Professional Expertise, Scientific Knowledge, Citizens’ Insights and Non-Knowledge. When to Trust Experience-Based Knowledge Claims

Delphi studies have established themselves in the health sciences as a means to systematically and, ideally, synthesize expert opinions into a consensus on concrete issues. As participatory health research increases in relevance, lifeworld experts (e.g., patients, caregiving relatives) are being included in Delphi surveys and their opinions placed alongside those of professional and scientific experts. Looking at the theory and methodology, we discuss the opportunities and challenges concerning result quality and derive practical implications for conducting Delphi studies involving lifeworld experts alongside scientific and/or professional experts. Delphi techniques are understood here to be social interaction processes whose outcomes are a result of the participating experts' conscious, cognitive judgment processes, and also shaped by individual, situational and cultural factors. The more heterogeneous the expert panel, in particular when lifeworld experts are participating, the more these influences vary. Expert panel composition and how diversity is handled prove significant to Delphi study results. Our argument is based on an in-depth analysis of a systematic review of Delphi studies with lifeworld experts. We found that the inclusion of lifeworld experts in Delphi studies usually occurs relatively unsystematically and, furthermore, that results are not analysed separately according to expert group, although there would be good reasons for this. We have oriented the reporting here on PRISMA. To enhance the outcomes of Delphi studies that incorporate lifeworld experts alongside scientific and/or professional experts, we put forward specific recommendations that address potential biases arising from the participation of lifeworld experts.

The article reveals the concept and essence of an expert opinion on conformity assessment (inde- pendent professional expertise) in the field of inspection: scientific and legal expertise, scientific and eco- nomic expertise, scientific and technical expertise, comprehensive scientific expertise. The author com- pares the legal characteristics inherent in the opinion of a legal expert (expert in the field of law), an ex- pert opinion of a forensic expert, an expert opinion of a scientific and scientific-technical expert and an ex- pert opinion on conformity assessment (independent professional expertise) in the field of inspection: sci- entific and legal expertise, scientific and economic expertise, scientific and technical expertise, and com- prehensive scientific expertise. The author notes the peculiarities of legal regulation in Ukraine of confor- mity assessment (independent professional expertise) in the field of inspection: scientific and legal exper- tise, scientific and economic expertise, scientific and technical expertise, comprehensive scientific exper- tise, legal expert (expert in the field of law), forensic expert, scientific and scientific and technical exper- tise and its results (expert opinion). It is stated that an example of the conceptual approximation of expert activity in Ukraine to international standards is an inspection body (conformity assessment body) accred- ited in accordance with the requirements of DSTU EN ISO/IEC 17020:2019 (EN ISO/IEC 17020: 2012, IDT; ISO/IEC 17020:2012, IDT), certified in accordance with the requirements of ISO 9001:2015, IDT (DSTU ISO 9001:2015), ISO 37001:2016, IDT (DSTU ISO 37001:2018), DSTU ISO/IEC 27001: 2023 (ISO/IEC 27001:2022, IDT), which currently offers conformity assessment services (independent professional expertise) in the field of: scientific and legal expertise, scientific and economic expertise, scientific and technical expertise, comprehensive scientific expertise. It is noted that the result of the expert activity of such a body is an ex- pert opinion. The author analyses scientific publications and highlights the controversial issues of expert opinion, in particular: expert error, positive and negative opinion, copyright protection of expert opinion. The expert opinion on conformity assessment (independent professional examination) is distinguished by its characteristic features: (1) it is created at the request of the customer of the examination on contractual terms, (2) it is an intellectual creation of experts, which is the result of the process of their mental activity, (3) it is unique and individual only to the object of study, since it corresponds to the task of the customer of the examination and the analysis of the actual circumstances and evidence provided by the customer of the examination to confirm these circumstances; (4) is a document on the conformity assessment (independent professional examination) of the actual circumstances and their legal consequences, the occurrence and development of which were reported by the customer of the examination and investigated on his/her behalf by applying specialised legal and/or specialised knowledge. The internal structure of the expert opinion on conformity assessment (independent professional examination), consisting of four sections, is considered appropriate: 1. Introductory part: 2. Research part. 3. Results of conformity assessment (independent professional expertise). 4. Signatures of the parties. The introductory part is detailed in the following subsections: (1) the customer of the expertise; (2) the objectives of the expertise; (3) the organiser of the expertise; (4) the grounds for organising the expertise; (5) the grounds for conducting the expertise; (6) the competence and experience of the experts to conduct the expertise; (7) the experts conducting the expertise; (8) the category and duration of the expertise; (9) the principles of expertise; (10) the methods and procedures of the expertise; (11) the objects of the expertise; (12) requirements for the result of the expertise; (13) responsibility of the participants of the expertise (the customer of the expertise, the organiser of the expertise, the expert); (14) documents submitted for the expertise; (15) documents created and received during the expertise, in addition to those provided by the customer of the expertise; (16) regulatory legal acts used in the expertise; (17) scientific works and reference literature used in the expertise. The research part includes: (1) a description of the factual circumstances and an outline of the statement formulated by the expert’s client in accordance with the task set by him; (2) substantiation and conclusions with an assessment of the statement formulated by the expert’s client in accordance with the task set by him. The results of the conformity assessment (independent professional examination) of an expert opinion are a logical summary made by experts based on the review and analysis of the examination materials. The final part of the expert opinion ‘Signatures of experts’ should include, in addition to the physical signatures of the experts, a statement that the experts confirm the completion of the expertise by their signatures, certify the finality of the results obtained, which may be taken into account by the competent (responsible) person when making a decision, if it is necessary to use specialised legal and/or specialised knowledge. The proposed structure of the expert opinion outlines its validity, i.e., allows to establish the relevance and competence of the expert’s opinion by its content. The author formulates the position that the structural form of an expert opinion is an intellectual creation that distinguishes the uniqueness of the results of an expert examination, for example, in terms of quality, and therefore the development and unification of its structure in the private sector is advisable only for the inspection body’s own needs. It is proved that the structural form of an expert opinion and the expert opinion itself are objects of copyright protection. It is concluded that an expert opinion is the result of human mental activity, is unique and individual to a particular object of research; the use or dissemination of an expert opinion to other similar circumstances in which no research was conducted is inadmissible; the study of other similar circumstances ends with an expert opinion, which is also unique and individual to the relevant circumstances.

