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

This paper compares the status and qualities of different forms of expertise and distinguishes them from non-knowledge. It contrasts professional and scientific expertise with a less institutionalised and credentialed but increasingly prominent form: practical, experience-based “lay” or “citizen” expertise. Drawing on social studies of knowledge, expertise, science and the professions, the paper asks when expertise claims are reliable and how the value of experience-based claims can be assessed. Expertise is conceptualized pragmatically as specialized knowledge that provides orientation to others. While different forms of expertise may be provided by different actors, conveyed through different means and relevant in different contexts, they respond to shared validity standards: authoritative claims must be non-ubiquitous, problem-relevant, and advanced by trustworthy, impartial speakers with specialized capabilities. However, these standards must be translated into context- and knowledge-specific indicators. Assessing experience-based expertise is particularly challenging because conventional markers of epistemic authority are absent. The paper discusses two responses that build on professionalising, processing and certifying lay expertise, thereby partially transforming its character.