Asymmetry, Disagreement and Biases: Epistemic Worries about Expertise

ABSTRACT

This paper contributes to an on-going exchange in political theory on the normative legitimacy of expert bodies. It focuses on epistemic worries about the expertisation of politics, and uses the Nordic system of advisory commissions as an empirical case. Epistemic concerns are often underplayed by those who defend an increasing role of experts in policy-making, while those who have epistemic worries often tend to overstate them and debunk expertise. We present ten epistemic worries, of which some are of an epistemological nature, while others are related to failures and biases. These worries must not be overstated, but no doubt point to real problems which have to be handled through the design of expert bodies and institutions of science advice. We introduce three groups of mechanisms that are likely to contribute to remedying the problems of expertise and discuss what they imply for the design of a system of public advisory commissions.

KEYWORDS:

• Expertise
• epistemic asymmetry
• biases
• policy advice
• institutional design

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. For the original formulation of an ‘epistocracy of the educated’, see Estlund (2008).

2. According to Alvin I. Goldman’s ([2001] 2011, 14) influential definition, experts are those with considerable knowledge, and more knowledge than most others, in this or the other domain. There is a special relationship between expertise and science because what counts as knowledge in modern societies must typically be validated with reference to scientific norms and procedures. Yet, experts are not only scientists, and there are other sources of expert knowledge than academic training (Collins and Evans 2007; Grundmann 2017). In this paper, our primary focus is however on the role of scientific expertise in policy-making. ‘Science’ is moreover used in a wide sense and includes also the human and social sciences.

3. See https://www.sv.uio.no/arena/english/research/projects/eurex/ for more information about the EUREX project on advisory commissions.

4. Parts of some NOUs are translated into English and are out on the web, but most translations of NOU titles and quotes are provided by the authors.

5. The NOU reports are often consensus reports, but regulations allow members to dissent and write minority statements.

6. According to regulations, the responsible ministry is in charge of the formulation of committee mandates but should consult other affected ministries and the committee chair when this is appropriate.

7. NOU 2014: 10 came with an elaborated dissent signed by a minority of the commission members, whereas NOU 2014: 12 spurred public debate on the merits of different principles for redistributing health.

8. See https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/fb9f8af4b54844f2821589b3d73b821e/utredningsins_truksen.pdf, https://dfo.no/filer/Fagområder/Utredninger/Veileder-til-utredningsinstruksen.pdf, and https://www.regjeringen.no/globalassets/upload/fad/vedlegg/statsforvaltning/veileder_utv_algsarbeid_2007_fad.pdf, for the most important guidelines. We focus here on revisions of NOU regulations in the interest of ensuring a truth-sensitive advice system and leave aside questions of whether de facto practice reflects regulations, and regulatory amendments will have the intended effects.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Cathrine Holst

Cathrine Holst is Professor at the Department of Sociology and Human Geography and ARENA Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo. Her research interests are social and political theory, political epistemology, policy advice systems, European integration, and gender and family policy. Among her recent publications are Advisory commissions, academic expertise and democratic legitimacy (Science and Public Policy 2017, with Johan Christensen), The socio-political ties of expert bodies (European Politics and Society 2018, with Eva Krick), and Expertisation and Democracy in Europe (2018, Routledge, ed. with Magdalena Gora and Marta Warat).

Anders Molander

Anders Molander is Professor at the Centre for the Study of Professions, Oslo Metropolitan University. His fields of interest are moral, political and social theory and his current research is on welfare state issues and on democracy and expertise. Among his recent publications are: Getting People into Work: What (if Anything) Can Justify Mandatory Activation of Welfare Recipients? (Journal of Applied Philosophy 2015, with Gaute Torsvik), Discretion in the welfare state. Social rights and professional judgment (Routledge 2016), Epistemic democracy and the role of expertise (Contemporary Political Theory 2017, with C. Holst), and Welfare reform and public justification (Policy Studies 2018, with Andreas Eriksen).