Overcoming the Expert/Lay Dvide: Testing Relational Research Designs in Critical Policy Approaches

Health policy discourse tends to marginalize dissenting voices and non-medical experts – policymaking around vaccination against the sexually transmitted carcinogenic Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) is a case in point. Non-experts are typically assigned a passive role in the overall policy discourse. At the same time, much of qualitative policy analysis risks reproducing the expert-centered nature of policymaking by relying on the analysis of expert interviews and policy documents – our own research (cf Paul 2016) is no exception. In an attempt to enhance our practical understanding of expertise, we have recently tested the suitability and potential effects of more open, if not “democratic” methods, known as “citizen science” in our analysis of HPV policy discourse in Austria. In this vein, we invited “non-trained experts” (Collins and Evans 2002) - 75 adolescents – to analyze a dataset of nearly 400 press releases issued between 2007, when the HPV vaccine was approved for use in Austria, and 2013, when it was introduced in the national immunization program (NIP). With this research project, we seek to contribute simultaneously to our own research agenda regarding vaccination policy and to the growing interest in using citizen science beyond the natural sciences. We will particularly reflect on the normative and methodological presuppositions of this project and assess its impact on the development of “relational expertise”.