Rebecca Slayton
Rebecca Slayton is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Science & Technology Studies, and the Judith Reppy Institute for Peace and Conflict Studies, both at Cornell University. She is also an Affiliate of the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford.
Slayton's research examines how technology takes on cultural and political meaning through interactions between and among scientific experts, mass media, and policymakers. Her current project focuses on the emergence of cybersecurity as a new field of expertise.
Slayton's research examines how technology takes on cultural and political meaning through interactions between and among scientific experts, mass media, and policymakers. Her current project focuses on the emergence of cybersecurity as a new field of expertise.
less
InterestsView All (9)
Uploads
Arguments that Count also addresses questions of broad interest, in the field of science and technology studies and beyond. Scholars have long recognized that “technical realities” do not speak for themselves—they emerge through ongoing expert interpretation and dispute. But as the first book to feature a comparison of how different kinds of experts make sense of complex technology, and how they make their claims politically persuasive, Arguments that Count illuminates several key processes. How do experts formulate distinctive conceptions of risk? How do those conceptions change over time? How does political culture shape what counts as authoritative knowledge? And how does a new and contested field gains legitimacy?
To clarify these issues, I introduce a notion of disciplinary repertoires—the habits of problem-solving and codified rules that experts use to structure and predict uncertain technological futures. I argue that disciplinary repertoires also enable scientists to solve a key problem in the production of authoritative public knowledge—the performance of authoritative expertise.
Arguments that Count also addresses questions of broad interest, in the field of science and technology studies and beyond. Scholars have long recognized that “technical realities” do not speak for themselves—they emerge through ongoing expert interpretation and dispute. But as the first book to feature a comparison of how different kinds of experts make sense of complex technology, and how they make their claims politically persuasive, Arguments that Count illuminates several key processes. How do experts formulate distinctive conceptions of risk? How do those conceptions change over time? How does political culture shape what counts as authoritative knowledge? And how does a new and contested field gains legitimacy?
To clarify these issues, I introduce a notion of disciplinary repertoires—the habits of problem-solving and codified rules that experts use to structure and predict uncertain technological futures. I argue that disciplinary repertoires also enable scientists to solve a key problem in the production of authoritative public knowledge—the performance of authoritative expertise.