The institutional machinery of expertise: Producing facts, figures and futures in COVID-19

Lidskog, Rolf; Standring, Adam

doi:10.1177/0001699320961807

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a more positive sign, interviewees here also showed a motivation to build capacity and networks outside of their traditional areas of strength. The recognition that knowledge and expertise are institutionally and socially produced [28]-bringing both constraints but also opportunities-is a step in the right direction.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

(How) Does Diversity Still Matter for the IPCC? Instrumental, Substantive and Co-Productive Logics of Diversity in Global Environmental Assessments

Standring

Lidskog

2021

Climate

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To what extent has the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) succeeded in its ambition to shape a more diverse environmental expertise? In what ways are diversity important to the IPCC? What purposes does diversity serve in the IPCC’s production of global environmental assessments and thus environmental knowledge in general? These questions are explored by analyzing quantitative demographic data of the latest two assessment cycles (AR5 and AR6) and qualitative data from a semi-structured interview study with IPCC experts. The analysis shows that there have been improvements in diversity in recent years across measures of gender (women comprising 34% of authors in AR6 compared to 21% in AR5), regional representation and the proportion of authors from developing countries (35% in AR6 compared to 31% in AR5). These improvements have not, however, been distributed evenly when looking at the seniority of authors, nor when comparing across working groups, with WGI (the physical science) remaining much less diverse (28% female authors) than WGII (impacts) (41% female authors) and WGIII (mitigation) (32% female authors). The interviews suggest that rather than viewing diversity as a challenge it should be viewed as an opportunity to build capacity. Distinctions between scientific expertise and ‘diversity of voice’ need to be reconsidered in terms of both the substantive and instrumental value that a diverse range of knowledge, experience and skills add to the process of the scientific assessment of climate knowledge. In the concluding discussion, three points are raised: (i) the issue of diversity will probably grow in importance due to the fact that the complex task of transforming society has increasingly come into focus; (ii) the issue of diversity will be crucial for IPCC to maintain and develop its capacity to make assessments; (iii) the issue of diversity should not be reduced to simply a means for improving the process of making assessments, but should also improve the outcomes of the assessments.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

(How) Does Diversity Still Matter for the IPCC? Instrumental, Substantive and Co-Productive Logics of Diversity in Global Environmental Assessments

Standring

Lidskog

2021

Climate

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The very act of quantifying uncertainty flattens dynamism and complexity, giving the impression that scientists know in advance the complex processes and outcomes associated with an emerging technology. Predictive models can “present dynamic, ambiguous and contingent issues as ‘hard facts’: empirical measures that are resistant to public and political debate” (Lidskog and Standring, 2020: n.p.). The quantification of uncertainty can backfire for decision-making, particularly if quantification leads to a false sense of security.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Co-producing uncertainty in public science: The case of genomic selection in forestry

Blue

Davidson

2021

Public Underst Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Co-production can inform analysis and communication of the uncertainties associated with novel forms of science and technology. Genomic selection—a relatively novel management tool consisting of predictive modeling based on associations between genetic and phenotypic data—holds many unknowns, particularly when used as a climate adaptation strategy. Approaching genomic selection as an example of public science, we examined beliefs about uncertainty and public engagement in a community of forest research professionals. Findings show broad-ranging approaches to uncertainty, alongside a prevalence of deficit accounts of public engagement. Even with broad acknowledgment of a range of uncertainties, forestry experts nonetheless relied on statistical, quantitative methods to manage uncertainties, in ways that overshadowed discussions about ignorance, indeterminacy, and ambiguity. Social scientists can enhance the communication of uncertainty in public science by making apparent expert-based assumptions about knowledge and intended audiences.

show abstract

COVID-19 and the Environmental Crises: Knowledge, Social Order and Transformative Change

Lidskog,

Standring

2022

Covid-19 and the Sociology of Risk and Uncertainty

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The institutional machinery of expertise: Producing facts, figures and futures in COVID-19

Cited by 4 publications

References 8 publications

(How) Does Diversity Still Matter for the IPCC? Instrumental, Substantive and Co-Productive Logics of Diversity in Global Environmental Assessments

(How) Does Diversity Still Matter for the IPCC? Instrumental, Substantive and Co-Productive Logics of Diversity in Global Environmental Assessments

Co-producing uncertainty in public science: The case of genomic selection in forestry

COVID-19 and the Environmental Crises: Knowledge, Social Order and Transformative Change

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About