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.
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
2.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
3.
BeckerH. (1966). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. New York, NY: Free Press.
4.
BergmarkA. (2013). Om medikaliseringen av svensk missbrukarvård. Socialvetenskapligtidskrift, 20, 232–242.
5.
BucchiM. (2008). Of deficits, deviations and dialogues: Theories of public communication of science. In BucchiM.TrenchB. (Eds.), Handbook of public communication of science and technology (pp. 57–76). London, England: Routledge.
6.
BucchiM.NeresiniF. (2008). Science and public participation. In HackettE.AmsterdamskaO.LynchM. (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (3rd ed., pp. 449–473). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7.
CallonM. (1999). The role of lay people in the production and dissemination of scientific knowledge. Science Technology & Society, 4, 81–94.
8.
CampbellN. D. (2012). Medicalization and biomedicalization: Does the diseasing of addiction fit the frame?Critical Perspectives on Addiction. Advances in Medical Sociology, 14, 3–25.
ConradP.GabeJ. (1999). Introduction: Sociological perspectives on the new genetics: An overview. Sociology of Health & Illness, 21, 505–516.
11.
ConradP.SchneiderJ. W. (1980). Deviance and medicalization: From badness to sickness. St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
12.
EdmanJ. (2015). The Swedish drug problem and the political use of common ground. In GiertsenH.GunnlaugssonH. (Eds.), Drugs—What is the problem and how do we perceive it? Policies on Drugs in Nordic Countries (pp. 28–43). Copenhagen, Denmark: Nordisk Samarbejdsråd for Kriminologi.
13.
EdmanJ.BlomqvistJ. (2011). Jakten på den verksamma vården: Kunskapssträvanden och målsättningar inom den svenska missbrukarvården under ett sekel. In OlssonB. (Ed.), Narkotika. Om problem och politik (pp. 101–137). Stockholm, Sweden: Norstedts Juridik.
14.
EinsiedelF. E. (2014). Publics and their participants in science and technology. Changing roles, blurring boundaries. In BucchiM.TrenchB. (Eds.), Routledge handbook of public communication of science and technology (2nd ed., pp. 117–130). London, England: Routledge.
15.
EzrahiY. (2004). Science and the political imagination in contemporary democracies. In JasanoffS. (Ed.), States of knowledge: The co-production of science and the social order (pp. 254–273). London, England: Routledge.
HarawayD. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14, 575–599.
18.
HeiligM. (2015). Alkohol, droger och hjärnan: tro och vetande utifrån modern neurovetenskap. Stockholm, Sweden: Natur & kultur.
19.
HolderH.BramnessJ.HolmilaM.MannK.McNeillA.NuttD. (2012). Swedish research on alcohol, narcotics, doping, tobacco and gambling: Evaluation report. Stockholm, Sweden: Forskningsrådet för arbetsliv och socialvetenskap (FAS).
20.
IserW. (1975). The implied reader: Patterns of communication in prose fiction from Bunyan to Beckett. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
21.
JasanoffS. (Ed.). (2004). States of knowledge: The co-production of science and the social order. London, England: Routledge.
22.
KeaneH. (2002). What’s wrong with addiction?Melbourne, Australia: Melbourne University Press.
23.
KeaneH.MooreD.FraserS. (2011). Addiction and dependence: Making realities in the DSM. Addiction, 106, 875–877.
24.
LanderI. (2003). Den flygande maran: en studie om åtta narkotikabrukande kvinnor i Stockholm (Dissertation). Stockholms Universitet, Stockholm, Sweden.
25.
LanderI. (2014). “Det går inte an som farmor”—Genus, åldrande och narkotikabruk. In: FinstadL.LomellH. Mork (Eds.), Motmæle: En antologi till Kjersti Ericsson, Cecilie Höigård & Guri Larsen (pp. 277–292). Oslo, Norway: Novus Forlag.
26.
LarkinM.GriffithsM. D. (2002). Experiences of addiction and recovery: The case for subjective accounts. Addiction Research & Theory, 10, 281–311.
27.
LarssonG.WiklundH.SandlundM.GrönwallL. (2011). Bättre insatser vid missbruk och beroende: individen, kunskapen och ansvaret. Statens Offentliga Utredningar (Swedish Government Official Reports 2011:35). Stockholm, Sweden: Fritzes.
28.
LatourB.WoolgarS. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
29.
LendeD. H.LeonardT.SterkC. E.ElifsonK. (2007). Functional methamphetamine use: The insider’s perspective. Addiction Research & Theory, 15, 465–477.
30.
LintonM. (2015). Knark: en svensk historia. Stockholm, Sweden: Atlas.
31.
MidanikL. (2006). Biomedicalization of alcohol studies. New Brunswick & London: Aldine.
32.
MidanikL.RoomR. (2005). Contributions of social science to the alcohol field in an era of biomedicalization. Social Science & Medicine, 60, 1107–1116.
33.
National Board of Health & Welfare. (2013). Folkhälsan i Sverige: Årsrapport 2013. Stockholm, Sweden: Author.
RabeharisoaV.CallonM. (2004). Patients and scientists in French muscular dystrophy research. In JasanoffS. (Ed.), States of knowledge. The co-production of science and social order (pp. 142–160). London, England: Routledge.
RoumeliotisF. (2014). Drug prevention, politics and knowledge: Ideology in the making. Addiction Research and Theory, 22, 336–347.
39.
RoumeliotisF. (2015). Deciphering enigmas: Emotions, synaptic links and the political implications of social emotional training. Manuscript submitted for publication.
40.
SacksH. (1992). Lectures on conversation. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
41.
SeldenR.WiddowsonP.BrookerP. (Eds.). (1997). Reader-oriented theories. In A reader’s guide to contemporary literary theory (pp. 47–65). Harlow: Prentice Hall. (Original work published 1985)
SilvermanD. (2010). En mycket kortfattad, ganska intressant och någorlunda billig bok om kvalitativ forskning. Lund, England: Studentlitteratur.
44.
TörrönenJ. (2001). Between public good and the freedom of the consumer: Negotiating the space, orientation and position of us in the reception of alcohol policy editorials. Media, Culture & Society, 23, 171–193.
45.
ValverdeM. (1998). Diseases of the will: Alcohol and the dilemmas of freedom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46.
VreckoS. (2010a). Birth of a brain disease: Science, the state and addiction neuropolitics. History of the Human Sciences, 23, 52–67.
47.
VreckoS. (2010b). ‘Civilizing technologies’ and the control of deviance. Biosocieties, 5, 36–51.
48.
WinterK. (2014). Hur belönande kan det va liksom? Tidningsläsares förståelse av biomedicinska förklaringsmodeller av beroende (SoRAD Report No 68). Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm University, SoRAD.
49.
WinterK.BogrenA. (2013). The realization of sexed bodies: Stable and fragile gender dichotomies in Swedish media representations of biomedical alcohol research. Women’s Studies International Forum, 37, 53–63.
