Expertise as Argument: Authority, Democracy, and Problem-Solving

Abstract

This article addresses the problem of expertise in a democratic political system: the tension between the authority of expertise and the democratic values that guide political life. We argue that for certain problems, expertise needs to be understood as a dialogical process, and we conceptualize an understanding of expertise through and as argument that positions expertise as constituted by and a function of democratic values and practices, rather than in the possession of, acquisition of, or relationship to epistemic materials. Conceptualizing expertise through argument leads us to see expertise as a kind of phronetic practice, oriented toward judgments and problems, characterized by its ability to provide inventional capacities for selecting the best possible resolution of a particular problem vis-à-vis particular expectations regarding the resolution of a problem. At its core, expertise thus comes to exist in reference not to epistemic but to dialogical, deliberative, democratic practice.

Phronesis in administration and organizations: A literature review and future research agenda

“…Phronesis supports the manager in analyzing identity work (Bardon et al, 2017). As a discourse, it helps to understand the creation of shared meaning (Jansson, 2014); it provides inventional capacities to select the best possible solution of a particular problem (Majdik & Keith, 2011); it synthesizes universal objective knowledge and specific subjective knowledge and sublimates it (Nishinaka, 2016).…”

Do Experts Help or Hinder? An Empirical Examination of Experts and Expertise during Public Deliberation

“…This move is not just a way to get rid of an easy excuse for citizens. As Mahdik and Keith (2011) argue, "expertise is a kind of authority, and so stands in contrast to liberal democratic values; at its core, a democratic polity depends on its ability to keep a check on authority" (p. 371). Yet a particularly important problem is created by this move: without good information deliberation can be easily dismissed.…”

“…Beyond this interpersonal problem, conflating technical and interactional expertise can result in the expert offering a proper telos of the conversation, which may be interpreted as stemming from their technical expertise. In this situation, the expert's authority encroaches on the democratic polity (Mahdik & Keith, 2011). Here again, training technical experts on the epistemology of deliberationand the role of the facilitator-may limit technical experts trying to guide interaction away from the norms of deliberation.…”

The Legitimacy of Pseudo‐Expert Discourse in the Public Sphere

“… Collins and Weinel ; Axel ; Goodwin ; Majdik and William ; Quirk ; Rehg ; Selinger ; Selinger, Thompson, and Collins .…”