The Politics of Being an "Expert": A Critical Realist Auto-Ethnography of Drug Policy Advisory Panels in the UK

Abstract

The work of 'experts' with policy advisory panels plays an important part in the making of illicit drug and other policies. This article explores what is involved in this work. It uses critical realist auto-ethnography of the author's experience over five years of working with the UK's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and the House of Commons Health and Social Care Committee. It analyses: how some people become recognised as a 'suitable' expert through relational networks of esteem, while others are excluded; how bureaucratic processes and scientific modes of discourse select some types of information rather than others for the creation of acceptable evidence; and how agenda-setting and self-censorship can reinforce the exclusion of other knowledges, further narrowing the range of people and ideas that shape evidence for policy.

Putting experts in their place: Achieving policy impact as an outsider‐academic in civil service reforms in Slovakia

“…Their research helped making visible various types of interconnections between actors as well as activities through which policy networks achieve policy influence, including production and dissemination of scientific expertise. A recent ethnography by Stevens (2021), focusing on the work of 'experts' in policy advisory panels in the UK, analyses among other topics how some people become recognised as 'suitable' experts through relational networks of esteem and with views not 'too far outside those constituting the status quo', while others are excluded. He points to the relatively closed 'policy constellations' of external policy advisors, with the attendant risks of producing 'an informal system of 'clientelism', in which favours are exchanged and secrets are kept that reinforce the inclusion of some types of people and of some forms of knowledge'.…”

“…Routinised argumentative and behavioural registers for applying for a position in an advisory panel will not develop easily (cf. Stevens, 2021) and development of 'relational networks of esteem' (ibid.) with civil servants is hindered by the normative differences reminding of the findings of early knowledge utilisation literature as well as high personnel turnover on political grounds.…”

Third sector organisations in widening participation policy: networks, expertise and authority

“…Who is accepted as an 'expert' within policy is significantly shaped by networks, relationships and values (Stevens, 2021) and it is common for individuals and organisations to engage in 'credibility work' (Geiger, 2021) to advance their positions.…”

“…It also appeared common for new entrants to the field to approach influential figures and gain their backing to enable participation in the policy process. Gaining access to and acceptance within these networks appears to be facilitated by personal relationships and some affinity with existing members, following the observation that 'recognised experts for policy panels tend to be members of existing networks of people with similar social backgrounds' (Stevens, 2021). Interviewees noted that it was easy for TSWPOs to form relationships and, on occasion, networks because they 'speak the same language'…”

“…The expectations of funders around 'measureable' and often shortterm outcomes was also noted by CEOs, particularly in terms of securing funding or steering them away from activity they felt was impactful but were unable to 'prove' short-term outcomes for. In accounts of evidence use in policy, some researchers have noted a tendency to 'self-censor' amongst experts (Stevens, 2021), working with an understanding that policymaking 'tends to favour the politically feasible over the technically possible' (Monaghan et. al.…”