Essential and Embattled Expertise

Knowledge/Expert/Policy Nexus around the Sarin Gas Attack in Syria

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Resumé

Var gasangrebet i Syrien i 2013 orkestreret af det syriske styre? Hvor mange døde? Var det ulovligt i henhold til international lov? Anna Leander viser i denne artikel, at disse spørgsmål var centrale ikke blot for afdækningen af episoden, men også for udpegningen af, hvilken ekspertise der autoritativt kunne udlægge sandheden om gasangrebene. Kemikere? Læger uden grænser? Jurister? Artiklen giver et blik ind i et paradoksalt landskab, hvor ekspertise er essentiel, men også konstant udfordret. Og sådan skal det forblive, mener Leander. Kun ved konstant at udfordre ekspertudsagn kan vi bevare en åben og demokratisk dialog.
OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftPolitik
Vol/bind17
Udgave nummer2
Sider (fra-til)26-37
ISSN1604-0058
StatusUdgivet - 2014

Citer dette

@article{1b5fa4a80fcf49438d83dc66b8d8b3c7,
title = "Essential and Embattled Expertise: Knowledge/Expert/Policy Nexus around the Sarin Gas Attack in Syria",
abstract = "This article argues that expertise has continued to hold an absolutely assential and profoundly embattled position in the knowledge/expertise/policy nexus. More than this, it suggests that this duality of the and - (rather than the clarity of the either or) is to be welcomed. This argument is made with reference to the controversies surrounding the sarin gas attrack on Ghouta Damascus 21 August 2013. The article first argues that expertise continues to be essential in the sense that it is integral to contemporary policy-controversies. As the discussion around the sarin gas attack shows expertise is both constituted through controversies and at the same time constituting them. The article proceeds to suggest that precisely because this is the case, it is important that expertise also remains embattled. As shown with reference to the sarin gas attack controversies, it is only through contestation that the role of expertise in the controversy can possibly be checked. As this shows, the argument put forward in this article has much in common with Bruno Latour's recent insistence on the importance of not allowing experts to turn matters of concern into matters of fact. The argument hence distances itself from those who strive to reestablish the authority of expertise by in various ways refining our understanding of science and its relation to practice; that is from what Collins and Evans term the {"}third wave{"} in the social studies of science. However, this article diverges from Latour in suggesting that for expertise to remain contested requires more than attention to hybrid agency and actants. It suggests that it also requires enrolling arguments from the {"}critical{"} approaches that Latour rejects. The article insists on the integration of three such {"}critical{"} arguments: the critique of markets for ideas, of technological politics, and of regulatory processes.",
author = "Anna Leander",
year = "2014",
language = "English",
volume = "17",
pages = "26--37",
journal = "Politik",
issn = "1604-0058",
publisher = "Dj{\o}f Forlag",
number = "2",

}

Essential and Embattled Expertise : Knowledge/Expert/Policy Nexus around the Sarin Gas Attack in Syria. / Leander, Anna.

I: Politik, Bind 17, Nr. 2, 2014, s. 26-37.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Essential and Embattled Expertise

T2 - Knowledge/Expert/Policy Nexus around the Sarin Gas Attack in Syria

AU - Leander, Anna

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - This article argues that expertise has continued to hold an absolutely assential and profoundly embattled position in the knowledge/expertise/policy nexus. More than this, it suggests that this duality of the and - (rather than the clarity of the either or) is to be welcomed. This argument is made with reference to the controversies surrounding the sarin gas attrack on Ghouta Damascus 21 August 2013. The article first argues that expertise continues to be essential in the sense that it is integral to contemporary policy-controversies. As the discussion around the sarin gas attack shows expertise is both constituted through controversies and at the same time constituting them. The article proceeds to suggest that precisely because this is the case, it is important that expertise also remains embattled. As shown with reference to the sarin gas attack controversies, it is only through contestation that the role of expertise in the controversy can possibly be checked. As this shows, the argument put forward in this article has much in common with Bruno Latour's recent insistence on the importance of not allowing experts to turn matters of concern into matters of fact. The argument hence distances itself from those who strive to reestablish the authority of expertise by in various ways refining our understanding of science and its relation to practice; that is from what Collins and Evans term the "third wave" in the social studies of science. However, this article diverges from Latour in suggesting that for expertise to remain contested requires more than attention to hybrid agency and actants. It suggests that it also requires enrolling arguments from the "critical" approaches that Latour rejects. The article insists on the integration of three such "critical" arguments: the critique of markets for ideas, of technological politics, and of regulatory processes.

AB - This article argues that expertise has continued to hold an absolutely assential and profoundly embattled position in the knowledge/expertise/policy nexus. More than this, it suggests that this duality of the and - (rather than the clarity of the either or) is to be welcomed. This argument is made with reference to the controversies surrounding the sarin gas attrack on Ghouta Damascus 21 August 2013. The article first argues that expertise continues to be essential in the sense that it is integral to contemporary policy-controversies. As the discussion around the sarin gas attack shows expertise is both constituted through controversies and at the same time constituting them. The article proceeds to suggest that precisely because this is the case, it is important that expertise also remains embattled. As shown with reference to the sarin gas attack controversies, it is only through contestation that the role of expertise in the controversy can possibly be checked. As this shows, the argument put forward in this article has much in common with Bruno Latour's recent insistence on the importance of not allowing experts to turn matters of concern into matters of fact. The argument hence distances itself from those who strive to reestablish the authority of expertise by in various ways refining our understanding of science and its relation to practice; that is from what Collins and Evans term the "third wave" in the social studies of science. However, this article diverges from Latour in suggesting that for expertise to remain contested requires more than attention to hybrid agency and actants. It suggests that it also requires enrolling arguments from the "critical" approaches that Latour rejects. The article insists on the integration of three such "critical" arguments: the critique of markets for ideas, of technological politics, and of regulatory processes.

UR - http://sfx-45cbs.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/45cbs?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info:sid/sfxit.com:azlist&sfx.ignore_date_threshold=1&rft.object_id=1000000000378501&rft.object_portfolio_id=&svc.holdings=yes&svc.fulltext=yes

M3 - Journal article

VL - 17

SP - 26

EP - 37

JO - Politik

JF - Politik

SN - 1604-0058

IS - 2

ER -