Contributory Expertise Research Articles

Expert and non-expert at the same time: knowledge integration processes and dynamics in interdisciplinary teamwork

Contemporary sustainability issues require the integration of diverse knowledge to study and address them holistically. How interdisciplinary knowledge integration arises in teamwork is, however, poorly understood. For instance, studies often focus on either individual or team processes, rather than studying their interplay and thereby contributing to understanding knowledge integration in an integral manner. Therefore, in this study we aimed to understand how knowledge integration processes are shaped by interactions in interdisciplinary teamwork. We present insights from an ethnographic case study of interdisciplinary teamwork among eight master’s students. In this student team, we observed two dynamics that impeded knowledge integration: (1) conformative dynamic manifested as avoiding and ignoring differences, and (2) performative dynamic as avoiding and ignoring not-knowing. Based on earlier work, we expected that contributing one’s own and engaging with each other’s knowledge would ensure knowledge integration. However, the dynamics exposed that it did not only depend on whether knowledge was contributed and engaged with, but also which knowledge was exchanged and manipulated in the teamwork. We coin the concept ‘relative expertise’, which emphasizes that interdisciplinary teamwork requires that collaborators act simultaneously as expert—in relation to their own contributory expertise—and non-expert—in relation to others’ contributory expertise. The dynamics hampered acting as a relative expert, and we saw that this was shaped by an interplay of students’ individual epistemic competencies, shared assumptions about teamwork, and social context. The insights may help recognize dynamics and underlying factors that impair knowledge integration, and thereby inform targeted interventions to facilitate knowledge integration.

Evaluating expertise in forensic anthropology.

The medicolegal system relies on the ability of experts and non-experts alike to make judgments about expertise and use those judgments to reach consequential decisions. Given the lack of standard criteria, mandatory certification, or licensure for establishing expertise required to practice forensic anthropology and testify as an expert witness, we sought to understand how individuals assess and identify expertise in forensic anthropology by using a social science tool called the Imitation Game. This tool assesses immersion in a specific area of study via discourse, with the premise that some individuals lacking expertise themselves imitate or attempt to pass as experts. For this project we recruited volunteers with varying expertise in forensic anthropology to participate in interviews which asked questions about the practice and structure of the discipline. Those interviews were transcribed, anonymized, and evaluated by other recruited individuals with varying expertise in forensic anthropology. Results found that judges who were experts in forensic anthropology performed better than non-expert judges in determining who was not an expert in forensic anthropology based on their anonymized responses; however, nearly half of the non-experts were still able to pass as experts in forensic anthropology. The difficulties in assessing expertise based on discourse interactions demonstrates the value and need for well-defined credentials and mandatory certification to practice forensic anthropology. This study demonstrates that accurately identifying expertise in forensic anthropology may be challenging for both experts and non-experts, especially when relying solely on interactional expertise rather than formal assessments of competency which directly elucidate contributory expertise.

A meta-synthesis of how parents of children with autism describe their experience of accessing and using routine healthcare services for their children.

In order to present a greater understanding to parental experiences of supporting their child with autism to access healthcare services, a systematic review of qualitative research was undertaken, addressing the review question: 'How do parents of children with autism describe their experiences of utilising routine healthcare services?'. After a systematic search and selection process, 12 studies were identified and appraised independently by paired reviewers using an adapted version of the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tool. Data were synthesised by two reviewers in line with the Joanna Briggs Approach for meta-aggregation. The 12 studies included in this review (spanning 2012-2020), represented the voices of 240 parents. The synthesis resulted in the following synthesised finding (based on four categories that emerged from the original studies' themes): parents report challenges in accessing and use of mainstream health services, for their child with autism, due to not having a voice, inadequate communication and lack of understanding from health service providers. This review raises our awareness of parents' experiences of healthcare services and will assist healthcare practitioners to reconsider their own communication style, understanding and approach with children with autism and their families. From these findings, we recommend that healthcare practitioners more readily incorporate parents' contributory expertise into healthcare visits. These recommendations will help facilitate effective, supportive and positive healthcare experiences for all involved.

