Contestations over expert knowledge in legislative debates of four parliaments, 1960–2020
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 24234564 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Jukka Syväterä (0000-0001-5387-667X, University of Helsinki), Oona Ala-Koivula (0009-0008-3994-0987, Tampere University) |
| Year | 2026 |
| Publication date | 2026-10-19 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Acta Sociologica (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0001-6993 • E-ISSN: 1502-3869 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publications (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1177/00016993261499211 |
| OpenAlex | W7222931022 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 43 |
Two parallel, seemingly contradictory trends appear to co-exist: the scientization of politics and the increasing contestation of science in politics. This article examines the long-term development of these trends through legislative debates of parliaments of Canada, Finland, Kenya, and the United Kingdom from 1960 to 2020. While contestations around expert knowledge occur throughout the period, results indicate that in recent decades legislators have become increasingly inclined to debate its appropriate or problematic use in lawmaking. This development is closely linked to the consolidation of the norms and ideals of evidence-based policymaking. In this sense, contestations around the use of expert knowledge intensify, which is particularly visible in the upsurge of explicit accusations that others are violating these norms and ideals. Even as the role of evidence becomes more intensively politicized, most contestations still reflect the highly legitimized status of science and expert knowledge. We discuss the findings in relation to world society theory's scientization thesis, emphasizing the importance of accounting for contrasting trends. The article contributes to understanding the complex relation of expert knowledge to lawmaking by foregrounding politicians’ metadiscourse on the relationship between expert knowledge and politics as a cultural resource that political actors both draw upon and seek to shape.
Canada · Evidence-based policy · Expert knowledge · Finland · Kenya · legislative debate · Legislative process · Metadiscourse · scientific legitimacy · United Kingdom · world society theory · Policy Transfer and Learning · Political Science Research and Education · Social Science and Policy Research
Global Scientization
Hyper-active Governance
The Paradox of Scientific Authority
Democracy and Expertise
Science in Democracy
Scientific expertise and political accountability
Institutional Theory
The legitimacy of science and the populist backlash
Experts and the Will of the People
The Political Uses of Expert Knowledge
The Honest Broker
States of Knowledge
Post-Truth
The rhetorical functions of invoking experts in legislative debates over social policy in Finland
Use of research evidence in legislatures
The moral authority of science
Comparing evidence use in parliaments
We’ll stop having debates
From science to politics
The Many Meanings of Research Utilization
Illiberal Reactions to Higher Education
Revisiting the Global Knowledge Economy
Science Production in Germany, France, Belgium, and Luxembourg
Hyper-Organization
Introduction
What makes evidence‐based policy making such a useful myth? The case of Nice guidance on bariatric surgery in the United Kingdom
The myth of ‘evidence-based policymaking’ in a decentred state
From where do legislators draw scientific knowledge? Organizations as scientific authorities in four countries' parliamentary debates
Politicization of Science in the Public Sphere
Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research
International organizations establishing their scientific authority
The scientization of the world polity
Scientification of politics or politicisation of science? Parliamentary committee hearings on the Finnish alcohol policy reforms in 1994 and 2017 as epistemic work
World Society and the Nation-State
| Highly cited | No |
|---|