Public deliberation and the fact of expertise: making experts accountable

References

• Anderson, E. 1995. “The Democratic University: The Role of Justice in the Production of Knowledge.” Social Philosophy and Policy 12 (2): 186–219.10.1017/S0265052500004726
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bertram, C. 1997. “Political Justification, Theoretical Complexity, and Democratic Community.” Ethics 107 (4): 563–583.10.1086/233760
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boswell, C. 2008. “The Political Functions of Expert Knowledge: Knowledge and Legitimation in European Union Immigration Policy.” Journal of European Public Policy 15 (4): 471–488.10.1080/13501760801996634
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buchanan, A. 2004. “Political Liberalism and Social Epistemology.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 32 (2): 95–130.10.1111/papa.2004.32.issue-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carrier, M., D. Howard, and J. Kourany. 2008. The Challenge of the Social and the Pressure of Practice: Science and Values Revisited. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chambers, S. 2004. “Behind Closed Doors: Publicity, Secrecy, and the Quality of Deliberation.” Journal of Political Philosophy 12 (4): 389–410.10.1111/j.1467-9760.2004.00206.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chambers, S. 2017. “Balancing Epistemic Quality and Equal Participation in a System Approach to Deliberative Democracy.” doi:10.1080/02691728.2017.1317867.
   Google Scholar
• Christensen, J. and C. Holst Forthcoming. “Advisory Commissions, Academic Expertise and Democratic Legitimacy: The Case of Norway.” Science and Public Policy.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christiano, T. 2012. “Rational Deliberation among Experts and Citizens.” In Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale, edited by J. Parkinson and J. Mansbridge, 27–51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Collins, H., and R. Evans. 2007. Rethinking Expertise. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226113623.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Cowley, C. 2005. “A New Rejection of Moral Expertise.” Medicine Health Care and Philosophy 8 (3): 273–279.10.1007/s11019-005-1588-x
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dahl, R. A. 1989. Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Douglas, H. E. 2009. Science, Policy, and the Value-free Ideal. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ebeling, M. 2017. “Is Moral Deference Reasonably Acceptable?” doi:10.1080/02691728.2017.1317870.
   Google Scholar
• Elster, J. 1995. “Strategic Uses of Argument.” In Barriers to Conflict Resolution, edited by K. Arrow, R. Mnookin, L. Ross, A. Tversky, and R. Wilson, 236–257. New York: Norton.
   Google Scholar
• Elster, J. 2013. Securities against Misrule Juries, Assemblies, Elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139382762
   Google Scholar
• Estlund, D. M. 2008. Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2001. Democratizing Expertise and Establishing Scientific Reference Systems. Report of the Working Group 1b, final version, 2 July. Brussels: European Commission.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2002. Improving the Knowledge Base for Better Policies. Communication from the Commission on the Collection and Use of Expertise: Principles and Guidelines. COM (2002) 713 final, 11 December. Brussels: European Commission.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2009. Notes to Directors Generals and Heads of Services – Evaluation Report on the Horizontal Rules within the Framework for Commission’s Expert Groups. SEC (2009) 486 final, 2 April. Brussels: European Commission.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2010. Communication from the President to the Commission – Framework for Commission Expert Groups: Horizontal Rules and Public Register. C (2010) 7649 final, 10 November. Brussels: European Commission.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer, F. 2009. Democracy and Expertise: Reorienting Policy Inquiry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199282838.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Fishkin, J. S. 2009. When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Føllesdal, A. 2017. “Tracking Justice Democratically.” doi:10.1080/02691728.2017.1317869.
   Google Scholar
• Gesang, B. 2010. “Are Moral Philosophers Moral Experts?” Bioethics 24 (4): 153–159.10.1111/biot.2010.24.issue-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldman, A. (2001) 2011. “Experts: Which Ones Should You Trust?” In Social Epistemology: Essential Readings, edited by A. Goldman and D. Whitcomb, 109–136. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, J. 2010. “Trust in Experts as a Principal-agent Problem.” In Dialectics, Dialogue and Argumentation: An Examination of Douglas Walton’s Theories of Reasoning and Argument, edited by C. Reed and C. W. Tindale, 133–143. London: College Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. (1963) 1971. “The Scientization of Politics and Public Opinion.” Chap. 5 in Toward a Rational Society: Student Protest, Science, and Politics. Translated by J. J. Shapiro. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. (1972) 1984. “Wahrheitstheorien.” In Vorstudien und Ergänzungen zur Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. 1992. Faktizität und Geltung. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag. English translation: Between Facts and Norms. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996.
