Epistemic community

Last updated

An epistemic community is a network of knowledge-based experts who help decision-makers to define the problems they face, identify various policy solutions and assess the policy outcomes. The definitive conceptual framework of an epistemic community is widely accepted as that of Peter M. Haas. He describes them as

Contents

"...a network of professionals with recognised expertise and competence in a particular domain and an authoritative claim to policy relevant knowledge within that domain or issue-area." [1] : 3 

Although the members of an epistemic community may originate from a variety of academic or professional backgrounds, they are linked by a set of unifying characteristics [1] for the promotion of collective amelioration and not collective gain. [2] This is termed their "normative component". [1] In the big picture, epistemic communities are socio-psychological entities that create and justify knowledge. Such communities can constitute of only two persons and yet gain an important role in building knowledge on any specific subject. Miika Vähämaa has recently [ when? ] suggested that epistemic communities consist of persons being able to understand, discuss and gain self-esteem concerning the matters being discussed. [3]

Some theorists argue that an epistemic community may consist of those who accept one version of a story, or one version of validating a story. Michel Foucault referred more elaborately to mathesis as a rigorous episteme suitable for enabling cohesion of a discourse and thus uniting a community of its followers. In philosophy of science and systems science the process of forming a self-maintaining epistemic community is sometimes called a mindset. In politics, a tendency or faction is usually described in very similar terms.

Most researchers carefully distinguish between epistemic forms of community and "real" or "bodily" community which consists of people sharing risk, especially bodily risk.

It is also problematic to draw the line between modern ideas and more ancient ones, for example, Joseph Campbell's concept of myth from cultural anthropology, and Carl Jung's concept of archetype in psychology. Some consider forming an epistemic community a deep human need, and ultimately a mythical or even religious obligation. Among these very notably are E. O. Wilson, as well as Ellen Dissanayake, an American historian of aesthetics who famously argued that almost all of our broadly shared conceptual metaphors centre on one basic idea of safety: that of "home".

From this view, an epistemic community may be seen as a group of people who do not have any specific history together, but search for a common idea of home as if forming an intentional community. For example, an epistemic community can be found in a network of professionals from a wide variety of disciplines and backgrounds. [4]

As discussed in Peter M. Haas's definitive text, [1] an epistemic community is made up of a diverse range of academic and professional experts, who are allied on the basis of four unifying characteristics:

  1. a shared set of normative and principled beliefs which provide a value-based rationale for the social action of community members;
  2. shared causal beliefs which are derived from their analysis of practices leading or contributing to a central set of problems in their domain and which then serve as the basis for elucidating the multiple linkages between possible policy actions and desired outcomes;
  3. shared notions of validity, i.e. intersubjective, internally defined criteria for weighing and validating knowledge in the domain of their expertise; and
  4. a common policy enterprise, or a set of common practices associated with a set of problems to which their professional competence is directed, presumably out of the conviction that human welfare will be enhanced as a consequence.

Thus, when viewed as an epistemic community, the overall enterprise of the expert members emerges as the product of a combination of shared beliefs and more subtle conformity pressures, rather than a direct drive for concurrence (Michael J. Mazarr). Epistemic communities also have a "normative component" meaning the end goal is always for the betterment of society, rather than self gain of the community itself (Peter M. Haas).

In international relations and political science, an epistemic community can also be referred to as a global network of knowledge-based professionals in scientific and technological areas that often affect policy decisions. [5]

Role in environmental governance

The global environmental agenda is increasing in complexity and interconnectedness. [1] Often environmental policymakers do not understand the technical aspects of the issues they are regulating. [6] This affects their ability to define state interests and develop suitable solutions within cross-boundary environmental regulation. [7]

As a result, conditions of uncertainty are produced which stimulate a demand for new information. [8] Environmental crises play a significant role in exacerbating conditions of uncertainty for decision-makers. [1] Political elites seek expert knowledge and advice to reduce this technical uncertainty, on issues including:

Therefore, epistemic communities can frame environmental problems as they see fit, and environmental decision-makers begin to make policy-shaping decisions based on these specific depictions. [10]

The initial identification and bounding of environmental issues by epistemic community members is very influential. [11] They can limit what would be preferable in terms of national interests, frame what issues are available for collective debate, and delimit the policy alternatives deemed possible. [6] The political effects are not easily reversible. [12] The epistemic community vision is institutionalised as a collective set of understandings reflected in any subsequent policy choices. [12]

This is a key point of power. Policy actors are persuaded to conform to the community’s consensual, knowledge-driven ideas without the epistemic community requiring a more material form of power. [1] Members of successful communities can become strong actors at the national and international level as decision-makers attach responsibility to their advice. [1]

As a result, epistemic communities have a direct input on how international cooperation may develop in the long term. [6] Transboundary environmental problems require a unified response rather than patchwork policy efforts, but this is problematic due to enduring differences of state interest and concerns over reciprocity. [1] The transnational nature of epistemic communities means numerous states may absorb new patterns of logic and behaviour, leading to the adoption of concordant state policies. [6] Therefore, the likelihood of convergent state behaviour and associated international coordination is increased.

