Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics and Society
Vol. 12:4 (2021) ► pp.669–695

Withholding consent

How citizens resist expert responses by positioning themselves as ‘the ones to be convinced’

| Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
| Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

This paper examines public meetings in the Netherlands where experts and officials interact with local residents on the human health effects of livestock farming. Using Conversation Analysis, we reveal a ‘weapon of the weak’: a practice by which the residents resist experts’ head start in information meetings. It is shown how residents draw on the given question-answer format to challenge experts and pursue an admission of, for example, methodological shortcomings. We show how the residents’ first question functions as a ‘foot-in-the-door’, providing them with a strong basis for skepticism. By systematically challenging the expert responses, the residents exploit the interaction’s sequential organization, with the effect that the goal becomes them being convinced rather than being informed. Consequently, the withholding of consent becomes the residents’ ‘weapon’. Finally, we argue that in an age where expertise is increasingly contested, it is crucial to understand how, and to what end, this contestation may occur.

Keywords: public meetings, challenging questions, contested expertise, withholding consent, conversation analysis, ‘weapon of the weak’ practice
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Questions as challenges
  • 3.Data and method
  • 4.Analysis
    • 4.1“Foot-in-the-door”: Setting up skepticism
    • 4.2In further pursuit of an admission
    • 4.3Retroactively positioning oneself as already knowing the answer to the question(s)
  • 5.Concluding comments
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 29 October 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.20032.bur
References (60)
Beach, Wayne
1995 “Conversation Analysis: ‘Okay’ as a Clue for Understanding Consequentiality.” In The Consequentiality of Communication, ed. by Stuart Sigman, 121–161. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Black, Laura, James Leighter, and John Gastil
2009 “Communicating Trust, Community, and Process in Public Meetings: A Reflection on How Close Attention to Communication Can Contribute to the Future of Public Participation.” International Journal of Public Participation 31: 143–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boholm, Åsa
2008 “The Public Meeting as a Theater of Dissent: Risk and Hazard in Land and Environmental Planning.” Journal of Risk Research 111: 119–140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolden, Galina, and Jeffrey Robinson
2011 “Soliciting Accounts with Why-Interrogatives in Conversation.” Journal of Communication 61 (1): 94–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Breeman, Gerard, Catrien Termeer, and Maartje van Lieshout
2013 “Decision-making on Mega-Stables: Understanding and Preventing Citizens’ Distrust.” NJAS-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 661: 39–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Buttny, Richard
2010 “Citizen Participation, Metadiscourse, and Accountability: A public Hearing on a Zoning Change for Wal-Mart.” Journal of Communication 60 (4): 636–659. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Buttny, Richard, and Jodi Cohen
2007 “Drawing on the Words of Others at Public Hearings: Zoning, Wal-Mart and the Threat to the Aquifer.” Language in Society 361: 735–756. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015 “Public Meeting Discourse.” In The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction, ed. by Karen Tracy, Cornelia Ilie, and Todd Sandel, 1242–1252. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carvalho, Anabela, Zara Pinto-Coelho, and Eunice Seixas
2019 “Listening to the Public-Enacting Power: Citizen Access, Standing and Influence in Public Participation Discourses.” Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 21 (5): 563–576. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clayman, Steven
2002 “Tribune of the People: Maintaining the Legitimacy of Aggressive Journalism.” Media, Culture & Society 24 (2): 197–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, Sarah
2011 “The Rules of Engagement: Power and Interaction in Dialogue Events.” Public Understanding of Science 22 (1): 65–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drew, Paul and John Heritage
1992 Talk at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Edwards, Derek
2000 “Extreme Case Formulations: Softeners, Investment, and Doing Nonliteral.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 33 (4): 347–373. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006 “Facts, Norms and Dispositions: Practical Uses of the Modal Verb Would in Police Interrogations.” Discourse Studies 8 (4): 475–501. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Edwards, Derek, and Jonathan Potter
1992 Discursive Psychology. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Emmertsen, Sofie
2007 “Interviewers’ Challenging Questions in British Debate Interviews.” Journal of Pragmatics 39 (3): 570–591. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Felt, Ulrike, Maximilian Fochler, Annina Müller, and Michael Strassnig
2009 “Unruly Ethics: On the Difficulties of a Bottom-up Approach to Ethics in the Field of Genomics.” Public Understanding of Science 18 (3): 354–371. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Freedman, Jonathan, and Scott Fraser
1966 “Compliance without Pressure: The Foot-in the-Door Technique.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 4 (2): 195–202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garfinkel, Harold
1963 “A Conception of, and Experiments with, ‘Trust’ as a Condition of Stable Concerted Actions.” In Motivation and Social Interaction: Cognitive Approaches, ed. by O. J. Harvey, 187–238. New York: Ronald Press.Google Scholar
Hayano, Kaoru
2013 “Question Design in Conversation.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. by Jack Sidnell and Tanya Stivers, 395–414. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Heinemann, Trine
2008 “Questions of Accountability: Yes-no Interrogatives that Are Unanswerable.” Discourse Studies 10 (1): 55–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heinemann, Trine, and Véronique Traverso
2009 “Complaining in Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 41 (12): 2381–2384. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John
1984 “A Change-of-State-Token and Aspects of Its Sequential Placement.” In Structures of Social Action, ed. by Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage, 299–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2002 “The Limits of Questioning: Negative Interrogatives and Hostile Question Content.” Journal of Pragmatics 34 (10–11): 1427–1446. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015 “ Well-Prefaced Turns in English Conversation: A Conversation-Analytic Perspective.” Journal of Pragmatics 881: 88–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John, and Steven Clayman
