Rhetorical dimensions of scientific practice: a discursive analysis of unexplored conditions in Milgram's obedience experiments.

Stanley Milgram's (1963, 1965, 1974) obedience experiments are amongst the most influential and controversial studies in the social sciences (Miller, 2016). Their influence has long escaped the confines of their parent discipline of social psychology, with scholars in fields as diverse as history, management, criminology, philosophy and political science drawing on them in attempts to shed light on the apparent flaws in human nature. In brief, Milgram's studies purported to show just how easily people could be led into committing apparently barbarous acts, simply as a result of following orders from an authority figure. Milgram's procedure required participants to administer what they believed were electric shocks to an actor playing the role of a fellow research participant. When the actor began to protest, an experimenter insisted that participants continue, which around 65% did in the most well-known versions of the experiment.
However, recent studies have recognised the fundamental roles of rhetoric and discourse in the experiments, with participants frequently aiming to negotiate as a means of avoiding compliant action. Beyond that, there are many more experimental conditions that have yet to be thoroughly re-evaluated. With this in mind, the primary objective of the proposed PhD research is to analyse a series of conditions from Milgram's obedience experiments that focus on role variations - conditions in which, for example, the authority figure was the one receiving the shocks, with a seemingly 'ordinary man' giving the orders.
The aim of this research is therefore to conduct a comprehensive discursive analysis of four experimental conditions present within Milgram's obedience experiments. These conditions have yet to be explored in detail and represent a highly fruitful source of data for discursive analysis.
My research questions are therefore as follows:
1) How were the previously unexplored 'role variations' conditions of Milgram's obedience studies actually conducted?
2) What discursive techniques were utilised, what actions performed, and what rhetorical strategies developed during the experimental interactions?
3) How can the expanded notion of rhetoric encapsulated in the idea of 'rhetorical ontology' be used to develop our understanding of the discursive/rhetorical dimensions of experimental/scientific practice?