What’s wrong with heritage experts? An interdisciplinary discussion of experts and expertise in heritage studies

ABSTRACT

The role of heritage experts has become a prominent topic in the heritage studies literature. Proclaiming that ‘we are all heritage experts’, one of the striking features of the interest in experts within the heritage literature is the tendency to confine the discussion to the issue area of heritage, rather than situating it within the wider multidisciplinary discussion on the role of experts in modern democratic societies. Taking inspiration for the burgeoning multidisciplinary literature on experts, this paper is an attempt to theorise more fully the role of heritage experts in liberal democracies. This discussion leads to an acknowledgement that we are not all heritage experts in a narrow sense of the term. We need heritage experts, in the same way as we need other forms of expertise in modern societies characterised by a division of labour. This implies expanding the emerging interest for ‘studying up’ and carrying out more research on the political dimension of heritage.

KEYWORDS:

• Heritage experts
• expertise
• non-experts
• democratic involvement
• liberal democracies
• studying up

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. This is basically a version of the classic realism/idealism debate. In an extreme version, realism would imply to assume that the world dictates the content of our knowledge, or, to reduce epistemology to ontology (Fairclough, Jessop, and Sayer 2010, 209). This has been referred to as committing an ‘ontic fallacy’. An extreme version of idealism, however, would imply to assume that the world is dependent on our knowledge of it, or, to reduce ontology to epistemology. This has been referred to as committing an ‘epistemic fallacy’ (Bhaskar 2012). Although we are arguing that we have ‘moved on’, that does not imply that one paradigm has fully replaced the other, and there may be elements of both realism and idealism in the social sciences and humanities. However, it may be reasonable to argue that many contributions in heritage studies come closer to idealism than realism, in as much as peoples’ right to define what counts as heritage is emphasised. This is particularly relevant in regard to the recent incorporation of non-representational theories in heritage studies.

2. However, as Barthel-Bouchier (2014) points out ‘this positive role has its negative counterpart, for the public frequently appears unimpressed with scientific expertise and is suspicious about those who use it to assert the superiority of their position’.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Research Council of Norway [160010/F40].

Notes on contributors

Herdis Hølleland

Herdis Hølleland (PhD) has an interdisciplinary background in archaeology, heritage studies and cultural history and works as a senior researcher at the Norwegian Institute for Cultural Heritage Research (NIKU). Her research interests include World Heritage, heritage politics, bureaucracies and experts.

Joar Skrede

Joar Skrede (PhD) is a sociologist and research professor at the Norwegian Institute for Cultural Heritage Research (NIKU). His research interests include Heritage Studies, Urban Studies and Critical Discourse Analysis.