Expertise and public policy: a conceptual guide (original) (raw)
Related papers
2010
This dissertation considers the epistemic problem of adapting expert knowledge to an established political goal. Its particular focus is the failure of scientific and technical experts in different fields to effectively communicate across their disciplinary boundaries in order to provide coherent advice. The information needed to meet the goals of environmental policy is rarely limited to the domain of any individual scientific discipline or technical field. Each discipline has its own technical language, experimental procedures, problem solving strategies, exemplars, scale of application, factors that are included in models, factors which are considered exogenous to models, and background assumptions -all elements of what might be termed the "cognitive map" of a discipline.
Expertise, policy-making and democracy
Expertise, policy-making and democracy, 2022
This book offers a concise and accessible introduction to debates about expertise, policy-making and democracy. It uniquely combines an overview of recent research on the policy role of experts with discussions in political philosophy and the philosophy of expertise. Starting with the fact that well-functioning democracies require experts and expert knowledge, the book examines two types of objections against granting experts a larger role in policy-making: concerns that focus on the nature and limits of expert knowledge, and those that concentrate on tensions between expertization and democracy. With this, the book discusses how expert arrangements can be organized to ensure the epistemic qualities of policies and democratic credentials, at the same time. The book will be of interest to scholars and students of political theory and democracy, public policy and administration, and to anyone interested in the role of expertise in society.
How experts are chosen to inform public policy: Can the process be improved?
Health Policy, 2013
The ever-increasing complexity of the food supply has magnified the importance of ongoing research into nutrition and food safety issues that have significant impact on public health. At the same time, ethical questions have been raised regarding conflict of interest, making it more challenging to form the expert panels that advise government agencies and public health officials in formulating nutrition and food safety policy. Primarily due to the growing complexity of the interactions among government, industry, and academic research institutions, increasingly stringent conflict-of-interest policies may have the effect of barring the most experienced and knowledgeable nutrition and food scientists from contributing their expertise on the panels informing public policy. This paper explores the issue in some depth, proposing a set of principles for determining considerations for service on expert advisory committees. Although the issues around scientific policy counsel and the selection of advisory panels clearly have global applicability, the context for their development had a US and Canadian focus in this work. The authors also call for a broader discussion in all sectors of the research community as to whether and how the process of empaneling food science and nutrition experts might be improved. (E. Hentges). professionals conduct research and advance the knowledge base on topics, including food microbiology, nutrigenomics, food chemistry, food processing, food packaging, nutrition, toxicology, biochemistry, risk analysis, consumer science, and science communication. In recent decades, as the science itself has advanced, the range of foods has escalated and imports have increased dramatically, all resulting in emerging regulatory and risk environments that are increasingly complex. Through food and nutrition research 0168-8510/$ -see front matter
2017
Mistrust of experts is part of the modern zeitgeist - as demonstrated in the run-up to the UK's EU Referendum vote in June 2016 and the US Presidential Election in November 2016. Is it right to question experts' objectivity and impartiality and challenge their roles in the formulation of policy? Traditionally, we tend to believe that experts are offering impartial and unbiased advice, based around an objective assessment of evidence and the careful application of robust research methodologies. In practice, however, a range of behavioural biases and social influences, as well as opportunistic behaviours, have the potential to distort expert judgements. This paper will explore some of the economic, social and psychological influences that might distort the provision of objective advice to policy-makers. It will explore some of the ways in which socially driven bias can distort the evolution of knowledge and explore some policy implications, including ways to ensure that expert...
Experts: the politics of evidence and expertise in democratic innovation
Handbook of Democratic Innovation and Governance, 2019
Experts can play a number of roles in democratic innovations. However, there are challenges to consider regarding the value of expertise, the definition of expertise, what constitutes evidence and how experts should be involved in the process and outcome of democratic innovations. This Chapter explores some of these issues before outlining some of the key practical and normative issues around involving experts in democratic innovations. Introduction Many democratic innovations involve experts, either in an advisory capacity or as evidence providers. There are many formats for expert involvement and for managing the evidence-giving process. The role of experts and expertise within deliberative democracy has been discussed by a number of prominent theorists (Habermas, 1996; Bohman, 1996; Fischer, 1999; Brown, 2014). However, to date there has been limited discussion of the relative strengths of different approaches, in terms of process and its outcomes, in relation to the participant's experience-from both the experts' and the citizens' perspectives. This Chapter examines the roles that experts can play in democratic innovations, and the competing views on the place of evidence and expertise in democratic policymaking. First, we outline what is meant by 'expertise' and 'evidence', and uncertainties around these terms. We then introduce the role of-and challenges of-evidence and expertise in the current political system, and how they are conceptualised and implemented in participatory and deliberative processes, highlighting key differences. We outline the type of roles experts can fulfil in different democratic innovations and consider the relative strengths of these. To conclude, we explore the practical and normative implications for democratic innovation, and topics for future research. Defining expertise and evidence What is expertise and who is an expert? The term 'expert' is quite flexible, but generally refers to a person considered to be particularly knowledgeable or skilled in a certain field. There is significant diversity in the range of expertise in society. Lansdell (2011) identified four different types of experts that might inform decision making: 1. Knowledge experts: individuals with specialist knowledge on an issue or topic (be it scientific, technical, legal, economic and so on). 2. Stakeholders: representatives from interested parties (lobbyist or interest groups). 3. Experiential experts: individuals with knowledge about an issue as a result of direct experience. 4. Representative experts: individuals who may have no particular knowledge or first-hand experience of the issue, but who reflect some aspect of the wider public. Despite the variety in the type and quality of expertise, the 'expert' status is most commonly attributed to the 'knowledge expert'. Much of this Chapter will focus on knowledge experts, which we refer to simply as experts.
Experts, Public Policy and the Question of Trust
Routledge Handbook of Political Epistemology, 2021
This chapter discusses the topics of trust and expertise from the perspective of political epistemology. In particular, it addresses four main questions: (§1) How should we characterise experts and their expertise? (§2) How can non-experts recognize a reliable expert? (§3) What does it take for non-experts to trust experts? (§4) What problems impede trust in experts?
Scientific Advice to Public Policy-Making
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2000
A feature of policy-making today is its dependence on scientific advice to deliver public policies that are robust, credible, and effective. This paper discusses how policy-making profits from scientific advice in areas where science and technology are significant. Particular attention is given to issues holding a high level of uncertainty, either because of inherent variability, because science is incomplete or
Expertise and political representation: Can experts represent the public?
Democratic theory recognizes that the unequal epistemic competences of citizens and the requirement of expert input in decision-making seem to be pitted against an ideal of political equality and citizen engagement. Furthermore, scientific experts exert influence over the shape and scope of many policies; their research charts new areas of potential conflicts over interests and values. Recent literature on political representation suggests a rethinking of the concept of representation as a process of mediated consultations, discussions and decision-making not constricted to narrowly understood assemblies, but a dynamic interaction with the constituent public. It is tempting to account for the problem of expertise within this framework and see experts as representatives of the public. However, I will argue that this is only a partial solution, since it does not cover the requirement of accountability, the indispensable feature of political representation. Excessive reliance on the concept of representation only muddles the problem of expert authority, which is essentially one of delegation.