The blogosphere is loathed and feared by the press, expert-opinion makers, and representatives of authority generally. Part of this is based on a social theory: that there are implicit and explicit social controls governing professional journalists and experts that make them responsible to the facts. These controls don't exist for bloggers or the people who comment on blogs. But blog commentary is good at performing a kind of sociology of knowledge that situates speakers and motives, especially in cases of complex professional and administrative decision-making, as well as providing specific factual material that qualifies claims of experts and authorities. In many contexts the commentaries are examples of Habermasian demands for justification, to which there is a response. A major topic in women's health, and on the blogs, is the effects of hysterectomy, especially accompanied by oophorectomy, the removal of (normally healthy) ovaries. Physicians make extreme claims on web pages about the lack of consequences, or their manageability through hormone therapy, which they claim is supported by research. Blog posters, and a blog opposed to hysterectomy generally, claim that there are numerous damaging effects, and deconstruct the claims of experts. Blog posters fill in the claims with personal experiences and analysis of the conduct of physicians and nurses, as well as the motives of women who deny symptoms. Physicians provide their own critique and analysis of the blogs, to which they attribute great influence. A later meta-analysis and new longitudinal research affirms the bloggers, and explains why much of the research cited by experts is wrong.

Introduction

The modernity of science In the present world, science and its offshoots appear to be the epitome of modernity. The scientific method of treating every conceivable natural, human, or social malady is everywhere in evidence. If the scientific approach has not been applied to the problem at hand, the treatment and analysis are thought to be either defective or suspect. This state of affairs is not bereft of moral critics who think that science itself has too much power or that the strictly scientific point of view, especially in medicine, claims too much, is overly confident, arrogant, and even capable of reaching false diagnoses. In the Western world there are those who think that science itself is a “social problem.” To them the technological products of science – excessive levels of radiation released into the atmosphere of local communities, the inadequately monitored use of pesticides, the general degradation of the natural environment caused by the dumping of toxic substances, and even global warming – are all to be laid at the door of modern science and technology. Nevertheless, alternative forms of knowledge – those derived from religion, mysticism, or occult sciences such as astrology – must offer their own defenses against the prevailing scientific posture. If they are to be accredited, these alternatives must be shown to produce their results and achieve their effects in ways that are consistent with either scientific ignorance (“about this we have no knowledge”) or scientific wisdom (“this outcome is perfectly conceivable within expanded parameters of our present scientific knowledge”).Indeed, it is common to refer to the privileged status of scientific knowledge in the modern world. This phrase means several things. First, it implies that the knowledge claims of scientific experts are given pride of place in public discussion and, above all, in matters of health, public and private. Second, expert witnesses, who are reputed to be scientific experts, are permitted to testify in courts of law regarding arcane and abstruse topics that laymen are hard-pressed to understand. In such circumstances these experts are permitted to use their scientific knowledge to establish possible facts as well as the probable causes of events.

