Trusted Expertise in Populist Times

Abstract

Injections with nano-compounds that ‘manipulate’ our pears or tomatoes, flames emitting from water taps due to hydraulic fracturing, and artificial turf on soccer-fields causing cancer are but three examples of influential images of contested technologies. Citizens, experts, politicians, industry and others defend, develop or challenge technologies in passionate ways. They frame facts and uncertainties in accordance with their subject positions, values and beliefs. These framing processes often result in the creation of images and imaginaries (Jasanoff and Kim 2013) either visually or in words. Especially in the age of social media and other internet technologies these images travel across the world, and some become pervasive “anecdotes of expertise”. These can hinder or contribute to the responsible development, societal acceptability, and democratic governance of innovative technologies. One way for policy experts and other stakeholders to cope with these framing processes is attempting to maintain the integrity of facts by educating the public and by more effectively communicating the facts. Or, they will find and create counter-expertise. In other instances, deliberative practices are designed to either deal with or absorb such conflicts. At this science/policy nexus, non-expert knowledge – such as of experiential, local, or organizational kind – is often marginalized and set aside as irrational or ignorant. Appeals to knowledge, rationality, and trust (in science, experts, and so on) are particularly pervasive in two areas that we seek to address in this panel: health governance and environmental governance. These two policy areas also share a distinct challenge: scientific uncertainty and distrust in technologies (their manufacturers, as well as their providers) have acquired particular political significance in times of “reflexive modernization“ (Beck et al 1994). The increasing role of risk in regulatory regimes (Rothstein et al 2006) has additionally generated “institutional risks”: With an increasingly critical role of the public, governmental as well as scientific authority are easily called into question (Rothstein et al 2006), and decisions taken in risk governance may reflect negatively on, e.g. governmental actors. Public debate and policy regarding risk and the limits of knowledge thus form risky policy endeavours. Policymakers are caught in a dilemma: in need of experts, but also in need of a trusting, yet critical citizenry. The papers explore the dilemmas of ‘trusted experts’ and ‘trusted expertise’ from a dialogical perspective. Rather than opposing knowing to acting, theory to practice, science to policy, or ignorance to knowing, we aim to understand: What and how can experts come to mean in this context? What ways of knowing and doing are emerging at the science/policy nexus in response to these challenges? In addition, with this panel we aim to further build on, and explore new strategies that better take into account framing dynamics, responses by activists to experts, and vice versa.