Interpersonal relationships drive successful team science: an exemplary case-based study

Scientists are increasingly charged with solving complex societal, health, and environmental problems. These systemic problems require teams of expert scientists to tackle research questions through collaboration, coordination, creation of shared terminology, and complex social and intellectual processes. Despite the essential need for such interdisciplinary interactions, little research has examined the impact of scientific team support measures like training, facilitation, team building, and expertise. The literature is clear that solving complex problems requires more than contributory expertise, expertise required to contribute to a field or discipline. It also requires interactional expertise, socialised knowledge that includes socialisation into the practices of an expert group. These forms of expertise are often tacit and therefore difficult to access, and studies about how they are intertwined are nearly non-existent. Most of the published work in this area utilises archival data analysis, not individual team behaviour and assessment. This study addresses the call of numerous studies to use mixed-methods and social network analysis to investigate scientific team formation and success. This longitudinal case-based study evaluates the following question: How are scientific productivity, advice, and mentoring networks intertwined on a successful interdisciplinary scientific team? This study used applied social network surveys, participant observation, focus groups, interviews, and historical social network data to assess this specific team and assessed processes and practices to train new scientists over a 15-year period. Four major implications arose from our analysis: (1) interactional expertise and contributory expertise are intertwined in the process of scientific discovery; (2) team size and interdisciplinary knowledge effectively and efficiently train early career scientists; (3) integration of teaching/training, research/discovery, and extension/engagement enhances outcomes; and, (4) interdisciplinary scientific progress benefits significantly when interpersonal relationships among scientists from diverse disciplines are formed. This case-based study increases understanding of the development and processes of an exemplary team and provides valuable insights about interactions that enhance scientific expertise to train interdisciplinary scientists.

Acknowledging Patient Expertise and the Negotiation of Meanings in the Clinical Encounter

Patient non-adherence is a common and important problem in clinical medicine. Some cases of patient non-adherence are cases in which the patient disagrees with the physician’s recommended treatment based on particular reasons. In this chapter, by drawing upon the science and technology studies literature, specifically the discussion by Collins and Evans and also Wynne of how best to understand scientific controversies, I relate their ideas to the analogous conflict that may occur within a clinical encounter. I draw upon their recognition of the importance of contributory expertise and interactional expertise in providing legitimate knowledge. I also draw upon Wynne’s idea of the ‘negotiation of meanings’ as an important element of the clinical interaction. To resolve potential conflicts between patient and physician before they develop into ‘non-adherence’, I propose the need for a new epistemological framework that recognizes legitimate knowledge offered by the patient as well as the physician. By situating this patient expertise framework within the paradigm of person-centred medicine, and by assuming the goal of medical treatment to be treatment of suffering, patient expertise becomes centralized as a means of determining the nature of patient suffering. Two aspects of the patient’s tacit knowledge - the body aspect and the meaning aspect - both of which are context-dependent and directly accessible only to the patient, are thus recognized as knowledge essential to the success of the interaction. The physician’s role becomes that of both medical expert and possessor of interactional expertise, by which the physician recognizes and includes patient expertise in the treatment decision. Finally, the patient expertise framework must also involve recognizing and incorporating the ‘negotiation of meanings’ into the development of a treatment plan. By acknowledging the importance of patient expertise and the negotiation of meanings, this patient expertise framework should dissolve the problem of patient non-adherence that derives from the patient disagreeing with the therapeutic plan.

Expertise in research integration and implementation for tackling complex problems: when is it needed, where can it be found and how can it be strengthened?

Expertise in research integration and implementation is an essential but often overlooked component of tackling complex societal and environmental problems. We focus on expertise relevant to any complex problem, especially contributory expertise, divided into ‘knowing-that’ and ‘knowing-how.’ We also deal with interactional expertise and the fact that much expertise is tacit. We explore three questions. First, in examining ‘when is expertise in research integration and implementation required?,’ we review tasks essential (a) to developing more comprehensive understandings of complex problems, plus possible ways to address them, and (b) for supporting implementation of those understandings into government policy, community practice, business and social innovation, or other initiatives. Second, in considering ‘where can expertise in research integration and implementation currently be found?,’ we describe three realms: (a) specific approaches, including interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity, systems thinking and sustainability science; (b) case-based experience that is independent of these specific approaches; and (c) research examining elements of integration and implementation, specifically considering unknowns and fostering innovation. We highlight examples of expertise in each realm and demonstrate how fragmentation currently precludes clear identification of research integration and implementation expertise. Third, in exploring ‘what is required to strengthen expertise in research integration and implementation?,’ we propose building a knowledge bank. We delve into three key challenges: compiling existing expertise, indexing and organising the expertise to make it widely accessible, and understanding and overcoming the core reasons for the existing fragmentation. A growing knowledge bank of expertise in research integration and implementation on the one hand, and accumulating success in addressing complex societal and environmental problems on the other, will form a virtuous cycle so that each strengthens the other. Building a coalition of researchers and institutions will ensure this expertise and its application are valued and sustained.

