiction would reveal attempts to favor their own institutions. Semantic network analysis was applied to each group's discourse, thereby clustering associated words that represented major themes in each type of expert group. Clusters revealed a common preoccupation with narrowly defined, lab-based evidence, but more locally, each group framed the issues to support its sponsor's strategy.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Barnett, G.1996. Quantitative analysis of in-person interviews. In The practice analysis of management accounting, edited by C. Barth [Online]. Montvale, NJ: Institute of Management Accountants. Available: http://rutgers.edu/Accounting/raw/ima/pracana/pamac.htm.
2.
Bradbury, J. A.1989. The policy implications of differing concepts of risk. Science, Technology, & Human Values14:380-399.
3.
Brandt, A. M.1990. The cigarette, risk, and American culture. Daedalus119:155-176.
4.
Burke, K.1966. Language as symbolic action. Berkeley: University of California Press.
5.
Covello, V. T.1991. Risk communication: An emerging area of health communication research. In Communication yearbook 15, edited by James A. Anderson, 359-373. New Brunswick, NJ: International Communication Association.
6.
Dietz, T., P. C. Stern, and R. W. Rycroft. 1989. Definitions of conflict and the legitimation of resources: The case of environmental risk. Sociological Forum4:47-70.
7.
Drake, L. E., and W. A. Donohue. 1996. Communicative framing theory in conflict resolution. Communication Research23:297-322.
8.
Elwood, W. N.1995. Public relations and the ethics of the moment: The anatomy of a local ballot issue campaign. In Public relations inquiry as rhetorical criticism: Case studies of corporate discourse and social influence, edited by W. N. Elwood, 255-275. Westport, CT: Praeger.
9.
Entman, R. M.1993. Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication43:51-58.
10.
Fischhoff, B.1996. Public values in risk research. In Challenges in risk assessment and risk management, edited by H. Kunreuther and P. Slovic, 75-84. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11.
Freudenburg, W. R.1992. Heuristics, biases, and the not-so-general publics: Expertise and error in the assessment of risks. In Social theories of risk, edited by S. Krimsky and D. Golding, 229-249. Westport, CT: Praeger.
12.
Funtowicz, S. O., and J. R. Ravetz. 1985. Three types of risk assessment: A methodological analysis. In Risk analysis in the private sector, edited by V. T. Covello, 217-231. New York: Plenum.
13.
Gandy, O. H., Jr.1992. Public relations and public policy: The structuration of dominance in the information age. In Rhetorical and critical approaches to public relations, edited by E. L. Toth and R. L. Heath, 131-163. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14.
Gitlin, T.1980. The whole world is watching: Mass media in the making and unmaking of the New Left. Berkeley: University of California Press.
15.
Herman, E. S., and N. Chomsky. 1988. Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass media. New York: Pantheon.
16.
Kosiki, G. M.1993. Problems and opportunities in agenda-setting research. Journal of Communication43:100-127.
17.
Lynn, F. M.1986. The interplay of science and values in assessing and regulating environmental risks. Science, Technology, & Human Values11:40-50.
18.
MacLean, D.1986. Social values and the distribution of risk. In Values at risk, edited by D. MacLean, 75-93. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allanheld.
19.
Moore, K., R. Burbach, and R. Heeler. 1995. Using neural nets to analyze qualitative data. Marketing Research7:34-39.
20.
Olasky, M. N.1987. Corporate public relations: A new historical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
21.
Olasky, M. N.1989. The aborted debate within public relations: An approach through Kuhn's paradigm. In Public relations research annual, vol. 1, edited by J. E. Grunig and L. A. Grunig, 87-96. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
22.
Otway, H.1992. Public wisdom, expert fallibility: Toward a contextual theory of risk. In Social theories of risk, edited by S. Krimsky and D. Goulding, 215-228. Westport, CT: Praeger.
23.
Pan, Z., and G. M. Kosiki. 1993. Framing analysis: An approach to news discourse. Political Communication10:55-73.
24.
Regulation of Tobacco Products, Part I. 1994. Hearing before the Subcommittee on Health and the Environment, of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. (March 25 and April 14, 1994).
25.
Regulation of Tobacco Products, Part II. 1994. Hearing before the Subcommittee on Health and the Environment, of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. (April 28, May 17, May 26, 1994).
26.
Renn, O.1993. Public participation in decision making: A three-step procedure. Policy Sciences26:189-214.
27.
Rice, R. E., and J. Danowski. 1993. Is it really just like a fancy answering machine? Comparing semantic networks of different types of voice mail users. Journal of Business Communication30:369-397.
28.
Robinson, C., and L. A. Powell. 1996. The postmodern politics of context definition: Competing reality frames in the Hill-Thomas spectacle. The Sociological Quarterly37:279-305.
29.
Rogers, C. L.1999. The importance of understanding audiences. In Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science, edited by S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, and C. L. Rogers, 179-200. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
30.
Rowan, K. E.1994. Goals, obstacles, and strategies in risk communication: A problem-solving approach to improving communication about risks. Journal of Applied Communication19:300-329.
31.
Slovic, P.1992. Perception of risk: Reflections on the psychometric paradigm. In Social theories of risk, edited by S. Krimsky and D. Golding, 117-152. Westport, CT: Praeger.
32.
Slovic, P., B. Fischhoff, and S. Lichtenstein. 1979. Rating the risks. Environment21:14-39.
33.
Slovic, P., B. Fischhoff, and S. Lichtenstein. 1981. Perceived risk: Psychological factors and social implications. In The assessment and perception of risk, edited by Sir F. Warner and D. H. Slater, 17-34. London: Royal Society.
34.
Stern, P. C.1991. Learning through conflict: A realistic strategy for risk communication. Policy Sciences24:99-119.
35.
Sturdy, A., I. Newman, and P. Nicholls. 1992. Sociological perspectives on the nature of expertise. In Expertise and decision support, edited by G. Wright and F. Bolger, 129-151. New York: Plenum.
36.
Woelfel, J. K.1993. Artificial neural networks for policy-making. Journal of Communication43:63-80.
37.
Woelfel, J. K., S. Danielsen, and J. Woelfel. 1995. Catpac for Windows [Computer program]. Troy, NY: Terra Research and Computing Co., Galileo Company.
38.
Wynne, B.1992. Risk and social learning: Reification to engagement. In Social theories of risk, edited by S. Krimsky and D. Golding, 275-297. Westport, CT: Praeger.
39.
Zehr, S. C.1994. Flexible interpretations of “acid rain” and the construction of scientific uncertainty in political settings. Politics and the Life Sciences13:205-216.
