The epistemic quality of expert bodies
From normative-theoretical concept to empirical measurement
Dados Bibliográficos
| ID | 9537644 |
|---|---|
| Autores | Cathrine Holst (0000-0002-2231-5826, University of Oslo, autor correspondente), Johan Christensen (0000-0002-2582-7827, Leiden University) |
| Ano | 2024 |
| Volume | 59 |
| Fascículo | 4 |
| Páginas | 822-846 |
| Data de publicação | 2024-10-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Sim |
| Open Access | Sim |
| Tipo | ARTICLE |
| Periódico | Acta Politica (JOURNAL) |
| Identificadores do periódico | ISSN: 0001-6810 • E-ISSN: 1741-1416 |
| Editora | Springer Science and Business Media LLC (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1057/s41269-023-00312-8 |
| OpenAlex | W4386100141 |
| Idioma | EN |
| Citações recebidas | 6 |
| Referências citadas | 54 |
The ubiquity of experts in contemporary policy-making has been met with enthusiasm in some quarters, but has also faced severe criticism. Beyond the democratic concerns regarding expert power, critics have raised worries about whether experts actually contribute to increasing the epistemic quality of policies, in line with normative expectations. Yet, so far, limited attention has been paid to the specific conditions under which experts involved in policy-making are likely to live up to such expectations. The article outlines a set of such conditions and empirically examines their fulfillment in the case of a real-world expert body. The article contributes theoretically to normative political theory about the proper role of expertise in policy-making; methodologically by linking normative theorizing and empirical analysis; and empirically through a longitudinal analysis based on large-n data of the extent to which the expert body under scrutiny satisfies a set of quantifiable empirical indicators of the proposed conditions
Comparative politics · Criticism · Economics · Empirical research · Enthusiasm · Epistemology · Normative · Political science · Politics · Positive economics · Quality (philosophy · Scrutiny · Set (abstract data type · Sociology · Computer Science · Feminist Epistemology and Gender Studies · Law · Philosophy · Policy Transfer and Learning · Political Philosophy and Ethics · Psychology · Social Psychology
Trends in the Informational Basis of Policymaking
Expertise, Policy-making and Democracy
Institutionalized Policy Evaluation within the Democratic System
Legitimizing sustainability transitions through stakeholder participation
Philosophy, Policy, and Moral Expertise
Gender Representation in Expert Advisory Bodies
Democracy without Shortcuts
Securities against Misrule
Democracy Disfigured
Rethinking Expertise
Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal
Democracy and Expertise
Science in Democracy
Advisory commissions, academic expertise and democratic legitimacy
Public Accountability
Rational deliberation among experts and citizens
Balancing epistemic quality and equal participation in a system approach to deliberative democracy
The National Origins of Policy Ideas
Against Democracy
The Oxford Handbook of Philosophical Methodology
Modern Social Politics in Britain and Sweden
Why Trust Science
Expertise, Policy-making and Democracy
The Routledge Handbook of Social Epistemology
Expertise and Participation
Critical Elitism
The Routledge Handbook of Ethics and Public Policy
The Honest Broker
Bounded deliberation in public committees
Ideal vs. Non‐ideal Theory
How does the European Commission use scientific expertise? Results from a survey of scientific members of the Commission’s expert committees
Worries About Philosopher Experts
How Do Advocacy Think Tanks Relate to Academic Knowledge? The Case of Norway
Scientists as experts
Values in Science
Economic knowledge and the scientization of policy advice
The political functions of expert knowledge
Access of Experts
Partisanship and science advice
The Limits of Transparency
Political and administrative control of expert groups—A mixed‐methods study
Epistemic democracy and the role of experts
Measurement Validity
The Two-Communities Theory and Knowledge Utilization
From Max Weber
| Obras citantes distintas | 6 |
|---|---|
| Citações por ano | 1,5 |
| Intervalo de citações | 2022 - 2026 (5) |
| Velocidade de citação | current |
| Altamente citado | Não |
| Tipos de citação | Neutras: 6 |