IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v30y2003i3p157-162.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

(No?) Accounting for expertise

Author

Listed:
  • Sheila Jasanoff

Abstract

Attempts to alter the range of expertise represented on some US advisory committees have raised questions of accountability in the selection and deployment of expert advice. Governments seem sometimes to adopt the relativist position that all expertise is biased, and that political considerations may therefore determine the official selection of experts; at other times, they endorse the elitist view of expertise as superior knowledge. This paper argues instead that experts exercise a form of delegated authority and should thus be held to norms of transparency and deliberative adequacy that are central to democratic governance. This theoretical perspective should inform the practices of expert deliberation. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Sheila Jasanoff, 2003. "(No?) Accounting for expertise," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 157-162, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:30:y:2003:i:3:p:157-162
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/147154303781780542
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Warren Pearce & Sujatha Raman, 2014. "The new randomised controlled trials (RCT) movement in public policy: challenges of epistemic governance," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(4), pages 387-402, December.
    2. Markus Dressel, 2022. "Models of science and society: transcending the antagonism," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-15, December.
    3. Luis Pérez-González, 2020. "‘Is climate science taking over the science?’: A corpus-based study of competing stances on bias, dogma and expertise in the blogosphere," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-16, December.
    4. Abelson, Julia & Giacomini, Mita & Lehoux, Pascale & Gauvin, Francois-Pierre, 2007. "Bringing `the public' into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: From principles to practice," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 37-50, June.
    5. Gupta, Aarti, 2011. "An evolving science-society contract in India: The search for legitimacy in anticipatory risk governance," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 736-741.
    6. Fábio Grigoletto & Fernanda Antunes de Oliveira & Caio Caradi Momesso & Ibrahim Kamel Rodrigues Nehemy & João Emílio de Almeida Junior & Vinícius de Avelar São Pedro & Roberto Greco & Mário Aquino Alv, 2023. "Technological Affordance and the Realities of Citizen Science Projects Developed in Challenging Territories," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-15, April.
    7. Peter D. Gluckman & Anne Bardsley & Matthias Kaiser, 2021. "Brokerage at the science–policy interface: from conceptual framework to practical guidance," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-10, December.
    8. Himick, Darlene & Brivot, Marion & Henri, Jean-François, 2016. "An ethical perspective on accounting standard setting: Professional and lay-experts’ contribution to GASB’s Pension Project," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 22-38.
    9. Warren Pearce, 2020. "Trouble in the trough: how uncertainties were downplayed in the UK’s science advice on Covid-19," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-6, December.
    10. Lowe, Philip & Phillipson, Jeremy & Proctor, Amy & Gkartzios, Menelaos, 2019. "Expertise in rural development: A conceptual and empirical analysis," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 28-37.
    11. Timotijevic, L. & Barnett, J. & Raats, M.M., 2011. "Engagement, representativeness and legitimacy in the development of food and nutrition policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 490-498, August.
    12. Joseph F. Brazel & Christopher P. Agoglia, 2007. "An Examination of Auditor Planning Judgements in a Complex Accounting Information System Environment," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(4), pages 1059-1083, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:oup:scippl:v:30:y:2003:i:3:p:157-162. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    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.