Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Quibbling and the Fallacy of Critical Scholarship: Response to Thorstensen

  • Critical Discussion Notes
  • Published:
NanoEthics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this text, I respond to a paper by Erik Thorstensen (2014) entitled “Public Involvement and Narrative Fallacies of Nanotechnologies.” In his paper, Thorstensen critically reviews a previous ELSA project on engagement and nanotechnology known by the acronym DEEPEN. While I agree that the ELSA community could benefit from the critical examination of earlier research, I believe the approach taken by Thorstensen is not a constructive one. My response deals with three main issues: the character of the paper, narrative theory, and interdisciplinarity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Davies S, Machnaghten P (2010) Narratives of mastery and resistance: lay ethics of nanotechnology. NanoEthics 4(2):141–151. doi:10.1007/s11569-010-0096-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Davies S, Macnaghten P, Kearnes M (2009) Reconfiguring responsibility: lessons for public policy (Part 1 of the report on Deepening Debate on Nanotechnology). Durham: Durham University; available at: http://dro.dur.ac.uk/6399/1/6399.pdf, last Accessed October 2014

  3. Ferrari A, Nordmann A (2010) Beyond conversation: some lessons for nanoethics. NanoEthics 4(2):171–181. doi:10.1007/s11569-010-0098-3

  4. Glynos J, Howarth D (2007) Logics of critical explanation in social and political theory: routledge (Routledge Innovations in Political Theory)

  5. Gottweis H (1998) Governing molecules. The discursive politics of genetic engineering in Europe and the United States. The MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  6. Klein JT (1996) Crossing boundaries. Knowledge, disciplinarities, and interdisciplinarities. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville

    Google Scholar 

  7. Thorstensen E (2014) Public involvement and narrative fallacies of nanotechnologies. NanoEthics. doi:10.1007/s11569-014-0202-1

  8. White H (1980) The value of narrativity in the representation of reality. Crit Inq 7(1):5–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Yanow D (2006) Neither Rigorous Nor Objective? Interrogating Criteria for Knowledge Claims in Interpretive Science. In: Dvora Yanow, Peregrine Schwartz-Shea (eds.) Interpretation and method. Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., pp. 67–88

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Interdisciplinary Studies of Culture, Centre for Technology and Society, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Dragvoll, Edvard Bulls veg 1, 7094, Trondheim, Norway

    Heidrun Åm

Authors
  1. Heidrun Åm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Heidrun Åm.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Åm, H. Quibbling and the Fallacy of Critical Scholarship: Response to Thorstensen. Nanoethics 8, 251–254 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-014-0213-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-014-0213-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation