Talking about transplants

Social representations and the dialectical, dilemmatic nature of organ donation and transplantation

Gail Moloney, Iain Walker

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

71 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In many westernized countries, organ donation rates are low in comparison with the need for life-saving organ transplants, and are at odds with generally high community endorsement of organ donation. This is particularly true for Western Australia, the location of this study. This contradiction between endorsement and donation is investigated within a framework that draws from Moscovici's (1984) theory of Social Representations, Guimelli's (1998) differentiation between normative and functional dimensions of the central core, and Billig's (1988) rhetorical position on the role of argumentation in discourse. Four focus group discussions on organ donation and transplantation were conducted. Analysis of the discourse suggests that the social representation of organ donation and transplantation can be understood best as a representational field organized around two dialectically 'opposed' images - the gift of life and the mechanistic removal and replacement of body parts. The normative and functional expression of these two images as a pro-donation stance and a qualified pro-donation stance is discussed, as is the role of argumentation in the production of a social representation.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)299-320
Number of pages22
JournalBritish Journal of Social Psychology
Volume41
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2002
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Tissue and Organ Procurement
Organ Transplantation
Transplants
Gift Giving
Western Australia
Focus Groups
Human Body

Cite this

@article{63ca6dd604674151932f0fbef82c7f9e,
title = "Talking about transplants: Social representations and the dialectical, dilemmatic nature of organ donation and transplantation",
abstract = "In many westernized countries, organ donation rates are low in comparison with the need for life-saving organ transplants, and are at odds with generally high community endorsement of organ donation. This is particularly true for Western Australia, the location of this study. This contradiction between endorsement and donation is investigated within a framework that draws from Moscovici's (1984) theory of Social Representations, Guimelli's (1998) differentiation between normative and functional dimensions of the central core, and Billig's (1988) rhetorical position on the role of argumentation in discourse. Four focus group discussions on organ donation and transplantation were conducted. Analysis of the discourse suggests that the social representation of organ donation and transplantation can be understood best as a representational field organized around two dialectically 'opposed' images - the gift of life and the mechanistic removal and replacement of body parts. The normative and functional expression of these two images as a pro-donation stance and a qualified pro-donation stance is discussed, as is the role of argumentation in the production of a social representation.",
author = "Gail Moloney and Iain Walker",
year = "2002",
doi = "10.1348/014466602760060264",
language = "English",
volume = "41",
pages = "299--320",
journal = "British Journal of Social Psychology",
issn = "0144-6665",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Talking about transplants

T2 - Social representations and the dialectical, dilemmatic nature of organ donation and transplantation

AU - Moloney, Gail

AU - Walker, Iain

PY - 2002

Y1 - 2002

N2 - In many westernized countries, organ donation rates are low in comparison with the need for life-saving organ transplants, and are at odds with generally high community endorsement of organ donation. This is particularly true for Western Australia, the location of this study. This contradiction between endorsement and donation is investigated within a framework that draws from Moscovici's (1984) theory of Social Representations, Guimelli's (1998) differentiation between normative and functional dimensions of the central core, and Billig's (1988) rhetorical position on the role of argumentation in discourse. Four focus group discussions on organ donation and transplantation were conducted. Analysis of the discourse suggests that the social representation of organ donation and transplantation can be understood best as a representational field organized around two dialectically 'opposed' images - the gift of life and the mechanistic removal and replacement of body parts. The normative and functional expression of these two images as a pro-donation stance and a qualified pro-donation stance is discussed, as is the role of argumentation in the production of a social representation.

AB - In many westernized countries, organ donation rates are low in comparison with the need for life-saving organ transplants, and are at odds with generally high community endorsement of organ donation. This is particularly true for Western Australia, the location of this study. This contradiction between endorsement and donation is investigated within a framework that draws from Moscovici's (1984) theory of Social Representations, Guimelli's (1998) differentiation between normative and functional dimensions of the central core, and Billig's (1988) rhetorical position on the role of argumentation in discourse. Four focus group discussions on organ donation and transplantation were conducted. Analysis of the discourse suggests that the social representation of organ donation and transplantation can be understood best as a representational field organized around two dialectically 'opposed' images - the gift of life and the mechanistic removal and replacement of body parts. The normative and functional expression of these two images as a pro-donation stance and a qualified pro-donation stance is discussed, as is the role of argumentation in the production of a social representation.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036593926&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1348/014466602760060264

DO - 10.1348/014466602760060264

M3 - Article

VL - 41

SP - 299

EP - 320

JO - British Journal of Social Psychology

JF - British Journal of Social Psychology

SN - 0144-6665

IS - 2

ER -