Abstract
The work of ‘experts’ with policy advisory panels plays an important part in the making of illicit drug and other policies. This article explores what is involved in this work. It uses critical realist auto-ethnography of the author’s experience over five years of working with the UK’s Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and the House of Commons Health and Social Care Committee. It analyses: how some people become recognised as a ‘suitable’ expert through relational networks of esteem, while others are excluded; how bureaucratic processes and scientific modes of discourse select some types of information rather than others for the creation of acceptable evidence; and how agenda-setting and self-censorship can reinforce the exclusion of other knowledges, further narrowing the range of people and ideas that shape evidence for policy.
Highlights
The current coronavirus pandemic has brought public attention to the use of scientific evidence in informing policy (Stevens, 2020a)
I focus on what it means to be involved in this process – and so on the politics of being an ‘expert’ – by applying critical realist auto-ethnography to my own experiences of working in this role
One British example is the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD). This is a standing committee of experts which has a statutory mandate to advise ministers on ‘measures which in the opinion of the Council ought to be taken for preventing the misuse of such drugs or dealing with social problems connected with their misuse’ (Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, Section 1, italics added)
Summary
The current coronavirus pandemic has brought public attention to the use of scientific evidence in informing policy (Stevens, 2020a). I have worked for several years with drug policy advisory panels and committees. Others may interpret these example and events in different ways, or use my analysis to inform more reproducible, hypothetico-deductive research on the making of evidence and policy.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Journal of Qualitative Criminal Justice & Criminology
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
