Who defines–who decides? Theorising the epistemic communities, communities of practice and interest groups in the healthcare field: a discursive approach

Wagner, Aleksandra; Polak, Paulina; Świątkiewicz‐Mośny, Maria

doi:10.1057/s41285-018-0073-6

Cited by 12 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The concept of epistemic communities refers to 'networks of knowledge-based experts' that play an important role in 'articulating the cause-and-effect relationships of complex problems' (Haas 1992, p. 2). An epistemic community is informal and often spatially scattered, held together discursively through shared beliefs, values, and a notion of validity to enhance a particular set of knowledge (Creplet et al 2001;Haas 2001;Wagner et al 2019). The recruitment and introduction of new members to an epistemic community was based on estimates of the extent to which new actors could contribute to the community's knowledge production (Creplet et al 2001).…”

Section: Theoretical Framework On Expertisementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this paper, the creation of expertise is understood and analyzed through an analytical framework that combines the concepts of substantive expertise and relational expertise (Irwin and Wynne 1996;Collins and Evans 2007;Haas and Stevens 2011;Lidskog and Sundqvist 2018), epistemic community and community of practice (Haas 1992;Wenger 2000;Wagner et al 2019), and technical knowledge and experience-based situated knowledge (Weber 1947;Miller 1970). By making a connection between forms of expertise and forms of communities, the paper will emphasize the social element of knowledge production and expertise with the intent of opening the door to future explorations of the IPCC and the IPBES as social arenas where multiple knowledge processes and knowledge practices take place and develop in relation to one another.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Expert organizations’ institutional understanding of expertise and responsibility for the creation of the next generation of experts: comparing IPCC and IPBES

Gustafsson

2021

Ecosystems and People

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This perspective paper argues for the importance of a better understanding of expert organizations' roles in creating expert knowledge and these organizations' responsibilities in building the next generation of experts. To what extent is this responsibility theirs, do they take it on, and what are the consequences if they do or do not? The argument is based on a comparison of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service (IPBES). Using a theoretical framework that defines expertise, expert communities, and expertise in organizations, the analysis explores and explains the structural preconditions that guide these organizations in their work. The paper shows how the IPCC and the IPBES play similar but different roles in developing expertise and creating the next generation of experts due to differences in their current organizational structures. The paper also shows how the IPCC and the IPBES are not mere facilitators or coordinators of existing expert knowledge. Instead, the IPCC and the IPBES also create experience-based situated expert knowledge that influences the epistemic communities that inform environmental governance on climate change and biodiversity loss and enable transformative change for a sustainable future.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Framework On Expertisementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Expert organizations’ institutional understanding of expertise and responsibility for the creation of the next generation of experts: comparing IPCC and IPBES

Gustafsson

2021

Ecosystems and People

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…ASD, as other health-defined conditions, provides the foundation for an epistemic community to be established (Wagner, Polak, & Świątkiewicz-Mośny, 2019). This community includes, alongside those officially recognized by the system, undiagnosed individuals.…”

Section: Is Common Inclusion Criteria a Form Of Participatory Injustice?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Ethical Challenges in Participatory Research With Autistic Adults in Israel

Weksler-Derri

Shwed

Davidovitch

2019

Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contemporary calls for participatory research raise unique ethical questions. Our semi-participatory mixed-methodology study of the needs of autistic adults in Israel utilized an advisory committee of autistic persons. This article discusses three fundamental ethical issues that emerged in the study. First, employing formal diagnosis and legal guardian approval as inclusion criteria may result in the unjust exclusion of self-diagnosed autistics and those who are cognitively able to consent and participate. Second, adopting a participatory research approach does not in itself guarantee participatory justice; the representation of diverse groups from the community must be ensured. Finally, regarding autism spectrum disorder (ASD) as a medical diagnosis requires indisputable confidentiality which may conflict with the personal choice to waive anonymity and be recognized by name. Researchers and ethical committees should take these ethical challenges into account when conducting and reviewing studies with and about autistic adults.

show abstract

“…In these struggles, the doxa (Bourdieu, 2000) or dominant set of rules and truths of the field is at stake, and thus defines the rules of the game (Collyer, 2018;Thomson, 2008). In this case, the doxa consists of evidencebased medicine and the (bio)medical model of illness (Wagner, Polak, & Świątkiewicz-Mośny, 2018). In other words, what is at stake is the definition of health and illness.…”

Section: Field Relationality and Boundary-workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The first strategy is demarcation (Broom & Tovey, 2007;Kerr et al, 1998), which consists of field actors drawing a line between what is considered as true/good and false/bad within their field (Mizrachi et al, 2005). For example, within the healthcare field, biomedicine is an evidence-based and therefore legitimate form of knowledge production (Wagner et al, 2018). Alternative medicine, on the contrary, is constructed as lacking such legitimate forms of evidence and alternative practitioners, in turn, are cast as not having a scientific mind (Broom & Tovey, 2007).…”

Section: Field Relationality and Boundary-workmentioning

confidence: 99%

(Dis)entangling medicine and media: a qualitative analysis of the relationship between the fields of healthcare and journalism

Bogaert

Stroobant

Bracke

2018

Health Sociology Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research has illustrated that journalists play an active role in the production of health news. The current study explores the relationship between the fields of healthcare and journalism from a healthcare perspective. Drawing on Bourdieu's theory of fields and Gieryn's concept of boundary-work, this study employed elite interviewing to analyse how the relations between these two fields were reflected and negotiated in the discourses of Belgian health-policy stakeholders. Our analysis illustrated that health-policy stakeholders perceived medicine and the news media as two different cultures and, therefore, discursively positioned news media actors as outsiders. Additionally, we showed that the nature of the relationship between health-policy stakeholders and the news media was linked to health-policy stakeholders' position within the healthcare field. Through this analysis, we illustrate the value of using the concept of boundary-work as an analytical instrument to study the relationships between fields.

show abstract

Who defines–who decides? Theorising the epistemic communities, communities of practice and interest groups in the healthcare field: a discursive approach

Cited by 12 publications

References 34 publications

Expert organizations’ institutional understanding of expertise and responsibility for the creation of the next generation of experts: comparing IPCC and IPBES

Expert organizations’ institutional understanding of expertise and responsibility for the creation of the next generation of experts: comparing IPCC and IPBES

Ethical Challenges in Participatory Research With Autistic Adults in Israel

(Dis)entangling medicine and media: a qualitative analysis of the relationship between the fields of healthcare and journalism

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About