Collins Harry, Evans Robert
Soc Stud Sci. 2016 Apr;46(2):312-24. doi: 10.1177/0306312716637437.
In this response to Ribeiro and Lima's paper on interactional expertise, we argue that, by not incorporating the insights of constructivist social science, their analysis goes backwards rather than advancing the debate. We show that much of the evidence they present does not lead to the conclusions they draw. We also critically examine the idea of physical contiguity, which forms a central part of Ribeiro and Lima's position. We show that its meaning is ambiguous. We conclude by suggesting that more research on the nature and influence of physical contiguity would be interesting in its own right but that it would not bear on the notion of interactional expertise.
在对里贝罗和利马关于互动专长的论文的回应中，我们认为，由于没有纳入建构主义社会科学的见解，他们的分析是在倒退，而不是推动这场辩论。我们表明，他们所提供的许多证据并不能得出他们所得出的结论。我们还批判性地审视了身体接近性的概念，这是里贝罗和利马立场的核心部分。我们表明其含义是模糊的。我们最后指出，就身体接近性的本质和影响开展更多研究本身会很有趣，但这与互动专长的概念无关。
