Expert knowledge and decision-making in controversy contexts

Abstract

There was a time when the mobilization of experts was a taken-for-prated. unproblematic aspect of decision-making processes. That confidence has vanished. Ascertaining the significance of expertise now requires a reconsideration of the dynamics of controversies. The current view still assimilates conlroversy to the medieval exercise of the disputatio in which two parties argue one against the other. A non-reductionist view is needed to take fully into account the diversity of worlds of relevance involved in the dynamics of any public controversy. Only then is it possible to understand how decision making is predicated upon associations of worlds of relevance, and how expertise is actually a collective learning process which sets the boundary conditions for the efficacy of individual experts.

Discussing dialogue: perspectives on the value of science dialogue events that do not inform policy

“…Such learning is not merely of new "facts," but rather is an augmented understanding of the complexity of an issue, the wide range of views, and the various ways to negotiate and analyze these. The idea of "social learning" is perhaps useful to us here (Limoges, 1993;Rip, 1986). Developed in the context of scientific controversies in the public domain, the concept of social learning describes a process of articulation of different viewpoints and the interactions of these viewpoints.…”

The price of knowledge

“…As long as an issue remains a contested matter, especially a publicly contented matter, the power and influence of experts and counter-experts is limited (see Nelkin, 1975Nelkin, , 1987; once a decision has been made and a question has been settled, the authority of experts also becomes almost uncontested. The work required to transform a contested matter into an uncontested matter is linked to the ability of experts to mobilize social and cultural resources in relevant contexts (see Limoges, 1993).…”

Marginalizing Experience: A Critical Analysis of Public Discourse Surrounding Stem Cell Research in Australia (2005–6)

“…The use of rhetoric reflects the values, beliefs and opinions of participants and when no other means of legitimation are available, participants in public discourse around science policy may establish credibility and legitimacy by rhetorically adopting the norms, values and ideals of accredited discourse communities (Gamson 1990). Accreditation of discourse communities is negotiated between and within the prevalent social structures of established institutions (Limoges 1993). The institutionalised legitimacy and authority of participants, therefore, not only restricts access to those who are empowered to speak in public discourse, it also characterises the content, structure and dynamics of science policy disputes.…”