Simple SummaryUsing an adaptation of the domain-based welfare assessment model, a panel of horse welfare professionals (with professional expertise in psychology, equitation science, veterinary science, education, welfare, equestrian coaching, advocacy, and community engagement) assessed the perceived harms, if any, resulting from 116 interventions that are commonly applied to horses. Scores for Domain 5 (the integrated mental impact) gathered after extensive discussion during a four-day workshop aligned well with overall impact scores assigned by the same panellists individually before the workshop, although some rankings changed after workshop participation. Domain 4 (Behaviour) had the strongest association with Domain 5, whilst Domain 1 (Nutrition) had the weakest association with Domain 5, implying that the panellists considered commonly applied nutritional interventions to have less of a bearing on subjective mental state than commonly applied behavioural restrictions. The workshop defined each intervention, and stated assumptions around each, resulting in a set of exemplar procedures that could be used in future equine welfare assessments.The aim of this study was to conduct a series of paper-based exercises in order to assess the negative (adverse) welfare impacts, if any, of common interventions on domestic horses across a broad range of different contexts of equine care and training. An international panel (with professional expertise in psychology, equitation science, veterinary science, education, welfare, equestrian coaching, advocacy, and community engagement; n = 16) met over a four-day period to define and assess these interventions, using an adaptation of the domain-based assessment model. The interventions were considered within 14 contexts: C1 Weaning; C2 Diet; C3 Housing; C4 Foundation training; C5 Ill-health and veterinary interventions (chiefly medical); C6 Ill-health and veterinary interventions (chiefly surgical); C7 Elective procedures; C8 Care procedures; C9 Restraint for management procedures; C10 Road transport; C11 Activity—competition; C12 Activity—work; C13 Activity—breeding females; and C14 Activity—breeding males. Scores on a 1–10 scale for Domain 5 (the mental domain) gathered during the workshop were compared with overall impact scores on a 1–10 scale assigned by the same panellists individually before the workshop. The most severe (median and interquartile range, IQR) impacts within each context were identified during the workshop as: C1 abrupt, individual weaning (10 IQR 1); C2 feeding 100% low-energy concentrate (8 IQR 2.5); C3 indoor tie stalls with no social contact (9 IQR 1.5); C4 both (i) dropping horse with ropes (9 IQR 0.5) and forced flexion (9 IQR 0.5); C5 long-term curative medical treatments (8 IQR 3); C6 major deep intracavity surgery (8.5 IQR 1); C7 castration without veterinary supervision (10 IQR 1); C8 both (i) tongue ties (8 IQR 2.5) and (ii) restrictive nosebands (8 IQR 2.5); C9 ear twitch (8 IQR 1); C10 both (i) individual transport (7.00 IQR 1.5) and group transport with unfamiliar companions (7 IQR 1.5); C11 both (i) jumps racing (8 IQR 2.5) and Western performance (8 IQR 1.5); C12 carriage and haulage work (6 IQR 1.5); C13 wet nurse during transition between foals (7.5 IQR 3.75); and C14 teaser horse (7 IQR 8). Associations between pre-workshop and workshop scores were high, but some rankings changed after workshop participation, particularly relating to breeding practices. Domain 1 had the weakest association with Domain 5. The current article discusses the use of the domain-based model in equine welfare assessment, and offers a series of assumptions within each context that future users of the same approach may make when assessing animal welfare under the categories reported here. It also discusses some limitations in the framework that was used to apply the model.

The uses of evidence in accident analysis by professionally versus scientifically trained investigators

SummaryThe present study aimed to enrich the scientific evidence on obesity prevention programmes for adolescents from socio‐economically disadvantaged backgrounds with practice‐based experiences from both scientific and professional experts in the field of youth obesity prevention. We used the participatory method of concept mapping. Two concept mapping sessions were conducted: one with programme coordinators of national/regional obesity prevention programmes across Europe (n = 8) and one with scientists participating in European obesity prevention projects (n = 5). Five recommendations were extracted from both concept maps: (1) involve adolescents in the design and delivery of the programme, (2) invest in family/parental capacity building, (3) provide and support a healthy school food and physical activity environment, (4) regulate exposure to unhealthy messages/advertising and (5) facilitate safe and active travel. These recommendations can be used as a conceptual framework for programme development for preventing obesity in adolescents.

