American political culture has virtually precluded public discussion about the fundamental weaknesses of capitalism, forcing media reformers to argue defensively that commercial broadcasting is a special case of market failure. This investigation questions the historical inevitability of commercialized mass media structure by examining how the ideology of media professionalism is deployed in public debate over noncommercial uses of mass media resources. The work of John Dewey and Walter Lippmann frame a theoretical understanding of how professional autonomy works in opposition to community, and thus how professionalization works in opposition to a shared democratic sphere. Relying on the fundamental concepts of discursive formations studied in depth by Michel Foucault, three case studies analyze historic moments (the invention of listener support by Lewis Hill, the rise of news reporting by community television volunteers, and the introduction of media literacy in K-12 public education) that offer evidence of discursive breaks within the constructions of professionalism that support commercialization, and what those breaks suggest about the re-instantiation of the historical inevitability of the commercial regime. The conclusion discusses how conditions have led us to a point of deprofessionalization, a state in which media consumers disarm the notion of professionalism before it can be deployed as a governing relation, and how deproduction of authoritative texts effectively contains the power of professionalized norms. INDEX WORDS: Professionalism, Professionalization, Media reform, Commercialization, Noncommercial media, Dewey-Lippmann debate, Lewis Hill, Community television, Media literacy, Deproduction, Deprofessionalization

Economics plays a significant role in decision-making in contemporary western societies, but its role is increasingly questioned. A recurring topic among the challenges raised by critics is that economics as a discipline lacks sufficient pluralism. That is, it fails to enable, encourage, and respect the use of different ontologies, methodologies, theories, and/or schools of thought to study economic reality. Has this been a productive critique? Does talk about pluralism help identify genuine problems in the discipline? Pluralism in economics could draw support from the current consensus in philosophy that pluralism in science is a good thing. I argue, however, that the claim that economic research is insufficiently pluralist is unlikely to convince economists who believe economics is already pluralist enough and that it does not offer unambiguous recommendations for change. This is because there are too many legitimate ways to interpret how pluralism maps to practice. There are numerous variables that pluralist ideals might focus on-the things that they seek multiple rather than one of-and different interpretations of how many of those variables economics has in practice. Yet, as I go on to argue, this does not mean that talk of pluralism is entirely beside the point, since the reasons pluralists offer for their ideals do help to identify genuine problems in economics. The social epistemic strategies that arguments for pluralism recommend point us to three concrete issues in the way economic research is organised: gender imbalances, a steep internal hierarchy, and a dismissive attitude to outsiders. I show that economic research could be more progressive, representative of the interests of those in society, accepted, and legitimate and less likely to fall into bias if the discipline alleviated its gender imbalances, if it were less hierarchical, and if it had a healthier relationship with outsiders. In chapter 1, I outline the debate about pluralism in economics and explain how my thesis utilises a novel approach to social epistemology to offer a way out of the impasse in which that the debate presently resides. In chapter 2, I explain the different philosophical arguments for pluralism in science and categorise them using the variables they focus on and the reasons they give for pluralism. In chapter 3, I argue that interpreting pluralism as a particular arrangement of variables for economics to attain does not lead to unambiguous recommendations for change because it leaves too much open. Yet, I go on to argue, in chapter 4, that drawing on the reasons for pluralism can provide a set of heuristics for piecemeal evaluations of the social epistemic practices in economics. In chapters 5, 6, and 7, I apply these heuristics to economics. I provide evidence that [a] women are outnumbered in economics and face an adverse environment in the discipline, that [b] economics is steeply hierarchical, and that [c] economists form an in-group that assumes superiority and frequently dismisses outside voices. I argue that these three features of economic research block avenues for productive forms of feedback (mechanisms that help to challenge, justify, and refine scientific knowledge), block the interests of certain perspectives being heard, and block public scrutiny of the decisions made by economists.

This study treats the topic of smallpox prevention in Sweden during the nascent phase of vaccination between 1798–1805. The aim is to examine how Swedish physicians sought to establish trustworthiness for a new medical treatment as well as to analyse the relation between professional physicians and the unlicensed actors involved in the practice, i.e. the clergy and their assistants. The source material consists of pamphlets, articles in daily papers and annual reports written by Swedish physicians. By drawing upon theories on boundary-work and epistemic authority, this study has found that several boundaries were drawn within the medical space by the physicians who strived to retain the elements of the practice that were considered the most crucial, while delegating others. More importantly, the study has found that the physicians attempted to engage the clergy in the dissemination of knowledge due to their influence over the public. According to the physicians, the clergy were able to establish a credibility for the vaccine which could induce the population to undergo the treatment without coercion or laws made by the government.