<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p> Journalists and politicians play different roles in the functional structure of the Habermasian public sphere; as such, they might be expected to have different understandings of what knowledge production and transmission might mean. This difference of understanding is more than a conflict over definitions; it is an epistemic divergence à la Fuller (2002:220), where already defined groups hold divergent understandings of what constitutes understanding. While a substantial body of work has been based on the idea of epistemic communities in the context of science and expert organizations in general, little empirical research exists to demonstrate the validity and adaptability of the concept of epistemic communities in comparative political communication research. Here, we show the cross-national validity of the concept of epistemic communities in the context of professional groups of politicians and political journalists in Austria, Finland, France, Denmark, Germany, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland.</p></abstract>

Journalists and politicians play different roles in the functional structure of the Habermasian public sphere; as such, they might be expected to have different understandings of what knowledge production and transmission might mean. This difference of understanding is more than a conflict over definitions; it is an epistemic divergence à la Fuller (2002:220), where already defined groups hold divergent understandings of what constitutes understanding. While a substantial body of work has been based on the idea of epistemic communities in the context of science and expert organizations in general, little empirical research exists to demonstrate the validity and adaptability of the concept of epistemic communities in comparative political communication research. Here, we show the cross-national validity of the concept of epistemic communities in the context of professional groups of politicians and political journalists in Austria, Finland, France, Denmark, Germany, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland.

“They Say One Thing and Mean Another” How Differences in In-Group Understandings of Key Goals Shape Political Knowledge

Department of Social Research, University of Helsinki

Department of Mass Communication, University of North Carolina at Asheville, USA

Nordicom Review

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

An International Comparison of Politicians and Journalists

Journalists and politicians play different roles in the functional structure of the Habermasian public sphere; as such, they might be expected to have...

“They Say One Thing and Mean Another” How Differences in In-Group Understandings of Key Goals Shape Political Knowledge

Published Online: Jun 09, 2015

Page range: 19 - 34

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/nor-2015-0003

Keywords
group epistemology, epistemic community, political communication, social psychology of knowledge, public sphere, Habermas, confirmatory factor analysis.

© by Miika Vähämaa

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

“They Say One Thing and Mean Another” How Differences in In-Group Understandings of Key Goals Shape Political Knowledge

Published Online: Jun 09, 2015

Page range: 19 - 34

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/nor-2015-0003

Keywordsgroup epistemology, epistemic community, political communication, social psychology of knowledge, public sphere, Habermas, confirmatory factor analysis.

© by Miika Vähämaa

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Keywords
group epistemology, epistemic community, political communication, social psychology of knowledge, public sphere, Habermas, confirmatory factor analysis.