Hedwig te Molder

‘Health Should Not Have to be a Problem’: Talking Health and Accountability in an Internet Forum on Veganism

This article draws upon insights from discursive psychology to examine how participants in an Internet forum on veganism orient to the relationship between food choice, health and accountability. First, we explore the ways in which participants ascribe responsibility for health problems like vitamin deficiency to individual recipients. By suggesting individual practices as a cause for problems, speakers undermine the notion that problems arise through veganism as a matter of principle. Second, we show how participants construct solutions to individual health problems as involving mundane and simple actions. Both discursive procedures enable speakers to resist negative assumptions about the potentially complicated nature of veganism in relation to health protection.

Quitting is not an option: An analysis of online diet talk between celiac disease patients

This is an empirical study of the way in which celiac disease patients manage the risk of gluten intake in their everyday life.The article examines naturally occurring conversational data in order to study how patients cope interactionally with constantly being at risk in their day-to-day living. They reject quitting the diet as a valid option, and instead construct a ‘diet world’ in which dietary transgression is presented as an integrated part of everyday life. In this way, patients can manage occasional diet lapses without putting the validity of the diet itself at stake. By examining how the gluten-free diet is treated in interaction, we find out more about the pre-existing everyday strategies that have to be taken into account when new therapies are being introduced.

The good life: living for health and a life without risks? On a prominent script of nutrigenomics.

Like all scientific innovations, nutrigenomics develops through a constant interplay with society. Normative assumptions, embedded in the way researchers formulate strands of nutrigenomics research, affect this interplay. These assumptions may influence norms and values on food and health in our society. To discuss the possible pros and cons of a society with nutrigenomics, we need to reflect ethically on assumptions rooted in nutrigenomics research. To begin with, we analysed a set of scientific journal articles and explicated three normative assumptions embedded in the present nutrigenomics research. First, values regarding food are exclusively explained in terms of disease prevention. Health is therefore a state preceding a sum of possible diseases. Second, it is assumed that health should be explained as an interaction between food and genes. Health is minimised to quantifiable health risks and disease prevention through food-gene interactions. The third assumption is that disease prevention by minimisation of risks is in the hands of the individual and that personal risks, revealed either through tests or belonging to a risk group, will play a large role in disease prevention. Together, these assumptions suggest that the good life (a life worth living, with the means to flourish and thrive) is equated with a healthy life. Our thesis is that these three normative assumptions of nutrigenomics may strengthen the concerns related to healthism, health anxiety, time frames and individual responsibilities for health. We reflect on these ethical issues by confronting them in a thought experiment with alternative, philosophical, views of the good life.

Counseling Online and Over the Phone: When Preclosing Questions Fail as a Closing Device

In this article, we present an analysis of closings in two counseling media: online, text-based exchanges (usually referred to as “chat” sessions) and telephone calls. Previous research has found that the participant who initiated a conversation preferably also initiates its termination with a possible preclosing. Advice acknowledgments, lying in the epistemic domain of the client, are devices that may work as preclosings. However, in text-based chat clients regularly refrain from advice acknowledgment. While counselors use various practices to elicit advice acknowledgment in the context of potential advice resistance, hoaxing, and/or seemingly long pauses, these questions do not always succeed as “closing devices.” This offers an explanation for counselors’ perception of online chatting as more difficult than calling. The data are in Dutch with English translation.

If you can't eat what you like, like what you can: how children with coeliac disease and their families construct dietary restrictions as a matter of choice

Although it is recognised that a gluten-free diet has many social implications for coeliac disease patients, not much is known about how such patients actually manage these implications in their everyday interactions. This article examines how dietary restrictions are treated by patients and their families. Data from recorded mealtime conversations of seven Dutch families with children suffering from coeliac disease were analysed using discursive psychology. We found two main discursive strategies by which patients and their families manage the diet during mealtime interactions. A reference to pleasure is used to manage the tension between the childs agency and parental responsibility in the face of health requirements and, by softening the denial of food, the diet is normalised and treated as a shared family practice. The analysis shows that the gluten-free diet is demedicalised and treated as a matter of choice rather than prescription. We conclude with the practical implications of these findings.