   Google Scholar
• Hardwig, J. 1985. “Epistemic Dependence.” The Journal of Philosophy 82 (7): 335–349.10.2307/2026523
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hardwig, J. 1991. “The Role of Trust in Knowledge.” The Journal of Philosophy 88 (12): 693–708.10.2307/2027007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffman, M. 2012. “How to Identify Moral Experts? An Application of Goldman’s Criteria for Expert Identification to the Domain of Morality.” Analyse Und Kritik 34 (1): 299–313.
   Google Scholar
• Holst, C., and A. Molander. 2014. “Epistemic Democracy and the Accountability of Experts.” In Expertise and Democracy, edited by C. Holst, 13–35. Arena Report 1/14.
   Google Scholar
• Holst, C., and J. R. Moodie. 2015. “Cynical or Deliberative? An Analysis of the European Commission’s Public Communication on Its Use of Expertise in Policy-making.” Politics and Governance 3 (1): 37–48.10.17645/pag.v3i1.240
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holst, C., and S. H. Tørnblad. 2015. “Variables and Challenges in Assessing EU Experts’ Performance.” Politics and Governance 3 (1): 166–178.10.17645/pag.v3i1.124
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D. 2012. Thinking, Fast and Slow. London: Penguin Books.
   Google Scholar
• Keohane, R. O., M. Lane, and M. Oppenheimer. 2014. “The Ethics of Scientific Communication under Uncertainty.” Politics, Philosophy & Economics 13 (4): 343–368.10.1177/1470594X14538570
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirkebøen, G. 2009. “Decision Behaviour – Improving Expert Judgement.” In Making Essential Choices with Scant Information: Front-End Decision Making in Major Projects, edited by T. W. Williams, K. Samset, and K. J. Sunnevåg, 169–194. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230236837
   Google Scholar
• Kitcher, P. 2011. Science in a Democratic Society. New York: Prometheus Books.
   Google Scholar
• Landemore, H. 2017. “Beyond the Fact of Disagreement? The Epistemic Turn in Deliberative Democracy.” doi:10.1080/02691728.2017.1317868.
   Google Scholar
• Lane, M. 2014. “When the Experts are Uncertain: Scientific Knowledge and the Ethics of Democratic Judgment.” Episteme 11 (1): 97–118.10.1017/epi.2013.48
   Google Scholar
• Lentsch, J., and P. Weingart, eds. 2011. The Politics of Scientific Advice: Institutional Design for Quality Assurance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Longino, H. E. 2002. The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mansbridge, J., J. Bohman, S. Chambers, T. Christiano, A. Fung, J. Parkinson, D. F. Thompson, and M. E. Warren. 2012. “A Systemic Approach to Deliberative Democracy.” In Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale, edited by J. Parkinson and J. Mansbridge, 1–26. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139178914
   Google Scholar
• Meade, E. E., and D. Stasavage. 2008. “Publicity of Debate and the Incentive to Dissent: Evidence from the US Federal Reserve.” The Economic Journal 118 (528): 695–717.10.1111/j.1468-0297.2008.02138.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercier, H. 2011. “When Experts Argue: Explaining the Best and the Worst of Reasoning.” Argumentation 25 (3): 313–327.10.1007/s10503-011-9222-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merton, R. K. (1942) 1973. “The Normative Structure of Science.” In The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, edited by N. W. Storer, 267–278. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Metz, J. 2015. The European Commission, Expert Groups, and the Policy Process: Demystifying Technocratic Governance. London: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9781137437235
   Google Scholar
• Molander, A. 2016. Discretion in the Welfare State: Social Rights and Professional Judgment. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Molander, A., H. Grimen, and E. O. Eriksen. 2012. “Professional Discretion and Accountability in the Welfare State.” Journal of Applied Philosophy 29: 214–230.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moodie, J. R. 2016. “Resistant to Change? The European Commission and Expert Group Reform.” West European Politics 39 (2): 229–256.10.1080/01402382.2015.1041824
