| We live in a knowledge society in which expert knowledge is both indispensable and contested. Professional practices and policy development are expected to be science-based but at the same time we recognize that the complexity of our world is beyond the grasp of any single form of expertise. Against this backdrop we are interested in the ways in which science-based expert knowledge is used and represented in our society. This involves a set of important epistemological and normative questions. Are experts merely specialists, for example, generating data to be used by professional policy makers, or do they have the right or even obligation to enter broader disputes on the relationships between science and society? To what extent are experts seen as credible, trustworthy and independent? Is it possible to develop a typology of forms of expertise, each with its own objectives and standards? The overall research question of this project is as follows: How does science-based public expertise evolve in a society in which this expertise, for a variety of reasons, has become both indispensable and contested? We are interested in the ways in which experts become involved in public debate, policy development, or both. That is, we are interested in experts who combine their internal (academic or scholarly expertise) with extra-mural involvements, either highly visible ones (involvement in public debates covered by mass media) or less visible ones (as advisors in the context of policy development). The initial goal is to propose a typology of way in which experts become visible, influential in policy making, or both. We look at the evolvement and involvement of scientific experts by zooming in on the level of individual expert (that is, the biographical level). This typology will then be critically assessed by people in the relevant fields. |
