Oh expert where art thou? issues around the 'public understanding of science' and the distortion of hazard

This paper is concerned with a consideration of the processes by which issues of uncertainty and the burden of proof are incorporated into policy debates and the manner in which the knowledge associated with those judgements... [ view full abstract ]

This paper is concerned with a consideration of the processes by which issues of uncertainty and the burden of proof are incorporated into policy debates and the manner in which the knowledge associated with those judgements are also incorporated into policy and practice. The paper begins with a brief review of early debates around the role of expert judgements in the policy making process in order to show how economic, technocratic, and political power have been key factors in shaping the dynamics of debates around child protection. The paper sets out a broad categorisation of knowledge and ties this into the domain specificity of expertise in an attempt to contextualise debates around the legitimacy of expertise. Of particular importance here is the relationship between established and other forms of evidence and the role that power can play in the distortion of policy debates through the suppression of 'evidence' that is deemed not to fit the established knowledge paradigm. The paper build upon early research that seeks to explain how scientific evidence is incorporated into policy debates and then moves on to consider the processes by which competing 'scientific' perspectives are communicated, brought into conflict with each other, and, ultimately, are reconciled or rejected. A key element of this discussion concerns the manner in which uncertainty and the burden of proof are incorporated into policy discussions and their relationships to the use of a precautionary approach. The paper develops a theoretical framework that looks at the processes by which evidence becomes legitimised within such debates and the impact that the legitimation process for evidence can have on the both the public understanding of science and the trust that social groups have for public bodies. Empirically, the paper is grounded in the area of child protection and is based on a five year ethnography within a UK department concerned with vulnerable children. The theoretical framework developed within the paper has implications for the ways in which child protection is operationalised and the processes by which uncertain forms of knowledge (the known unknowns) can distort the efficacy of intervention strategies by public sector organisations.