This article investigates the ways in which food author Verburgh has attempted to engineer credibility for himself, his book The Food Hourglass, and the arguments it contains. Through a careful reading and analysis of the text, interviews with the author, and other “credibility conquest” participants, we show that Verburgh engineers credibility through enlisting the authority of science, questioning the integrity of others, and positioning himself as a dissident. This initiates a constant renegotiation of credibility in the interaction between Verburgh, nutrition scientists, and others, in which Verburgh actively constructs his public credibility at the expense of scientific credibility.
AndreasenM. (2009). Who’s credible? Expressions of consensus and conflict in focus groups about DNA patenting. BioSocieties, 4, 25-43.
2.
BestJ. (2008). Social problems. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
3.
BowenG. A. (2006). Grounded theory and sensitzing concepts. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5, 1-9.
4.
BoyceT. (2006). Journalism and expertise. Journalism Studies, 7, 889-906.
5.
BreedveldB. C.Postma-SmeetsA. J. P. G. (n.d.). Factsheet: Gezonde basisvoeding met de Schijf van Vijf [Factsheet: Heathy basic nutrition with the food disc]. Retrieved from http://www.voedingscentrum.nl/nl/pers/factsheets.aspx
6.
CollinsH. M.EvansR. (2002). The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science, 32, 235-296.
7.
CollinsH. M.EvansR. (2007). Rethinking expertise. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
8.
CollinsH. M.PinchT. J. (1979). The construction of the paranormal. Nothing unscientific is happening. In WallisR. (Ed.), On the margins of science: The social construction of rejected knowledge (Sociological review monographs, 27; pp. 237-270). Keele, England: Brooks.
9.
CordainL. (2010). The Paleo diet: Lose weight and get healthy by eating the foods you were designed to eat. New York, NY: Wiley.
10.
DieckmannN. F.JohnsonB. B.GregoryR.MayorgaM.HanP. K. J.SlovicP. (2015). Public perceptions of expert disagreement: Bias and incompetence or a complex and random world?Public Understanding of Science. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0963662515603271
11.
DuesbergP. H. (1989). Human immunodeficiency virus and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome: Correlation but not causation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 86, 755-764.
EvansR.CollinsH. M. (2007). Expertise: From attribute to attribution and back again? In HackettE.AmsterdamskaO.LynchM.WajcmanJ. (Eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 609-630). Cambridge: MIT Press.
14.
FreidsonE. (1988). Profession of medicine: A study of the sociology of applied knowledge. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
15.
GauchatG. (2011). The cultural authority of science: Public trust and acceptance of organized science. Public Understanding of Science, 20, 751-770.
16.
GierynT. F. (1983). Boundary work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48, 781-795.
17.
GierynT. F. (1999). Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
18.
HarambamJ.AupersS. (2014). Contesting epistemic authority: Conspiracy theories on the boundaries of science. Public Understanding of Science, 24, 466-480.
19.
HarawayD. J. (1991). Simians, cyborgs and women: The reinvention of nature. London, England: Free Association Books.
20.
HessD. J. (2015). Public as threats? Integrating science and technology studies (STS) and social movement studies (SMS). Science as Culture, 24, 69-82.
21.
HilgartnerS. (2000). Science on stage: Expert advice as public drama. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
22.
JasanoffS. (2003). (No?) Accounting for expertise. Science and Public Policy, 30, 157-162.
23.
JauhoM. (2014). The social construction of competence: Conceptions of science and expertise among proponents of the low-carbohydrate high-fat diet in Finland. Public Understanding of Science, 25, 332-345.
24.
JonesW. E. (2002). Dissident versus loyalist: Which scientists should we trust?Journal of Value Inquiry, 36, 511-520.
25.
KahanD. (2010). Fixing the communications failure. Nature, 463, 296-297.
26.
Knorr-CetinaK. D. (1982). Scientific communities or transepistemic arenas of research? A critique of quasi-economic models of science. Social Studies of Science, 12, 101-130.
27.
LatourB. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society?Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
28.
LatourB. (2004). Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern. Critical Inquiry, 30, 225-248.
29.
LatourB. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
30.
LatourB.WoolgarS. (1979). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
31.
LehenkariJ. (2003). On the borderline of food and drug: Constructing credibility and markets for a functional food product. Science as Culture, 12, 499-525.