Uses and Reuses of Scientific Data: The Data Creators’ Advantage

Open access to data, as a core principle of open science, is predicated on assumptions that scientific data can be reused by other researchers. We test those assumptions by asking where scientists find reusable data, how they reuse those data, and how they interpret data they did not collect themselves. By conducting a qualitative meta-analysis of evidence on two long-term, distributed, interdisciplinary consortia, we found that scientists frequently sought data from public collections and from other researchers for comparative purposes such as “ground-truthing” and calibration. When they sought others’ data for reanalysis or for combining with their own data, which was relatively rare, most preferred to collaborate with the data creators. We propose a typology of data reuses ranging from comparative to integrative. Comparative data reuse requires interactional expertise, which involves knowing enough about the data to assess their quality and value for a specific comparison such as calibrating an instrument in a lab experiment. Integrative reuse requires contributory expertise, which involves the ability to perform the action, such as reusing data in a new experiment. Data integration requires more specialized scientific knowledge and deeper levels of epistemic trust in the knowledge products. Metadata, ontologies, and other forms of curation benefit interpretation for any kind of data reuse. Based on these findings, we theorize the data creators’ advantage, that those who create data have intimate and tacit knowledge that can be used as barter to form collaborations for mutual advantage. Data reuse is a process that occurs within knowledge infrastructures that evolve over time, encompassing expertise, trust, communities, technologies, policies, resources, and institutions. Keywords: data, science, reuse, biomedicine, environmental sciences, open science, data practices, science policy

Expertise Across Disciplines: Establishing Common Ground in Interdisciplinary Disaster Research Teams.

Hazards and disasters arise from interactions between environmental and social processes, so interdisciplinary research is crucial in understanding and effectively managing them. Despite support and encouragement from funding agencies, universities, and journals and growing interest from researchers, interdisciplinary disaster research teams face significant obstacles, such as the difficulty of establishing effective communication and understanding across disciplines. Better understanding of interdisciplinary teamwork can also have important practical benefits for operational disaster planning and response.Social studies of science distinguish different kinds of expertise and different modes of communication. Understanding these differences can help interdisciplinary research teams communicate more clearly and work together more effectively. The primary role of a researcher is in contributory expertise (the ability to make original contributions to a discipline); but interactional expertise in other disciplines (the ability to understand their literature and communicate with their practitioners) can play an important role in interdisciplinary collaborations. Developing interactional expertise requires time and effort, which can be challenging for a busy researcher, and also requires a foundation of trust and communication among team members. Three distinct aspects of communication play important roles in effective interdisciplinary communication: dialects, metaphors, and articulation. There are different ways to develop interactional expertise and effective communication, so researchers can pursue approaches that suit their circumstances. It will be important for future research on interdisciplinary disaster research to identify best practices for building trust, facilitating communication, and developing interactional expertise.

Making Research More Diverse: How Peripheral Members Join a Scientific Community

Against the background of the current drive toward diversity in modern scientific communities, this paper explores how a scientific practice might become more diverse by the inclusion of peripheral members. To demonstrate how peripheral members gain contributory expertise in the sciences in the absence of mentors and a readymade community, I present a case study of the Indian physicist C. V. Raman and his early self-training in the analysis of wave phenomena, especially in musical acoustics. Evaluating Raman’s example, I suggest that such peripheral agents might give us helpful pointers about our modern project of bringing diversity into a scientific community.

What Roles Can Lay Citizens Play in the Making of Public Knowledge?

While enlisting the labor of nonscientists on a large scale for scientific knowledge making is now commonly praised as citizen science, citizens in those scientific undertakings usually do not contribute what Harry Collins and his colleagues in the Third Wave call contributory expertise and usually do not take part in the technical decision-making process of knowledge production. There are nevertheless other kinds of citizen science, in which participation of nonexperts, though not consistent with the limits imposed by the normative prong of the Third-Wave thesis, should not be judged as per se illegitimate or relegated simply to political actions. I will argue in this article, with the evidence from cases involving nonexperts in scientific truth making, that a different set of prescriptive rules is more warranted: lay citizens should not be denied participation in technical decision making simply because they do not speak the specialist language; the society that lives the form-of-life of Western science has an obligation to provide translation service to those who have stakes and wish to speak on technical questions but do not speak the language of a specialism; lay citizens who make propositional claims with the assistance of translation are only entitled to present their arguments, to question opposing claims, to defend their case, and in the end to receive an explanation of why and how the final decision is made on terms and rules mutually accepted by all parties; political decision making intrinsic to and necessary for the resolution of a technical question should theoretically be open to all, including those who do not speak specialist language, subject only to practical feasibility; disputes over values necessary for resolving a technical question should be properly settled through ideal deliberation under conditions of mutual engagement involving all parties of public life.