2010 Talk in Action: Interactions, Identities and Institutions. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John, and Geoffrey Raymond
2012 “Navigating Epistemic Landscapes: Acquiescence, Agency and Resistance in Responses to Polar Questions.” In Questions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives, ed. by Jan-Peter de Ruiter, 179–192. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen
1994 “Constituting and Maintaining Activities across Sequences: And-prefacing as a Feature of Question Design.” Language in Society 231: 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hutchby, Ian
1996 “Power in Discourse: The Case of Arguments on a British Talk Radio Show.” Discourse & Society 7 (4): 481–497. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
IJzermans, Joris, Lidwien Smit, Dick Heederik, and Thomas Hagenaars
2018 Veehouderij en gezondheid omwonenden-III [Livestock farming and neighbouring residents’ health]. NIVEL-report.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail
2004 “Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction.” In Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, ed. by Gene Lerner, 13–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kerr, Anne, Sarah Cunningham-Burley, and Richard Tutton
2007 “Shifting Subject Positions: Experts and Lay People in Public Dialogue.” Social Studies of Science 371: 385–411. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koshik, Irene
2003 “Wh-questions Used as Challenges.” Discourse Studies 5 (1): 51–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005 Beyond Rhetorical Questions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Myers, Greg
2003 “Discourse Studies of Scientific Popularization: Questioning the Boundaries.” Discourse Studies 5 (2): 265–279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mogendorff, Karen, Hedwig te Molder, Cees van Woerkum, and Bart Gremmen
2014 “We Say:‘…’,They Say:‘…’: How Plant-Science Experts Draw on Reported Dialogue to Shelve User Concerns.” Discourse & Communication 81: 137–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Molotch, Harvey and Deirdre Boden
1985 “Talking Social Structure: Discourse, Domination and the Watergate Hearings.” American Sociological Review 501: 273–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oreskes, Naomi and Erik Conway
2010 Merchants of Doubt. How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita
1980 “Telling My Side: “Limited Access” as a “Fishing” Device.” Sociological Inquiry 50 (3–4): 186–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1986 “Extreme Case Formulations: A Way of Legitimizing claims.” Human Studies 91: 219–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Potter, Jonathan
1996 Representing Reality: Discourse, Rhetoric and Social Construction. London: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey
2003 “Grammar and Social Organization: Yes/No Interrogatives and the Structure of Responding.” American Sociological Review 68 (6): 939–967. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018 “Which Epistemics? Whose Conversation Analysis?” Discourse Studies 20 (1): 57–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey, and Jack Sidnell
2019 “Interaction at the Boundaries of a World Known-in-Common: Initiating Repair with ‘What do you mean?’” Research on Language and Social Interaction 52 (2): 177–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey, and Don Zimmerman
2016 “Alignment and Misalignment in Sequence and Call-closings in Institutional Interaction.” Discourse Studies 18 (6): 716–736. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rendle-Short, Johanna
2007 “Neutralism and Adversarial Challenges in the Political News Interview.” Discourse & Communication 1 (4): 387–406. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, Edward
2015 “How participants in arguments challenge the normative position of an opponent.” Discourse Studies 17 (3): 299–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
RIVM [Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment]
2018 Q-koorts [Q Fever]. Available at: [URL]. (accessed September 28, 2019).
Schegloff, Emanuel A.
1988 “From Interview to Confrontation: Observations of the Bush/Rather Encounter.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 22 (1–4): 215–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997 “Practices and Actions: Boundary Cases of Other-Initiated Repair.” Discourse Processes 231: 499–545. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scott, James C.
1985 Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Sidnell, Jack, and Tanya Stivers
(eds) 2013 The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sprain, Leah, and Lydia Reinig
2018 “Citizens Speaking as Experts: Expertise Discourse in Deliberative Forums.” Environmental Communication 121: 357–369. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steensig, Jakob, and Paul Drew
(eds.) 2008 “Introduction: Questioning and Affiliation/Disaffiliation in Interaction.” Discourse Studies 10 (1): 5–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya
2005 “Parent Resistance to Physicians’ Treatment Recommendations: One Resource for Initiating a Negotiation of the Treatment Decision.” Health Communication 18 (1): 41–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, and Makoto Hayashi
2010 “Transformative Answers: One Way to Resist a Question’s Constraints.” Language in Society 39 (1): 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szerszynski, Branislaw
1999 “Risk and Trust: The Performative Dimension.” Environmental Values 8 (2): 239–252. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ten Have, Paul
2007 Doing Conversation Analysis: A Practical Guide (2nd ed.). London: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Welsh, Ian, and Brian Wynne
2013 “Science, Scientism and Imaginaries of Publics in the UK: Passive Objects, Incipient Threats.” Science as Culture 221: 540–566. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wynne, Brian
2006 “Public Engagement as a Means of Restoring Public Trust in Science –Hitting the Notes, but Missing the Music?” Community Genetics 91: 211–220.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by 3 other publications

van Burgsteden, Lotte & Hedwig te Molder
2022. Shelving Issues: Patrolling the Boundaries of Democratic Discussion in Public Meetings. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 41:6 ► pp. 685 ff. DOI logo
van Burgsteden, Lotte, Hedwig te Molder & Geoffrey Raymond
2022. Going against the interactional tide: The accomplishment of dialogic moments from a conversation analytic perspective. Discourse Studies 24:4 ► pp. 471 ff. DOI logo
van Burgsteden, Lotte, Hedwig te Molder & Geoffrey Raymond
2022. The turn-by-turn unfolding of “dialogue”: Examining participants’ orientations to moments of transformative engagement. Language & Communication 82 ► pp. 64 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.