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)
References
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 (4)

Cited by four other publications

van Burgsteden, Lotte, Valérie Eijrond, Liesbeth Claassen & Danielle Timmermans
2024. Fostering dialogue on health risks of intensive livestock farming in the Netherlands: Combining insights from conversation analysis with the mental model approach of risk communication. NJAS: Impact in Agricultural and Life Sciences 96:1 DOI logo
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 26 december 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.