The rise of the reflexive expert? Epistemic, care-ful and instrumental reflexivity in global public policy

Abstract

The production of data and numbers has become the key mechanism of both knowing and governing global public policy. And yet, processes of quantification are inherently paradoxical: from expectations of technocratic rationality and political usability of producing ‘global’ numbers that count for ‘local’ politics and needs to practical limitation of measurement and the necessity to work with ‘good enough’ data. This begs a question – how do these competing epistemic, political and value orders manifest themselves through the work that experts do? In this article, we explore the problem by focussing on reflexivity as a way for experts (primarily those working in key International Organisations) to make sense of and tame the tensions inherent in their work. Through rich qualitative exploration of over 80 semi-structured interviews with experts working in the areas of poverty, education and statistical capacity development, we contribute to debates in the social studies of quantification by arguing that reflexivity is not just a mental process that experts engage in but rather an important resource allowing them to make sense of the contradictions inherent in their work and to mobilise political and ethical considerations in the technocratic process of producing numbers. We identify three types of reflexivity: (1) epistemic reflexivity – regarding the quality of data and its epistemic status as reflecting the reality; (2) care-ful reflexivity – regarding values embedded in data and the duty of care to the populations affected by the measurement and (3) instrumental reflexivity – regarding political rationality and necessary trade-off required to realise political goals. Overall, the article argues that reflexivity becomes an increasingly central expert practice, allowing the transformation of the process of quantification into one of qualification enabling them to attach political attributes and values to data and measurement.

Breaking the Overton Window: on the need for adversarial co-production

“…Indeed, there is evidence to support this view: co-producing knowledge can deliver academic and wider impacts on economy and society (Hardill and Baines, 2009;Hardill and Mills, 2013;Adelle et al, 2019). The COVID-19 pandemic granted renewed focus on co-production in health (Redman et al, 2021) and public service settings (Bandola-Gill et al, 2023a). A recent evaluation of methods employed by research teams on UK investments supported by UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) funding noted a number of projects on the impact of the pandemic on economic and social life undertaken during the emergency that were underpinned by the principles of co-production (Hardill et al, 2022).…”

Reflexivity in global social policy: Introduction to the special issue

“…It thereby becomes clear that while usually couched in technical terminology about 'evidence' and 'impact', the work of these agents was highly political, as holding advocacy events, creating new social protection groups, and using persuasive skills were all ways in which agents helped IOs to spread their own preferred versions of social protection on the continent. As Devereux's article demonstrates that all those experts doing the actual advising, negotiating, and evaluating are aware of the impact and political character of their endeavors, Justyna Bandola-Gill et al (2023) point out that experts are engaged in reflexive practices in their daily working routines as well. The authors show how, in contrast to what might sometimes be implied by (critical) scholarship, those who practice GSP in IOs on a daily basis are not merely 'reproducers' of unquestioned knowledge and numbers.…”

“…As Devereux’s article demonstrates that all those experts doing the actual advising, negotiating, and evaluating are aware of the impact and political character of their endeavors, Justyna Bandola-Gill et al (2023) point out that experts are engaged in reflexive practices in their daily working routines as well. The authors show how, in contrast to what might sometimes be implied by (critical) scholarship, those who practice GSP in IOs on a daily basis are not merely ‘reproducers’ of unquestioned knowledge and numbers.…”