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myrdal, G. (1930) 1953. Vetenskap och politik i nationalekonomin [Science and Politics in the Political Economy]. Stockholm: Norstedts /The Political Element in the Development of Economic Theory. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Pincione, G., and F. R. Teson. 2006. Rational Choice and Democratic Deliberation: A Theory of Discourse Failure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511720178
   Google Scholar
• Posner, R. A. 1999. The Problematics of Moral and Legal Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Post, R. C. 2012. Democracy, Expertise, and Academic Freedom: A First Amendment Jurisprudence for the Modern State. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rawls, J. 1993. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Reiss, J. 2008. Error in Economics: Towards a More Evidence-based Methodology. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Rudner, R. 1953. “The Scientist qua Scientist Makes Value Judgments.” Philosophy of Science 20 (1): 1–6.10.1086/287231
   Google Scholar
• Santoro, D., and F. Liveriero. 2017. “Proceduralism and the Epistemic Dilemma of Supreme Courts.” doi:10.1080/02691728.2017.1317872.
   Google Scholar
• Schlefer, J. 2012. The Assumptions Economists Make. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.10.4159/harvard.9780674065529
   Google Scholar
• Shapiro, S. P. 2003. “Bushwhacking the Ethical High Road: Conflict of Interest in the Practice of Law and Real Life.” Law & Social Inquiry 28 (1): 87–268.10.1111/lsi.2003.28.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singer, P. 1972. “Moral Experts.” Analysis 32 (4): 115–117.10.1093/analys/32.4.115
   Google Scholar
• Sunstein, C. R. 2002. Risk and Reason: Safety, Law, and the Environment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sunstein, C. R. 2006. Infotopia: How Many Minds Produce Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sunstein, C. R., and R. Hastie. 2015. Wiser: Getting beyond Groupthink to Make Groups Smarter. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
   Google Scholar
• Swift, A., and S. White. 2008. “Political Theory, Social Science, and Real Politics.” In Political Theory: Methods and Approaches, edited by D. Leopold and M. Stears, 49–69. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tetlock, P. E. 2005. Expert Political Judgment: How Good is It? How Can We Know?. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tranøy, K. E. 1976. “Norms of Inquiry: Methodologies as Normative Systems.” In Contemporary Aspects of Philosophy, edited by G. Ryle, 1–13. London: Oriel Press.
   Google Scholar
• Turner, S. 2003. Liberal Democracy 3.0: Civil Society in an Age of Experts. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. 1974. “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.” Science 185 (4157): 1124–1131.10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vibert, F. 2007. The Rise of the Unelected: Democracy and the New Separation of Powers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511491160
   Google Scholar
• Waldron, J. 1987. “Theoretical Foundations of Liberalism.” The Philosophical Quarterly 37 (147): 127–150.10.2307/2220334
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walton, D. 1989. “Reasoned Use of Expertise in Argumentation.” Argumentation 3 (1): 59–73.10.1007/BF00116417
   Google Scholar
• Walton, D. 1997. Appeal to Expert Opinion: Arguments from Authority. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Weingart, P. 2005. Die Wissenschaft der Öffentlichkeit [The Science of the Public]. Weilerswist: Velbrück Wissenschaft.
   Google Scholar
• Weiss, C. H. 1979. “The Many Meanings of Research Utilization.” Public Administration Review 39 (5): 426–431.10.2307/3109916
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wynne, B. 1996. “May the Sheep Safely Graze? A Reflexive View of the Expert–Lay Knowledge Divide.” In Risk, Environment and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology, edited by S. Lash, B. Szerszynski, and B. Wynne, 44–83. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Zenker, F. 2011. “Experts and Bias: When is the Interest-based Objection to Expert Argumentation Sound?” Argumentation 25 (3): 355–370.10.1007/s10503-011-9226-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar