Search

To link to full-text access for this article, visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.10.010 Byline: Rosemary Davidson (a), Jenny Kitzinger (b), Kate Hunt (c) Keywords: Health inequalities; Lay perceptions; Focus groups; Socio-economic inequality; UK Abstract: Research repeatedly identifies an association between health and socio-economic status -- richer people are healthier than poorer people. Richard Wilkinson has posited that socio-psychological mechanisms may be part of the explanation for the fact that socio-economic inequalities run right across the social spectrum in wealthy societies. He argues that polarised income distributions within countries have a negative impact on stress, self-esteem and social relations which, in turn, impact on physical well-being. How people experience and perceive inequalities is central to his thesis. However, relatively little empirical work has explored such lay perceptions. We attempt to address this gap by exploring how people see inequality, how they theorise its impact on health, and the extent to which they make personal and social comparisons, by drawing on 14 focus group discussions in Scotland and the north of England. Contrary to other research which suggests that people from more deprived backgrounds are more reluctant to acknowledge the effects of socio-economic deprivation, our findings demonstrate that, in some contexts at least, people from less favourable circumstances converse in a way to suggest that inequalities deeply affect their health and well-being. We discuss these findings in the light of the methodological challenges presented for pursuing such research. Author Affiliation: (a) Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, UK (b) Cardiff School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies, Cardiff University, King Edward VII Avenue, Cardiff CF10 3NB, UK (c) MRC Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, 4 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow G12 8RZ, UK

Controversies about biotechnologies often centre not so much on present scientific facts as on speculations about risks and benefits in the future. It is this key futuristic element in these arguments that is the focus of this article. We examine how competing visions of utopia or dystopia are defended through the use of diverse vocabularies, metaphors, associations and appeals to authority. Our case study explores how these rhetorical processes play out in the debate about embryo stem cell research in UK national press and TV news media. The findings show how predictions from those in favour of embryo stem cell research are supported by both hype and by anti-hype, by inconsistent appeals to the technologies' innovative status and by the selective deconstruction of concepts such as 'potential' and 'hope'. The debate also mobilises binary oppositions around reason versus emotion, science versus religion and fact versus fiction. This article highlights how traditional assertions of expertise are now combined with ideas about compassion and respect for democracy and diversity. It also highlights the fact that although news reporters are often responding to topical events the real focus is often on years, even decades ahead. Close attention to how images of the future are constructed, and the evolution of new strategies for legitimation are, we suggest, important areas of on-going research, particularly in discussions of scientific and medical developments and policy. Keywords: Sociology of expectations; Cloning; Biotechnology; Genetics; Media; Risk; UK

The author discusses news icons, or media templates, in the mass media of the UK, with emphasis on the media account of the Cleveland child sexual abuse scandal.

Issues concerning the media coverage of inherited breast cancer and its implications for public understanding are discussed. This topic receives media coverage in many outlets, and women's magazines, television soap operas and radio drama are discussed. Findings from focus groups show that the human interest framing has drawn audience attention and influenced public understanding.

The value attached by women to female sexual reputation is gauged in a study of young Scottish women. In-depth interviews conducted reveal that women suffer two handicaps due to concerns relating to sexual reputation. One is the inhibition to express sexual pleasure or the 'missing discourse of desire,' while the other is the inability to be in control of heterosexual relations without denying female agency, the 'missing discourse of power.'

Women researchers involved in the survey of sexual behavior in humans faced the threat of sexual abuse by male subjects who took advantage of the situation, using the provocative questions as an excuse to impose their sexuality on the women researchers. The analysis of the experiences of four women researchers in Glasgow who faced sexual harassment during their survey of HIV-associated risk factors related to sexual behaviors was aimed at identifying the factors contributing to such incidents.