International cooperation is further facilitated if powerful states are involved, as a quasi-structure is created containing the reasons, expectations and arguments for coordination. [12] Also, if epistemic community members have developed authoritative bureaucratic reputations in various countries, they are likely to participate in the creation and running of national and international institutions that directly pursue international policy coordination, for example, a regulatory agency, think tank or governmental research body. [1]

As a result, epistemic community members in a number of different countries can become connected through intergovernmental channels, as well as existing community channels, producing a transnational governance network, and facilitating the promotion of international policy coordination. An example of a scientific epistemic community in action is the 1975 collectively negotiated Mediterranean Action Plan (MAP), a marine pollution control regime for the Mediterranean Sea developed by the United Nations Environment Programme. [13]

Limitations

Some refutations have been formulated about epistemic communities, in the study of the circulation of international expertise. Firstly, one should be cautious about the risk of retrospective thinking when conceptualizing epistemic communities. Indeed, the solutions proposed by expert groups which are eventually adopted by policy makers are one but many that have been formulated by the scientific community. The epistemic community proposition is confirmed by the fact that the solution adopted are necessarily "tolerable" by policy makers, who choose between all those which have been proposed by the scientific community. [14] Secondly, it is difficult to assess the limits of the term "experts". For instance, the G7 "experts" would in fact be civil servants from the member-states of the organization, who therefore cannot claim the scientific legitimacy of researchers. [15] Finally, this hypothesis does not take into consideration the influence of national contexts in the agenda-setting of epistemic communities. The experts are restricted to the limit of the tolerable in their own national context, which is also crucial in the adoption of the solutions they propose at the local level. [15]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Interdisciplinarity</span> Combination of two or more academic disciplines into one activity

Interdisciplinarity or interdisciplinary studies involves the combination of multiple academic disciplines into one activity. It draws knowledge from several other fields like sociology, anthropology, psychology, economics, etc. It is about creating something by thinking across boundaries. It is related to an interdiscipline or an interdisciplinary field, which is an organizational unit that crosses traditional boundaries between academic disciplines or schools of thought, as new needs and professions emerge. Large engineering teams are usually interdisciplinary, as a power station or mobile phone or other project requires the melding of several specialties. However, the term "interdisciplinary" is sometimes confined to academic settings.

Social epistemology refers to a broad set of approaches that can be taken in epistemology that construes human knowledge as a collective achievement. Another way of characterizing social epistemology is as the evaluation of the social dimensions of knowledge or information.

Public policy is an institutionalized proposal or a decided set of elements like laws, regulations, guidelines, and actions to solve or address relevant and real-world problems, guided by a conception and often implemented by programs. Public policy can be considered to be the sum of a government's direct and indirect activities and has been conceptualized in a variety of ways.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Scientific community</span> Network of interacting scientists

The scientific community is a diverse network of interacting scientists. It includes many "sub-communities" working on particular scientific fields, and within particular institutions; interdisciplinary and cross-institutional activities are also significant. Objectivity is expected to be achieved by the scientific method. Peer review, through discussion and debate within journals and conferences, assists in this objectivity by maintaining the quality of research methodology and interpretation of results.

Standpoint theory, or standpoint epistemology, is a theory for analyzing inter-subjective discourses. Standpoint theory proposes that authority is rooted in individuals' personal knowledge and perspectives and the power that such authority exerts.

Open innovation is a term used to promote an information age mindset toward innovation that runs counter to the secrecy and silo mentality of traditional corporate research labs. The benefits and driving forces behind increased openness have been noted and discussed as far back as the 1960s, especially as it pertains to interfirm cooperation in R&D. Use of the term 'open innovation' in reference to the increasing embrace of external cooperation in a complex world has been promoted in particular by Henry Chesbrough, adjunct professor and faculty director of the Center for Open Innovation of the Haas School of Business at the University of California, and Maire Tecnimont Chair of Open Innovation at Luiss.