Editorial note and Conference Highlights of Journal of Otology & Rhinology

This paper describes a content analysis in which 902 television commercials were coded for religious symbolism, science and professional expertise. Evidence obtained from this exploratory study is neither definitive nor exhaustive, but it is suggestive and provocative. Data show that religious symbolism is rarely found in television ads, and commercials using science or professional expertise constituted only nine percent of the sample. Apparently, television advertisers do not view appeals to religion or science as especially helpful for selling products.

In both the United States and Western Europe in the mid-nineteenth century, forensic physicians engaged in bitter jurisdictional disputes with members of well-established legal professions, within the context of long-standing judicial institutions. In Russia, by contrast, the emergent medical and legal professions—both critical of the autocracy and state institutions in which they worked—joined forces in their attempts to fundamentally transform the autocratic system and its judicial institutions, based on claims of technical and professional expertise. As such, the development of forensic-medical expertise took a path that differed from the Western model. In Russia, forensic physicians reacted to and influenced the evolution of bureaucratic state structures. Consequently, medical professionals sought to increase—rather than minimize—their role within the state's legal system in order to transform an otherwise arbitrary judicial process along the lines of “scientific rationality” and “objectivity.”

American states disappeared from the public administration research agenda during the Progressive Era. This article explores how this disappearance was related to the field's need to consolidate its claim of scientific knowledge and expertise. Progressive Era concerns over modernity and authority led to a misreading of state capacity. Two common state governance practices, courts-based administration and state boards and commissions, are evaluated. Results suggest that a reevaluation of this period of state governance can help public administration gain valuable insights about state governments and American political development during this critical period in American state development.

In the field of risk management, there is growing recognition that traditional tools of analysis may be limited in their ability to arrive at a textured understanding of risk as it is actually experienced by communities. This paper begins with the premise that risk is socially constructed by lay people, as well as by scientists, and that this recognition has important implications for the development of risk management approaches. Technical risk assessments can be complemented by qualitative methodologies that are designed to reveal lay or local knowledge of risk. Such research tools were employed in working with respondents from residential communities in the highly industrialised South Durban Basin in KwaZulu-Natal. Here, as in other urban industrial contexts, risk is constructed by residents through their own experience and histories, their understanding of science, and their response to technical management tools. The qualitative approach adopted in this research provided new insight into residents' responses to chronic and acute risk, drew attention to a widening gap between people's actual experiences and the claims of science and risk management experts and exposed currently hidden, everyday risk narratives that are not directly related to the dominant environmental hazards connected with industry, but which significantly impact people's living environments.

Science and Technology Studies: Experts and Expertise

If, as previously argued, claims of expertise on the child provided the major original route of contact between psychologists and religious constituencies, expertise on mental distress was soon assuming a distinct place of its own. It was in psychotherapy that Psychologists (including psychotherapists) and religious professionals came to work closest together throughout most of the last century. Mental distress had long been considered a province of medicine, and psychiatry (or proto-psychiatry) a fertile source of Psychological ideas. The Psychology/psychiatry borderline often becomes blurred when considering late nineteenth century and early twentieth century claims to scientific expertise on human nature. It was in this border zone that various forms of psychotherapy appeared around 1900, the term itself generally being traced to Swiss psychiatrist Dr Paul Dubois’ 1904 usage, Dubois’ best known English-language exposition is Dubois (1909). although two Dutch doctors, F. W. van Eeden and A. W. van Renterghem published their Clinique de Psycho-therapie Suggestive in 1889, having set up a clinic of ‘suggestive psychotherapy’ two years previously. In 1887 the English word ‘psycho-therapeutics’ had first appeared in a Contemporary Review article and in 1889, again hyphenated, in the title of C. L. Tucker’s Psycho-therapeutics or Treatment by Hypnotism and Suggestion. Numerous other early equivalent terms in German, French and Italian are given in Baldwin (1925). A mediating factor in this fusion of psychiatry and Psychology was the contemporary interest in hypnotic phenomena and the role of ‘suggestion’.