Analysing the role of virtualisation and visualisation on interdisciplinary knowledge exchange in stem cell research processes

Interdisciplinary work is an increasingly frequent and important aspect of scientific research. However, successful knowledge exchange and collaboration between experts is itself a challenging activity with both technical and social components that require consideration. Here, this article analyses the cultural factors involved in interdisciplinary research, specifically in the context of a software programme designed to improve knowledge exchange. The authors undertook an ethnographic study to understand the impact of virtualisation and visualisation on an interdisciplinary research team, working together to develop novel imaging technologies for investigating stem cells. In this discovery-research environment the challenge was to determine the socio-technical effect of an in-house software tool called ProtocolNavigator, which provided a virtual laboratory environment for the team to simulate and map their ‘real-life laboratory’ activities. This display, together with activity icons and a timeline, could be visually analysed and transferred between multi-institutional researchers in a non-narrative approach. The aim of the work reported here is to provide the first detailed analysis of how software of this type is used in practice, and to analyse this through a robust social science-based perspective. Subsequently this study examines the effectiveness of this virtual laboratory environment on enhancing communication and understanding using a theoretical framework drawing upon three insights from the Sociology of Expertise and Experience: (i) interactional and contributory expertise, (ii) knowledge exchange and interpretative flexibility, and (iii) trading zones. The framework was extended by introducing the notion of material, concept and practice trade at these trading zones with a demonstration of how interactive visualisation of interconnected trading routes can empower interdisciplinary work. The addition of Foucault’s classic account of power found evidence of a panoptical effect due to the augmented visibility of each other’s work. In summary, the article offers a theoretical framework together with novel analysis to determine the influence of introducing tools and approaches designed to enhance interdisciplinary working—particularly in the context of knowledge sharing and trust.

Third wave development expertise

In this paper I offer a normative account of development expertise. Although extending expertise beyond the traditional development experts to include local stakeholders, this normative account aims to delimit legitimate forms of expertise. I label this normative view third wave development expertise. Third wave expertise is distinguished from both the technocratic and the social constructivist views of development expertise. In particular, I discuss the notions of contributory and interactional expertise. Contributory expertise denotes the extent to which a group of agents possesses (tacit, embodied, or explicit) knowledge which can make a significant contribution to development decision-making, while interactional expertise denotes the extent to which they are able to communicate this knowledge meaningfully. While local stakeholders may possess contributory expertise in matters of their own development, they may lack interactional expertise to communicate this knowledge. Resolving this issue, I argue, requires a mediator who can interact with and between external experts and local stakeholders.

Scientific Practice in the Contexts of Peripheral Science: C. V. Raman and His Construction of a Mechanical Violin-Player

Peripheral science, i.e., scientific activity outside the standard Western contexts, is often viewed as not a very interesting topic in the philosophy of science. In this article, I seek to propose a framework for thinking about such scientific practices with the help of a case study. I argue that the peripheral scientific practices offer us a new window for understanding how contributory expertise in science can be born amidst difficult circumstances, and how, in seeking to found such new practices, peripheral scientists often build (emerging) trading zones. I finally argue that in the transnational scientific practices of the twenty-first century, understanding such zones might be essential for understanding the nature of scientific enterprise as well as for formulating a (future) science policy.

The patient-physician interaction as a meeting of experts: one solution to the problem of patient non-adherence.

Patient non-adherence is a common and important concern in clinical medicine. Some cases of patient non-adherence are cases in which the patient disagrees with the physician's recommended treatment based on particular reasons. Drawing upon science and technology studies literature, specifically the discussion by Collins and Evans and Wynne of how best to understand scientific controversies, I relate their ideas to the analogous conflict that may occur within a clinical interaction. I draw upon their recognition of the importance of contributory expertise and interactional expertise in providing legitimate knowledge. I also draw upon Wynne's idea of the 'negotiation of meanings' as an important element of the clinical interaction. To resolve potential conflicts between patient and physician before they develop into 'non-adherence', I propose the implementation of a new epistemological framework that recognizes legitimate knowledge offered by the patient as well as the physician. By situating this patient expertise framework within the paradigm of patient-centred medicine, and by assuming the goal of medical treatment to be treatment of suffering, patient expertise becomes centralized as a means of determining the nature of patient suffering. Two aspects of the patient's tacit knowledge - the body aspect and the meaning aspect - both of which are context-dependent and directly accessible only to the patient, are thus recognized as knowledge essential to the success of the interaction. The physician's role becomes that of both medical expert and possessor of 'interactional expertise', by which the physician recognizes and includes patient expertise in the treatment decision. By recognizing and incorporating the negotiation of meanings into the development of a treatment plan, this epistemological model of patient expertise should prevent cases of non-adherence based on disagreement.

