Reassessing expert knowledge and the politics of expertise

Pfister, Thomas; Horvath, Anna

doi:10.1080/13511610.2014.986436

Cited by 13 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Merits in this context refer to specialised knowledge and experience vis-à-vis a certain issue, sector or task. A strategy for minimising conflicts of interests can moreover build on 'organised scepticism' that requires self-declarations from aspiring staff and involves routine screenings for financial stakes and political affiliations (Lentsch & Weingart, 2011, p. 361 (Bader, 2014), by promoting cognitive and scholarly diversity amongst experts (Holst & Molander, 2017), by encouraging interaction between experts and non-experts (Nowotny, 2001), by involving citizens into expertise-based policy development (Liberatore & Funtowicz, 2003;Pfister & Horvath, 2014) or acknowledging the valuable (experiential as well as professional) expertise of stakeholders (Bader, 2014; see also Nowotny, 2001).…”

Section: Limited Partiality and Pluralisation Of Expertsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The socio-political ties of expert bodies. How to reconcile the independence requirement of reliable expertise and the responsiveness requirement of democratic governance

Krick

Holst

2018

European Politics and Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study questions the traditional story of the detachment and independence of expert bodies such as agencies, central banks and expert committees. It shows that there are numerous institutional links with elected bodies and societal actors that we typify as mechanisms of stakeholder inclusion, government control and public and parliamentary scrutiny. With reference to EU examples, we illustrate that these socio-political ties are intensifying and attend to the normative implications of this 'representative turn'. When expert bodies increasingly link up with societal and political actors, this can be a source of democratisation, but it can also politicise and undermine the independence of expertise. Against this background, the key question becomes how to reconcile the independence requirement of reliable expertise and the responsiveness requirement of democratic governance. We approach this question by, first, delineating a way of incorporating ideal and non-ideal concerns in normative assessment. Second, we identify the key normative challenges related to the legitimate role of experts in democracies and discuss institutional solutions to the 'democratic-epistemic divide' that strike a balance both between the two norms, and between ideal requirements and feasibility constraints.2

show abstract

Section: Limited Partiality and Pluralisation Of Expertsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The socio-political ties of expert bodies. How to reconcile the independence requirement of reliable expertise and the responsiveness requirement of democratic governance

Krick

Holst

2018

European Politics and Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, the number of UK newspaper headlines containing the words ‘expert’ or ‘expertise’ increased by 114% between 2010 and 2018 and by 56% in a sample of all English language news across the world (see Table 1). As an object of study, experts and expertise are both ubiquitous and hard to pin down (Osborne, 2004; Pfister and Horvath, 2014; Turner, 2001). Media articles from a single day in 2017 illustrate this, with expertise being summoned and cited on subjects as diverse as waterboarding (Grobe, 2017), norovirus (Sun, 2017), archaeology (Anon, 2017) and Nottingham Forest Football Club (Kendrick, 2017).…”

Section: The Visibility and Salience Of ‘Experts’mentioning

confidence: 99%

What do we know about public attitudes towards experts? Reviewing survey data in the United Kingdom and European Union

Dommett

Pearce

2019

Public Underst Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent developments in contemporary politics have cast doubt on the status of expertise and led to the oft-repeated claim that the public have had enough of experts. In response, we review existing survey measures on experts and expertise in the European Union and United Kingdom with three main findings. First, there is insufficient survey data available to strongly support any claims regarding public attitudes to experts. Second, the evidence that does exist suggests broadly positive public attitudes towards experts, rather than the somewhat bleak commentary associated with descriptions of a ‘post-truth’ era. Third, there is scope for survey questions to provide improved macro-level descriptions of some of the attributes and expectations associated with experts, and that concepts from the academic literature can provide structure for such questions. Survey data has the potential to complement more granular, qualitative approaches as part of an interpretive social science approach.

show abstract

“…Tensions in the university classroom are partly the outcome of academic historians' diminishing authority on Anzac. This is part of a much larger phenomenon where expertise no longer holds sway—replaced by the greater worth of individual opinion (Jasanoff, ; Pfister & Horvath, ). Independent academic Mervyn Bendle (), writing in the conservative journal Quadrant , accuses historians in the academy of embarking on an “elitist project explicitly dedicated to destroying the popular view of these [Anzac] traditions” (p. 7).…”

Section: The Uneasy Position Of Historians In the Anzac Debatementioning

confidence: 99%

Treading on sacred ground? Confronting the Anzac myth in higher education

Kilmister¹,

Bennett²,

Ford³

et al. 2017

History Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Anzac legend, with its firm grip on popular abstractions of Australian history, nationhood, and identity, incites trepidation in the university History teacher like few other topics. Casting a critical eye over the Anzac metanarrative can also be disquieting for students unfamiliar with scholarly History and method because their conceptions of identity, both individual and national, are disrupted. In the tertiary classroom, popular understandings collide not only with scholarship but also with professional and ethical requirements. In a generic History course, which includes many teacher education students, our trepidation to teach Anzac is highlighted. We argue that many young people belong to a state‐sanctioned conceptualisation of Anzac. This highly nationalistic interpretation is partly reinforced in schools, by certain sections of the media as well as other corporate and political interests. Prompted by the centenary of Anzac, the article suggests that an appreciation of students' existing knowledge and conceptions of the subject become the starting point for engaging with such a contentious topic. This is especially important because the Anzac legend is an evolving, malleable myth that means different things to different people. The article argues that eliciting students' views on Anzac as an entry point enables tertiary teachers to craft strategies to overcome the resilience of the myth.

show abstract

Reassessing expert knowledge and the politics of expertise

Cited by 13 publications

References 16 publications

The socio-political ties of expert bodies. How to reconcile the independence requirement of reliable expertise and the responsiveness requirement of democratic governance

The socio-political ties of expert bodies. How to reconcile the independence requirement of reliable expertise and the responsiveness requirement of democratic governance

What do we know about public attitudes towards experts? Reviewing survey data in the United Kingdom and European Union

Treading on sacred ground? Confronting the Anzac myth in higher education

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About