Knowledge, Expertise and Science Advice During COVID-19: In Search of Epistemic Justice for the ‘Wicked’ Problems of Post-Normal Times

Abstract

A consistent claim from governments around the world during the Coronavirus pandemic has been that they were following the science . This raises the question, central to this paper, of what and whose knowledge is or should be sought, which is being side-lined through the choice of particular framings and discourses, and with what consequences for the creation and implementation of evidence-based policy to tackle wicked problems. Through the lens of Fricker’s epistemic injustice, I problematise the expertise that has guided the COVID-19 response as epistemically narrow and argue that counteracting a monolithic culture of expertise requires tackling the structural inequalities in the systems of knowledge production to diversify the social and epistemological foundations of science. Drawing on Post-normal Science (PNS) theory, I suggest that the expertise needed to respond to the challenges of a post-COVID world is one that embraces greater pluralism, avoids groupthink, challenges the accepted orthodoxy and helps us revert old models and rigid path dependencies that so often neglect the lived realities and demands of those left behind. This can only be realised by overcoming epistemic injustice and embracing epistemic democracy in the practice of evidence-based policy.

A shared agenda for gender and COVID-19 research: priorities based on broadening engagement in science

“…Given the uncertainties faced during COVID-19 and the implications for the lives and livelihoods for all those involved, but particularly for those most marginalised, deliberative forms of knowledge creation are essential for overcoming the blind spots of policymaking. 40 Efforts to broaden engagement of science to ensure its quality and responsiveness are all the more important for COVID-19, because it reflected and amplified historical and contemporary forms of inequality driven by colonial and corporate greed. 7 Efforts at inclusion, if well facilitated, can aim to mitigate and address historical power relations, but not transform them in any one activity, or even in a series of activities over 16 months, but it can provide a basis for further change.…”

Understanding and strengthening wildlife and zoonotic disease policy processes: A research imperative

“…• We recommend a research agenda that generates functional insights about wildlife and zoonotic disease policy processes, enables social and organizational learning to mobilize them, addresses populist anti-science and anticipates the human dimensions of new and emerging zoonoses. Toomey, & Wyborn, 2017;Mormina, 2021). Second, there is only limited evidence from other science advocacy realms (e.g.…”

Experts in Crisis: The Wide Spectrum of Advisors for Coping with Extreme Events

“…The COVID-19 pandemic has particularly refreshed the thinking about the function and limitations of expertise informing policy and decision-makers under pressure [15]. By framing the pandemic as a "crisis" it has highlighted the fact that post-normal science frequently includes advice-giving under circumstances that deviate from everyday practices.…”