“Everyone may think whatever they like, but scientists...”: Or how and to what end plant scientists manage the science-society relationship

In this study, the authors examine the performative functions of scientists’ discursive constructions of the science-society relationship. They use discursive psychology to analyze interviews with Dutch plant scientists and show that interviewees contrast the freedom of people in the private sphere with scientists’ responsibilities in the professional sphere to regulate “lay” access to science. To accomplish this, interviewees make claims about the scientific value of lay views only after they have displayed their tolerance of these views. Additionally, many interviewees refer to their own lay status in everyday life. Finally, the relationship between findings and recent science communication approaches is discussed.

The role of genes in talking about overweight: an analysis of discourse on genetics, overweight and health risks in relation to nutrigenomics

This study examines whether the assumptions embedded in nutrigenomics, especially the alleged relation between information about personal health risks and healthy behaviour, match how people account for the relation between food, health and genes in everyday life. We draw on discourse analysis to study accounts of overweight in six group interviews with people who are and who are not overweight. The results show potentially contradictory normative orientations towards behavioural explanations of (over)weight. Overt gene accounts are interactionally problematic (in contrast to more indirect accounts such as ‘build’), indicating that participants treat ‘behaviour’ as the normatively appropriate explanation for overweight. At the same time, however, healthy behaviour is an accountable matter, i.e. it is dealt with in interaction as behaviour that is not self-evidently right but requires an explanation. It is discussed how bringing these interactional concerns to the surface is essential for understanding future users’ response to nutrigenomics and emergent technologies more in general.

“Listen to your body”: Participants’ alternative to science in online health discussions

We present a discursive psychological analysis of how the idiomatic expression “Listen to Your Body” is deployed in online forum discussions about ADHD medication and aspartame. The Listen to Your Body device allows participants to demonstrate to others that they take their health seriously and for that reason avoid scientific knowledge. They contrast Listen to Your Body with “blindly following science,” presenting Listen to Your Body as the more critical and, therefore, more rational behavior. Instead of treating the idiomatic expression as “anyone’s knowledge,” speakers and recipients compete for the right to own it. It is discussed what these results mean for the role of and relation between experiential knowledge (“lay expertise”) and scientific expertise in online discussions about health issues.

‘‘We say: ‘. . .’, they say: ‘. . .’: How plant science experts draw on reported dialogue to shelve user concerns

This study aims to increase insight into the uses of experts’ references to physically absent technology users in government-funded plant science. A discursive psychological analysis of expert board meetings shows that experts invoke various forms of reported dialogue/thoughts and dispositional statements when problems with technology and with program funding are discussed. Forms of reported dialogue serve to demonstrate that experts engage in dialogue with users, understand and are reasonable about users’ concerns, and that the content of user concerns does not agree with expert views. Dispositional statements allow users’ feelings rather than users’ knowledge to be acknowledged as relevant. By establishing that user concerns contrast with expert concerns in type and content and by not discussing how users’ feelings may be incorporated into technology, experts shelve user concerns. This practice may hinder the development of user-friendly technologies.

Turning Experts Into Self-Reflexive Speakers The Problematization of Technical-Scientific Expertise Relative to Alternative Forms of Expertise

Bio-experts’ portrayals of laypeople are considered problematic. Two discursive action method workshops with 17 participants were organized to discover whether plant experts can engage in reflexive problematization of their own talk about and in front of laypeople and whether plant experts’ analyses may offer insights with regard to the hegemony of technical-scientific expertise. Participants discussed the interactional effects of real-life expert talk. Plant experts’ discussions indicate that they can problematize how their talk-in-interaction helps reproduce the supremacy of technical-scientific expertise. Results also suggest that plant experts may offer complementary insights to social scientists’ analyses of plant experts’ talk.