Being Expert: L'Aquila and Issues of Inclusion in Science-Policy Decision Making. (3rd July 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: DeVasto, Danielle
• Is Part Of: Social epistemology. Volume 30:Number 4(2016)
• Page Start: 372
• Page End: 397
• Publication Date: 2016-07-03
• Subjects: Expertise -- Inclusion -- Practise -- Multiple Ontologies -- L'Aquila -- Uncertainty; Social epistemology -- Periodicals; 121
• DOI: 10.1080/02691728.2015.1065928
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0269-1728

Abstract

Abstract : Responding to the call to provide guidance for incorporating diverse perspectives in science-policy debate, Collins and Evans' normative model of expertise provides a useful starting point for deciding who gets to come to the table—expertise and experience. However, new materialist critiques highlight the epistemic challenges of such an approach. Drawing on the work of Annemarie Mol, I propose that the theory of multiple ontologies and a practise-based orientation can enrich conversations about expertise and inclusion in science-policy decision-making, particularly in matters of concern. Specifically, I reread Collins and Evans' normative model of expertise through multiple ontologies, resulting in an expertise of doing. Such an approach both productively resolves gaps in each while leading to the creation of something new. I will explore what this expertise of doing might mean for the long-standing problem of expertise and inclusion in scientific, technical, and health policy disputes. Specifically, I present a case study of the L'Aquila controversy, an undeniable matter of concern, and ruminate on what an expertise of doing might suggest about how to reconfigure such decision-making disputes.