Coproduction of Scientific Addiction Knowledge in Everyday Discourse

Abstract

The phenomenon of addiction enables studies of how society governs citizens and produces (healthy) bodies through classifications and definitions within treatment, science, and politics. Definitions and explanations of addiction change over time, and collective narratives of addiction in society are shared between scientific, official, and colloquial discourses. It is thus reasonable to argue that scientists, clinicians, and practitioners, as well as politicians, journalists, and laypersons, co-create addiction as a (bio)medical, social, and cultural phenomenon defined by varying actions, experiences, contexts, and meanings. The mass media is a key link between science and citizens. Explanations and definitions of the nature and causes of, and solutions for, addiction are provided by science and communicated to the rest of the society in popular scientific representations. While the language of scientific discourse is actively used, reproduced, and redefined in everyday language, laypersons are seldom acknowledged as active participants in studies of knowledge coproduction. This study examines how 25 newspaper readers interpret and explain dimensions of addiction phenomena through their own knowledge and interpretation of scientific representations in the media. The analysis shows how (popular) scientific biomedical addiction discourse interacts with newspaper readers' interpretations, focusing on lay discussion of the causes of and solutions for addiction, how lay coproduction of scientific explanations is made, and how we can understand it. The study contributes to our understanding of the complex network of interacting and competing actors coproducing knowledge of addiction, emphasizing laypersons' involvement in this process.

One model to rule them all? Governing images in the shadow of the disease model of addiction

“…One Ring to rule them all? Another parallel to The Lord of the Rings is the long-lasting battle between perspectives, or put less dramatically the 'rich and continuing debate that accentuates the co-existence of several definitions of addiction' [6], that is, Great Rings. Another parallel to The Lord of the Rings is the long-lasting battle between perspectives, or put less dramatically the 'rich and continuing debate that accentuates the co-existence of several definitions of addiction' [6], that is, Great Rings.…”

“…We can draw parallels to the story of the rings by circumstantial indicators pointing to the disease model as the 'dominant lexicon' of our time and biomedical explanations often being ascribed higher status and more potential than social explanations [5,6]. One Ring to rule them all?…”

“…It is in such a time an editorial in Nature [7] without further reflection may claim the brain disease portrayal of addiction uncontroversial among scientists. Another parallel to The Lord of the Rings is the long-lasting battle between perspectives, or put less dramatically the 'rich and continuing debate that accentuates the co-existence of several definitions of addiction' [6], that is, Great Rings. The editorial [7] led Heim and Heather to mobilised 94 addiction scholars to oppose the one-dimensional perception.…”

“…The Swedish debate shows growing interest in biomedical understandings of and solutions to addiction problems [6,16]. Yet the general public holds quite moralistic views in terms of individual responsibility [17,18].…”

Implications of treatment providers’ varying conceptions of the disease model of addiction: A response

“…As she states, in Sweden, key stakeholders within AOD treatment and policy resist abandoning the social tradition in favour of biomedical understandings of addiction problems (e.g. [7]). Storbjörk's commentary prompts us to consider tensions between biomedical and social frameworks of addiction in the global context.…”