32.
MackenzieS. (2011). Dissecting the social body: Social inequality through AIDS counter-narratives. Public Understanding of Science, 20, 491-505.
NowotnyH.ScottP.GibbonsM. (2001). Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
35.
PackerK.WebsterA. (1996). Patenting culture in science: Reinventing the scientific wheel of credibility. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 21, 427-453.
36.
ParkerJ. N.VermeulenN.PendersB. (2010). Collaboration in the new life sciences. Farnham, England: Ashgate.
37.
PendersB. (2012). De mensen hebben een gezicht nodig [People need a face][An interview with Sonja Bakker]. In PendersB.Van DamF. (Eds.), Ingrediënten van Geloofwaardigheid: Goed Eten onder de Loep [Ingredients of credibility: Good food in the spotlight] (pp. 42-46). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Boom Lemma.
38.
PendersB. (2014). Mythbusters: Credibilising strategies in popular nutrition books by academics. Public Understanding of Science, 23, 903-910.
39.
PendersB.NelisA. P. (2011). Credibility engineering in the food industry: Linking science, regulation and marketing in a corporate context. Science in Context, 29, 487-515.
40.
PendersB.Van DamF. (2012). Ingrediënten van Geloofwaardigheid: Goed Eten onder de Loep [Ingredients of credibility: Good food in the spotlight]. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Boom Lemma.
41.
PendersB.VermeulenN.ParkerJ. N. (2015). Collaboration across health research and medical care: Healthy collaboration. Farnham, England: Ashgate.
42.
PerryE. M.MataJ. M.GierynT. M. (2007, August). Science and the discursive politics of policy: Examining credibility and policy framing. Paper presented at the annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, New York, NY.
43.
RitchieJ.LewisJ.McNaughton NichollsC.OrmstonR. (2013). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
44.
ScrinisG. (2013). Nutritionism: The science and politics of dietary advice. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
45.
ShapinS. (1995). Cordelia’s love: Credibility and the social studies of science. Perspectives on Science, 3, 255-275.
46.
ShapinS. (2007). Expertise, common sense and the Atkins diet. In PorterJ. M.PhillipsP. W. B. (Eds.), Public science in liberal democracy (pp. 174-193). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
47.
SmithT.NovellaS. (2007). HIV denial in the internet era. PLoS Medicine, 4, e256.
48.
TreichlerP. A. (1999). How to have theory in an epidemic: Cultural chronicles of AIDS. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
49.
U.S. Department of Agriculture & U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2010). Dietary guidelines for Americans. Washington, DC: U.S. Government.
50.
VanDeWalleS.SixF. (2014). Trust and distrust as distinct concepts: Why studying distrust in institutions is important. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 16, 158-174.
51.
VanDeWalleS.Van RoosbroekS.BouckaertG. (2008). Trust in the public sector: Is there any evidence for a long-term decline?International Review of Administrative Sciences, 74, 45-62.
52.
VanhauwaertE. (2012). De actieve voedingsdriehoek: Houd je bord in evenwicht [The active food triangle: Keep your plate balanced]. Leuven, Belgium: Acco.
Van ReybrouckD. (2008). Pleidooi voor populisme [A plea for populism]. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Querido.
55.
van RijswoudE. (2010). Virology experts in the boundary zone between science, policy and the public: A biographical analysis. Minerva, 48, 145-167.
56.
van RijswoudE. (2014). Shifting expert configurations and the public credibility of science: Boundary work and identity work of hydraulic engineers (1980–2009). Science in Context, 27, 531-558.
57.
VerburghK. (2012). De voedselzandloper. Over afvallen en langer jong blijven [The food hourglass. On losing weight and staying young longer]. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Bert Bakker.
58.
VerburghK. (2014). The food hourglass. New York, NY: Harper.
59.
VerburghK. (2015). Veroudering vertragen: Het langer jong plan [Slowing aging: The young-for-longer plan]. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Prometheus Bert Bakker.
WilletW. C. (2001). Eat, drink and be happy: The Harvard Medical School guide to healthy eating. New York, NY: Free Press.
63.
ZhangJ. Y. (2015). The “credibility paradox” in China’s science communication: Views from scientific practitioners. Public Understanding of Science, 24, 913-927.