A sociological analysis of ethical expertise: The case of bioethics

AbstractThis paper examines the question of ethical expertise and does so in the context of bioethics or, more accurately, applied ethics and the ethical governance of the life sciences. This analysis builds on a perspective set out in a previous paper and develops it further such that it relates to democratic processes. I argue that the academic practice of applied ethics exhibits a particular logic, way of thinking or eidos. Drawing on work in the history of science I present the logic of this practice as underpinned by a particular set of values or ethos. This can be contrasted with what Bernstein calls the democratic ethos as well as that of everyday moral agents. Using the framework of expertise developed by Collins and Evan’s—which differentiates between ubiquitous, contributory, and interactional expertise—I suggest that (bio)ethicists should modulate their expertise depending on the particular nature of the fora—academic, public, and policy-making—they are speaking in.

Expertise revisited, Part I—Interactional expertise

In Part I of this two part paper we try to set out the ‘essence’ of the notion of interactional expertise by starting with its origins. In Part II we will look at the notion of contributory expertise. The exercise has been triggered by recent discussion of these concepts in this journal by Plaisance and Kennedy and by Goddiksen.

Expertise revisited, Part II: Contributory expertise

In Part I of this two part paper we tried to elicit the ‘essence’ of the notion of interactional expertise by looking at its origins. In Part II we will look at the notion of contributory expertise. The exercise has been triggered by recent discussion of these concepts in this journal by Plaisance and Kennedy and by Goddiksen.

Stars, Peripheral Scientists, and Equations: The Case of M. N. Saha

Peripheral actors rarely make an appearance in the general story of scientific practice, and their work in science is usually viewed as somewhat derivative of the practices of the main community. Contrary to this received model, here I argue that the peripheral contexts of science can be quite important and reveal novel conduits to creative scientific thinking. Not only can such contexts offer us a new window into how contributory expertise in science could be born amid difficult circumstances, they also allow us to see how new scientific communities could be founded during such encounters. Using case studies of M. N. Saha and other physicists in early twentieth-century India, I argue that such modest practices begin when peripheral protagonists seek to initiate new trading zones with the established centers of science. The resulting exchanges can give rise to new breakthroughs and conceptual changes in scientific practice. Such peripheral breakthroughs can be studied cognitively, giving us newer models of scientific practice as well as creating a new kind of self-image for such scientists.

A Sociological Analysis of Ethical Expertise

This article outlines a theoretical and conceptual account for the analysis of contemporary ethical or “bioethical” expertise. The substantive focus is on the academic discipline of bioethics—understood as a “practical” or “applied” ethics—and its relationship to medicine and medical ethics. I draw intellectual inspiration from the sociology of science and make use of research into the idea of “expertise” per se. In so doing, I am attempting to move the debate beyond the limitations placed upon it by philosophical or meta-ethical analysis and develop a perspective than can be used to address the sociological reality of (bio)ethical expertise. To do so, I offer the terms ethos and eidos to provide a basic conceptual framework for the sociological analysis of “morality” and “ethics.” I then turn to an exegesis of Collins and Evans’s account of ubiquitous, contributory, and interactional expertise and situate these topics in relation to academic bioethics and medical practice. My account suggests a particular understanding of the kinds of relationships that “bioethics” should seek to foster with the social fields it endeavors to not only comment on but also influence.

Clarifying interactional and contributory expertise

This paper discusses the distinction between contributory expertise and interactional expertise developed by Harry Collins and Robert Evans over a series of publications. The distinction has been widely adopted and used to analyze the expertise of different groups of people, such as scientists, journalists and color blind. While the distinction is a fruitful tool to begin thinking about expertise in a more structured way, one also finds substantial inconsistencies and unnecessary vagueness in Collins and Evans' writings. Clarifying these issues will make the distinction an even more useful tool for analyzing expertise in science.