Authority as epistemic capital

Alasuutari, Pertti

doi:10.1080/2158379x.2018.1468151

Cited by 24 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 76 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In their attempts to exert influence, speakers construct and appeal to facts, principles or entities that they assume others deem unavoidable determinants of the situation, or they cite sources assumed to lend credibility to the claims and proposals made. In other words, actors wishing to influence lean on others' authority by referring to them: by presenting a framing of reality that utilizes authoritative views and actors (Alasuutari, 2018).…”

Section: Ios and National Policy-makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It denotes the recognition among the actors of someone or something worthy of note when considering one's own conduct. This means that actors may present themselves as powerful or claim authority for themselves, but they may also make use of authorities and authoritative principles, thus struggling for a hegemonic conception of the situation that significantly affects others' views and behaviour (Alasuutari, 2018). Such exerting of influence is referred to as epistemic governance because it functions through knowledge and its validation (Alasuutari & Qadir, 2014).…”

Section: Ios and National Policy-makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

PISA and the criticism of Finnish education: justifications used in the national media debate

Rautalin

2018

Studies in Higher Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines the Finnish media debate surrounding the OECD-led PISA Study during the periods 2001-2009 and 2013-2014. The empirical focus of the study is on how debaters dissatisfied with Finnish education have justified their criticism in the context of debating PISA and how the justifications used have changed as Finland's PISA ranking has changed. The study argues that as Finland's ranking in PISA 2012 apparently deteriorated, this lent great support to the critical arguments voiced in public in Finland. Criticism no longer needed to be based on the proclamation in public of the international success of the Finnish education system which had previously been an integral part of the PISA discussion. Instead it was legitimate to note the deterioration in Finland's PISA ranking. This poorer ranking was used as an authority with other sources of legitimate information when proposing what various reforms Finland should undertake. Of especially great help in publicizing such views was that the national political elite, which had long succeeded in dominating the national public PISA debate, were unable in the face of the changed ranking to offer convincing explanations for this change in the ranking or to propose what measures should be undertaken in consequence. That is, the obvious decline in the PISA ranking and the inability of the previously so well placed political elite to manage the public debate on the changed PISA rankings fueled a critical discussion on education which was rhetorically much more challenging in the earlier publicity surrounding PISA.

show abstract

Section: Ios and National Policy-makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Ios and National Policy-makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

PISA and the criticism of Finnish education: justifications used in the national media debate

Rautalin

2018

Studies in Higher Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Beyond variation in the supply and institutionalized form of policy advice, the cultural meanings attached to different types of organizations are also important. Earlier epistemic governance research has argued that actors wishing to influence national policy‐making creatively refer in their argumentation to all available actors, facts and values considered authoritative by the target audience, thus amassing epistemic authority for the projects they seek to promote (Alasuutari, 2018; Alasuutari et al., 2016). Studies on parliamentary debates have observed some variation between national contexts in terms of which actors are deemed most legitimate in political reassurance work (Tiaynen‐Qadir et al., 2019; Vähä‐Savo, 2020).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In their attempts to convince others of their arguments, actors engaged in policy‐making routinely appeal to facts, principles, and authorities that they believe lend credibility to their positions (Alasuutari & Qadir, 2019 ). In epistemic governance framework, authority refers to ‘anything that actors use to aﬀect others; it denotes the recognition among the actors of someone or something being worth taking into account when considering one's own conduct’ (Alasuutari, 2018, p. 167). Although organizations are major source of readily available information and policy recommendations (Rautalin et al., 2021), no studies have examined how organizations in general are invoked as scientific authorities in the political debates over new legislation.…”

Section: Epistemic Governance Perspective On Authority Of Organizationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

From where do legislators draw scientific knowledge? Organizations as scientific authorities in four countries' parliamentary debates

Syväterä

Rautalin

Magyari

2022

British Journal of Sociology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Organizations far beyond traditional academic institutions have become prolific science producers, with many now providing evidence‐based advice for national governments and policy‐makers. Neo‐institutional sociology explains organizations' growing investment in research activities and research‐based policy advice by the all‐embracing scientization and the expansion of the educated population, phenomena observable throughout the world. There is, however, considerably less knowledge about how the organizations' increased knowledge production and the supply of science‐based policy advice are reflected in national policy‐making, including the legislative work of parliaments, and to what extent distinct organizations are deemed authoritative in different countries. In this paper, we examine how different organizations are used as scientific authorities in parliamentary debates over new legislation. Drawing on analyses of 576 parliamentary debates from Australia, Finland, Kenya, and the United Kingdom, we study what organizations are acknowledged as scientific authorities and the relative weight of different organization types in the context of political debates over new legislation. The results reveal that while organizations in general are frequently evoked as scientific authorities in all four countries, there is remarkable variation in the types of organizations considered authoritative in different national contexts. We elaborate these findings by analysing ways in which politicians evaluate organizations as sources of scientific authority. While the same set of evaluative schemas are used in all four countries, each is typically applied to certain types of organization. The results suggest that both the supply of scientific policy advice and political culture shape legislators' rhetorical practices when drawing on organizations' scientific authority.

show abstract

“…Authority and power are relational concepts. Authority is dependent on and consists of recognition by others (Alasuutari, 2018). In policy networks, each participant's authority thus depends on how other participants see it.…”

Section: Communicating Political Power: Authority Performances Based On Validity Claimsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Transformation of Communicative Power Into Political Power

Reunanen

Kunelius

2019

Communication Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines Jürgen Habermas’ concept of communicative power and describes how it transforms into political power in actual decision-making. For this purpose, the article develops the use of Habermas’ typology of validity claims in communicative action as a framework for analysis. This means analyzing how public performances invoking these validity claims affect actors’ authority, which is then capitalized in policymaking. The article thus integrates Habermas’ procedural view on deliberative politics with the more culturally oriented view on political performances. It also contributes to the discussion about the “mediatization of politics” by introducing a communicative perspective to complement the more common institutional and systems perspectives. This theoretical and analytical approach is illustrated by examples drawn from evidence in 16 semi-structured interviews conducted with participants in the policy networks involved in the 2015 Finnish labor market negotiations.

show abstract

Authority as epistemic capital

Cited by 24 publications

References 76 publications

PISA and the criticism of Finnish education: justifications used in the national media debate

PISA and the criticism of Finnish education: justifications used in the national media debate

From where do legislators draw scientific knowledge? Organizations as scientific authorities in four countries' parliamentary debates

The Transformation of Communicative Power Into Political Power

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About