Forskning med juridiska förvecklingar : Om tolkningsflexibilitet i kontroversen om mässlingsvaccination och autism

Medical research with jurisdictional consequences: interpretative flexibility in the controversy over MMR vaccination and autism Based on the empirical case of the controversy of MMR vaccination and autism around the turn of the millennium, this paper argues for the analytical importance of the concept of “interpretative flexibility”. As shown, this concept is useful not only for the small subfield of sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK) but also for the broader social sciences. First we analyse, by reference to interpretative flexibility, the initial dispute within medical research concerning evidence for and against a possible link between the measles component of the MMR vaccine and autism. In a second step we move beyond this traditional application of the concept, showing how the interpretative flexibility of the research results remains in society although consensus has been reached in the medical community. This further step is exemplified by two legal events, in Sweden and the US respectively. In both these cases the difficulties in providing uncontested evidence affected institutions and practices at great distance and with different outcomes. Our findings suggest the importance of not only applying the concept of interpretative flexibility to classical scientific laboratory disputes, but also connecting it to its societal manifestations.

Tillväxt som kontrovers : Ekonomers och sociologers debatt om den svenska offentliga sektorn

The controversy of growth: a debate between economists and sociologists about the Swedish public sector Has the ‘Swedish model’ forced Sweden into stagnating economic growth? And has this caused Sweden to lag behind other comparable OECD-countries from the 1970s and onwards, i.e. since Sweden chose a welfare path different from many other countries? This has been the subject of a more than twenty year long controversy between Walter Korpi, professor of sociology and social policy, and leading Swedish mainstream economists. In a series of articles, especially during the years of economic crisis in the 1990s, Walter Korpi claimed that other reasons than the Swedish model has to be taken into account when comparing welfare states and their impact on economic growth, while the economists have persistently maintained the opposite view. These disputes over statistics and methodology have developed into what is here referred to as a science based controversy. This article analyzes the controversy between sociology and economy in accordance with controversy theory. In this way we can consider both the underlying social as well as political aspects of the debate, which leads to the conclusion that not every aspect of a science-based controversy is a byproduct of science itself.

Kriskommunikation i ett heterogent samhälle : lika för alla eller till var och en efter behov?

The controversy of growth: a debate between economists and sociologists about the Swedish public sector Has the ‘Swedish model’ forced Sweden into stagnating economic growth? And has this caused Sweden to lag behind other comparable OECD-countries from the 1970s and onwards, i.e. since Sweden chose a welfare path different from many other countries? This has been the subject of a more than twenty year long controversy between Walter Korpi, professor of sociology and social policy, and leading Swedish mainstream economists. In a series of articles, especially during the years of economic crisis in the 1990s, Walter Korpi claimed that other reasons than the Swedish model has to be taken into account when comparing welfare states and their impact on economic growth, while the economists have persistently maintained the opposite view. These disputes over statistics and methodology have developed into what is here referred to as a science based controversy. This article analyzes the controversy between sociology and economy in accordance with controversy theory. In this way we can consider both the underlying social as well as political aspects of the debate, which leads to the conclusion that not every aspect of a science-based controversy is a byproduct of science itself.