IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/poango/v3y2015i1p166-178.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Variables and Challenges in Assessing EU Experts’ Performance

Author

Listed:
  • Cathrine Holst

    (ARENA—Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo, Norway)

  • Silje H. Tørnblad

    (ARENA—Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo, Norway)

Abstract

Expert advice in political processes is supposed to improve decisions. If expertise fails in this function, a legitimacy problem occurs: granting political power to experts may be defensible, but only on the grounds that it contributes to enlightening political processes and facilitate problem-solving. The paper provides a theoretical exploration of four variables that are key when assessing the epistemic quality of expert deliberations: the degree to which these deliberations are 1) informed by technical expertise, 2) regulated by epistemically optimal respect and inclusion norms, 3) focused on politically relevant and applicable knowledge, and 4) approaching questions involving moral judgment and standard setting competently. Previous research on the European Commission’s use of expert advice has more or less overlooked the question of experts’ epistemic performance, and this paper discusses the possible reasons for this in light of well-known methodological challenges in studies of elite behaviour; access and bias problems. A discussion of the merits and limitations of different available data on the Commission experts shows that the biggest obstacle in the study of experts’ epistemic performance is rather the problem of epistemic asymmetry, i.e. of how researchers as non-experts can assess the epistemic quality of experts’ contributions and behaviour. The paper offers, finally, a set of strategies to get research going despite this problem.

Suggested Citation

  • Cathrine Holst & Silje H. Tørnblad, 2015. "Variables and Challenges in Assessing EU Experts’ Performance," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 3(1), pages 166-178.
  • Handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v:3:y:2015:i:1:p:166-178
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/124
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Åse Gornitzka & Ulf Sverdrup, 2010. "Enlightened Decision Making. The Role of Scientists in EU Governance," ARENA Working Papers 10, ARENA.
    2. Fabienne Peter, 2007. "Democratic legitimacy and proceduralist social epistemology," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 6(3), pages 329-353, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Åse Gornitzka & Cathrine Holst, 2015. "The Expert-Executive Nexus in the EU: An Introduction," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 3(1), pages 1-12.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Antoinette Baujard & Muriel Gilardone, 2016. "Positional views as the cornerstone of Sen’s idea of justice," Post-Print halshs-01366710, HAL.
    2. Åse Gornitzka & Ulf Sverdrup, 2015. "Societal Inclusion in Expert Venues: Participation of Interest Groups and Business in the European Commission Expert Groups," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 3(1), pages 151-165.
    3. Bart Van Ballaert, 2015. "The Politics behind the Consultation of Expert Groups: An Instrument to Reduce Uncertainty or to Offset Salience?," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 3(1), pages 139-150.
    4. Dannica Fleuß & Karoline Helbig & Gary S. Schaal, 2018. "Four Parameters for Measuring Democratic Deliberation: Theoretical and Methodological Challenges and How to Respond," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(1), pages 11-21.
    5. Fleuß, Dannica & Helbig, Karoline & Schaal, Gary S., 2018. "Four Parameters for Measuring Democratic Deliberation: Theoretical and Methodological Challenges and How to Respond," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 6(1), pages 11-21.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v:3:y:2015:i:1:p:166-178. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Vieira (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.