Transmuted Expertise: How Technical Non-Experts Can Assess Experts and Expertise

Collins, Harry; Weinel, Martin

doi:10.1007/s10503-011-9217-8

Cited by 43 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is coupled with an understanding that there are many equally legitimate sources of knowledge and evidence that need to be drawn upon to inform management of environmental problems (Wynne, 2003;Petts, 2007;Lidskog, 2008;Collins and Weinel, 2011). Evidence, ideas, arguments and framing all matter in the governance of environmental problems (Jasanoff, 2003;Owens, 2010).…”

Section: Professional Engagement and The Enrolment Of Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Literature exploring expertise in decision making can be divided into two contrasting perspectives: firstly, 'expertise as epistemology', which is about classifying knowledges and then labelling people on the basis of whether they fit into such classifications (e.g. Turner, 2006;Collins and Evans, 2002;Collins and Weinel, 2011). The second approach is to view 'expertise as a social process' which emphasises expertise as conferred upon individuals (Gieryn, 1999;Jasanoff, 2003;Wynne, 2003).…”

Section: Professional Engagement and The Enrolment Of Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…A body of work has looked at the engagement of a range of different stakeholders in the decision making process concerned with the development and the implementation of environmental plans and practices (Callon, 1999;Nowotny et al, 2001;Eden et al, 2006;Collins and Weinel, 2011). In the area of land and water management Juntti and Potter (2002), Medd and Marvin (2008), Nutley et al (2003) and Proctor et al (in press) have focussed on practices of implementation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Making sense of policy implementation: The construction and uses of expertise and evidence in managing freshwater environments

Bracken

Oughton

2013

Environmental Science & Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Publisher's copyright statement: NOTICE: this is the author's version of a work that was accepted for publication in Environmental Science and Policy. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be re ected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A de nitive version was subsequently published in Environmental Science and Policy, 30, June 2013, 10.1016/j.envsci.2012 Additional information: Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-pro t purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. AbstractThis paper explores how environmental policy is implemented and enacted through the management of technical and institutional knowledge at the local level. We use the conservation of the freshwater pearl mussel in the River Esk, North Yorkshire, UK, as an empirical case study to examine the interaction that takes place between professionals from different institutional and disciplinary backgrounds as they come together to work on a common problem. We focus on two aspects: the way in which an institutional context was created; and the interaction between the professionals involved. Our analysis demonstrates that the strategic intermediary role of professionals is vital to policy implementation. The intermediary uses their strategic vision and undertakes political manoeuvring following the presentation and interaction of different knowledges and evidence to ensure a certain course of action. This is different from a knowledge broker. The role of the professional is to draw on expertise, both formal and tacit, to interpret and judge data in relation to decision making. Those individuals participating in decision making of this nature have multiple histories, roles and motivations which enables innovation in the creation of meaning within environmental management. The quality of the evidence can be assumed adequate once subject to diverse professional scrutiny. These findings are important since innovative behaviour that creates new structures and practices is becoming central to delivering good management of land, water and biodiversity.

show abstract

Section: Professional Engagement and The Enrolment Of Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Professional Engagement and The Enrolment Of Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Making sense of policy implementation: The construction and uses of expertise and evidence in managing freshwater environments

Bracken

Oughton

2013

Environmental Science & Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Collins and Evans (2007) claim that for something to be counted as science -say, Joe Weber's defeated gravitational wave claims (Collins 2004) -the author of the claim should be aiming to preserve as much of existing 21 Oreskes and Conway (2010); Collins and Weinel (2011 22 This does not mean that anyone who wants to modify the institutions of science is consigned to the fringe since we know that some of the institutions, such as peer review, do not work very well (Smith 2006). To make this idea work we need to be ready to separate the essential, defining, characteristics of science as a form of life -the formative intentions --from the less essential ones.…”

Section: Revolutionary Intentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…7 4 A book length account of this discovery will be published as Collins (2017) in February. 5 See below for more on viXra 6 For specialist tacit knowledge see Collins and Evans, 2007; for Domain Specific Discrimination see Collins and Weinel (2011). 7 See Martin (2016) and other papers in that same volume, and the response by Zuiderent-Jerak (2016) based on a critique by Becker (1967). Becker highlights the inherent bias in a sociology of knowledge that favours 'the view of underdog' by examining only the elements of dissent in a hiererchical knowledge structure, particularly in studies of deviance and controversy.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Demarcating Fringe Science for Policy

Collins

Bartlett

Reyes-Galindo

2017

Perspectives on Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A note concerning primary source knowledge

Collins

Reyes-Galindo

Ginsparg

2016

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present the results of running 4 different papers through the automated filtering system used by the open access preprint server “arXiv” to classify papers and implement quality control barriers. The exercise was carried out in order to assess whether these highly sophisticated, state‐of‐the‐art filters can distinguish between papers that are controversial or have gone past their “sell‐by date,” and otherwise normal papers. We conclude that not even the arXiv filters, which are otherwise successful in filtering fringe‐topic papers, can fully acquire “Domain‐Specific Discrimination” and thus distinguish technical papers that are taken seriously by an expert community from those that are not. Finally, we discuss the implications this has for citizen and policy‐maker engagement with the Primary Source Knowledge of a technical domain.

show abstract

Transmuted Expertise: How Technical Non-Experts Can Assess Experts and Expertise

Cited by 43 publications

References 15 publications

Making sense of policy implementation: The construction and uses of expertise and evidence in managing freshwater environments

Making sense of policy implementation: The construction and uses of expertise and evidence in managing freshwater environments

Demarcating Fringe Science for Policy

A note concerning primary source knowledge

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About