Functionalism is a theory of international relations that arose during the interwar period principally from the strong concern about the obsolescence of the state as a form of social organization. Rather than the self-interest of nation states that realists see as a motivating factor, functionalists focus on common interests and needs shared by states in a process of global integration triggered by the erosion of state sovereignty and the increasing weight of knowledge and hence of scientists and experts in the process of policy-making. Its roots can be traced back to the liberal and idealist traditions that started with Immanuel Kant and goes as far as Woodrow Wilson's "Fourteen Points" speech.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John Ruggie</span> American political scientist (1944–2021)

John Gerard Ruggie was the Berthold Beitz Research Professor in Human Rights and International Affairs at Harvard Kennedy School at Harvard University and an affiliated professor in international legal studies at Harvard Law School.

Network governance is "interfirm coordination that is characterized by organic or informal social system, in contrast to bureaucratic structures within firms and formal relationships between them. The concepts of privatization, public private partnership, and contracting are defined in this context." Network governance constitutes a "distinct form of coordinating economic activity" which contrasts and competes with markets and hierarchies.

Feminist epistemology is an examination of epistemology from a feminist standpoint.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Echo chamber (media)</span> Situation that reinforces beliefs by repetition inside a closed system

In news media and social media, an echo chamber is an environment or ecosystem in which participants encounter beliefs that amplify or reinforce their preexisting beliefs by communication and repetition inside a closed system and insulated from rebuttal. An echo chamber circulates existing views without encountering opposing views, potentially resulting in confirmation bias. Echo chambers may increase social and political polarization and extremism. On social media, it is thought that echo chambers limit exposure to diverse perspectives, and favor and reinforce presupposed narratives and ideologies.

An epistemic community in international relations (IR) is a network of professionals with recognized knowledge and skill in a particular issue-area. They share a set of beliefs, which provide a value-based foundation for the actions of members. Members of an epistemic community also share causal beliefs, which result from their analysis of practices that contribute to set of problems in their issue-area that then allow them to see the multiple links between policy and outcomes. Third, they share notions of validity, or internationally defined criteria for validating knowledge in their area of know-how. However, the members are from all different professions. Epistemic communities also have a common set of practices associated with a set of problems towards which their professional knowledge is directed, because of the belief that human welfare will benefit as a result. Communities evolve independently and without influence of authority or government. They do not have to be large; some are made up of only a few members. Even non-members can have an influence on epistemic communities. However, if the community loses consensus, then its authority decreases.

Participative decision-making (PDM) is the extent to which employers allow or encourage employees to share or participate in organizational decision-making. According to Cotton et al., the format of PDM could be formal or informal. In addition, the degree of participation could range from zero to 100% in different participative management (PM) stages.

Evidence Informed Policy Network (EVIPNet) is a network, sponsored by the World Health Organization (WHO), which attempts to improve public health, especially in developing countries, by coordinating the efforts of policymakers and health researchers.

Peter M. Haas is a professor of Political Science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and the Karl Deutsch Visiting Professor at the Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin.

Epistemology is a major branch of philosophy and is concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge. The epistemology of Wikipedia has been a subject of interest from the earliest days of its existence.

Epistemic injustice is injustice related to knowledge. It includes exclusion and silencing; systematic distortion or misrepresentation of one's meanings or contributions; undervaluing of one's status or standing in communicative practices; unfair distinctions in authority; and unwarranted distrust.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Boundary organization</span>

A boundary organization is a formal body jointly generated by the scientific and political communities to coordinate different purposes and promote consistent boundaries and mutually incomprehensible interactions. Boundary organizations provide an institutionalized place for the development of long-term relationships, the promotion of two way communication, the development and use of management tools, and the negotiations on the boundaries of the problem itself. According to Carr and Wilkinson, boundary organizations are increasingly becoming networks and social arrangements between scientific and political institutions. On the international level, boundary organizations are most frequently set up for governments to deal with environmental issues.

Guobin Yang is the Grace Lee Boggs Professor of Communication and Sociology at the Annenberg School for Communication and Department of Sociology at the University of Pennsylvania. He is also the Associate Dean for Graduate Studies at the Annenberg School for Communication, Director of the Center on Digital Culture and Society, and Deputy Director of the Center for the Study of Contemporary China. Yang received his first PhD from Beijing Foreign Studies University in 1993 and his second PhD in Sociology from New York University in 2000. His other former positions include being an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Hawaii at Manoa and as an associate professor of Asian and Middle Eastern Cultures at Barnard College of Columbia University.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mona Simion</span> British philosopher

Mona Simion is a philosopher. She is professor of philosophy at the University of Glasgow where she is also deputy director of the COGITO Epistemology Research Centre. Simion's work focuses on issues in epistemology, ethics, the philosophy of language, and feminist philosophy.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Haas, Peter M. (Winter 1992). "Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination". International Organization. Cambridge Journals. 46 (1): 1–35. doi:10.1017/S0020818300001442. JSTOR   2706951. S2CID   145360263.
  2. ↑ Sebenius, James K. (Winter 1992). "Challenging conventional explanations of international cooperation: negotiation analysis and the case of epistemic communities". International Organization . Cambridge Journals. 46 (1): 323–365. doi:10.1017/S0020818300001521. S2CID   154610359.
  3. ↑ Vähämaa, Miika (January 2013). "Groups as epistemic communities: social forces and affect as antecedents to knowledge". Social Epistemology . Taylor and Francis. 27 (1): 3–20. doi:10.1080/02691728.2012.760660. S2CID   144925336.
    See also: Fallis, Don; Mathiesen, Kay (January 2013). "Veritistic epistemology and the epistemic goals of groups: a reply to Vähämaa". Social Epistemology . Taylor and Francis. 27 (1): 21–25. doi:10.1080/02691728.2012.760666. S2CID   145060017.
    Vähämaa, Miika (January 2013). "A group epistemology is a group necessity: a reply to Fallis and Mathiesen". Social Epistemology . Taylor and Francis. 27 (1): 26–31. doi:10.1080/02691728.2012.760667. S2CID   145328114.
  4. ↑ Verdun, Amy (1998), "The increase influence of EU monetary institutions in determining national policies: a transnational monetary elite at work", in Reinalda, Bob; Verbeek, Bertjan (eds.), Autonomous policy making by international organizations, Routledge/ECPR Studies in European Political Science Series, London New York: Routledge, p. 184, ISBN   9780415164863.
  5. ↑ e.g. Morin, Jean-Frédéric, Louafi, Sélim, Orsini Amandine and Mohamed Oubenal, Boundary organizations in regime complexes: a social network profile of IPBES, Journal of International Relations and Development, 2016, http://www.chaire-epi.ulaval.ca/sites/chaire-epi.ulaval.ca/files/publications/morin_et_al._2016_ipbes.pdf
  6. 1 2 3 4 Haas, Peter M. (December 1990). "Obtaining international environmental protection through epistemic consensus". Millennium Journal of International Studies. SAGE. 19 (3): 347–363. doi:10.1177/03058298900190030401. S2CID   143111616.
  7. ↑ Litfin, Karen T. (Summer 2000). "Environment, wealth, and authority: global climate change and emerging modes of legitimation". International Studies Review. Wiley. 2 (2): 119–148. doi:10.1111/1521-9488.00207. JSTOR   3186430.
  8. ↑ Zito, Anthony R. (January 2001). "Epistemic communities, collective entrepreneurship and European integration". Journal of European Public Policy . Taylor and Francis. 8 (4): 585–603. doi:10.1080/13501760110064401. S2CID   144600345.
  9. ↑ Meijerink, Sander (December 2005). "Understanding policy stability and change. the interplay of advocacy coalitions and epistemic communities, windows of opportunity, and Dutch coastal flooding policy 1945–2003". Journal of European Public Policy . Taylor and Francis. 12 (6): 1060–1077. doi:10.1080/13501760500270745. S2CID   155063439.
  10. ↑ Zito, Anthony R. (December 2001). "Epistemic communities, European Union governance and the public voice". Science and Public Policy. Oxford Journals. 28 (6): 465–476. doi:10.3152/147154301781781183.
  11. ↑ Toke, Dave (May 1999). "Epistemic communities and environmental groups". Politics. Wiley. 19 (2): 97–102. doi:10.1111/1467-9256.00091. S2CID   144605928.
  12. 1 2 3 Adler, Emanuel; Haas, Peter M. (Winter 1992). "Conclusion: epistemic communities, world order, and the creation of a reflective research program". International Organization. Cambridge Journals. 46 (1): 367–390. doi:10.1017/S0020818300001533. JSTOR   2706960. S2CID   154353057.
  13. ↑ Haas, Peter M. (Summer 1989). "Do regimes matter? Epistemic communities and Mediterranean pollution control". International Organization . Cambridge Journals. 43 (3): 377–403. doi:10.1017/S0020818300032975. JSTOR   2706652. S2CID   55131189.
  14. ↑ Jacobson, Harold Karan; Stein, Eric (1966). Diplomats, Scientists, and Politicians: The United States and the Nuclear Test Ban Negotiations. Ann Harbour: University of Michigan Law School.
  15. 1 2 Economy, Elizabeth Charissa (1994). Negotiating the terrain of global climate change policy in the Soviet Union and China: Linking international and domestic decision-making pathways. Michigan: University of Michigan.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.