The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience
Abstract
Science studies has shown us why science and technology cannot always solve technical problems in the public domain. In particular, the speed of political decision-making is faster than the speed of scientific consensus formation. A predominant motif over recent years has been the need to extend the domain of technical decision-making beyond the technically qualified élite, so as to enhance political legitimacy. We argue, however, that the `Problem of Legitimacy' has been replaced by the `Problem of Extension' - that is, by a tendency to dissolve the boundary between experts and the public so that there are no longer any grounds for limiting the indefinite extension of technical decision-making rights. We argue that a Third Wave of Science Studies - Studies of Expertise and Experience (SEE) - is needed to solve the Problem of Extension. SEE will include a normative theory of expertise, and will disentangle expertise from political rights in technical decision-making. The theory builds categories of expertise, starting with the key distinction between interactive expertise and contributory expertise. A new categorization of types of science is also needed. We illustrate the potential of the approach by re-examining existing case studies, including Brian Wynne's study of Cumbrian sheep farmers. Sometimes the new theory argues for more public involvement, sometimes for less. An Appendix describes existing contributions to the problem of technical decision-making in the public domain.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Dwivedi, Y. K., Hughes, L., Ismagilova, E., Aarts, G., Coombs, C., Crick, T., Duan, Y., Dwivedi, R., Edwards, J., Eirug, A., et al. (2021) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.08.002 · Cited by 4,611
Making the future together: Shaping autism research through meaningful participation
Fletcher-Watson, S., Adams, J., Brook, K., Charman, T., Crane, L., Cusack, J., Leekam, S., Milton, D., Parr, J. R., & Pellicano, E. (2019) · Autism · doi:10.1177/1362361318786721 · Cited by 776
Annual Research Review: Shifting from ‘normal science’ to neurodiversity in autism science
Pellicano, E., & den Houting, J. (2022) · Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry · doi:10.1111/jcpp.13534 · Cited by 744
“Such involvement requires substantial commitment by individual researchers to listen to, and learn from, the experiential expertise of a diverse range of autistic people (Collins & Evans, 2002; Milton, 2014a), and to be willing to share power and control in the research process with nonscientists.”
BackgroundBelief, knowledge and expertise: the emergence of the lay expert in medical sociology
Prior, L. (2003) · Sociology of Health & Illness · doi:10.1111/1467-9566.00339 · Cited by 478
‘Nuts and Bolts and People’ Gender Troubled Engineering Identities
Faulkner, W. (2015) · Philosophy of Engineering and Technology · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-16172-3_2 · Cited by 383
Not by Productivity Alone: How Visibility and Specialization Contribute to Academic Earnings
Leahey, E. (2007) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.1177/000312240707200403 · Cited by 356
Ghosts in the Machine: Publication Planning in the Medical Sciences
Sismondo, S. (2009) · Social Studies of Science · doi:10.1177/0306312708101047 · Cited by 297
The work of sustaining order in wikipedia: the banning of a vandal
Geiger, R. S., & Ribes, D. (2010) · Proceedings of the 2010 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work · doi:10.1145/1718918.1718941 · Cited by 245
Reconsidering the Trade-off Between Expertise and Flexibility: a Cognitive Entrenchment Perspective
Dane, E. (2010) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.35.4.zok579 · Cited by 603
Pellicano, E., & Stears, M. (2011) · Autism Research · doi:10.1002/aur.201 · Cited by 227
Parkhurst, J. (2016) · London School of Economics and Political Science Research Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) · doi:10.4324/9781315675008 · Cited by 756
Health researchers’ attitudes towards public involvement in health research
Thompson, J., Barber, R., Ward, P. R., Boote, J. D., Cooper, C. L., Armitage, C. J., & Jones, G. (2009) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2009.00532.x · Cited by 208
Tracking the numbers: Across accounting and finance, organizations and markets
Vollmer, H., Mennicken, A., & Preda, A. (2009) · Accounting, Organizations and Society · doi:10.1016/j.aos.2008.06.007 · Cited by 174
Geels, F. W. (2007) · Science, Technology, & Human Values · doi:10.1177/0162243907303597 · Cited by 130
Relational Expertise: What Machines Can't Know
Pakarinen, P., & Huising, R. (2025) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/joms.12915 · Cited by 105
Wells, P. (2016) · Organization & Environment · doi:10.1177/1086026615590882 · Cited by 93
Values, objectivity and credibility of scientists in a contentious natural resource debate
Yamamoto, Y. T. (2012) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/0963662510371435 · Cited by 50
Galanos, V. (2019) · Technology Analysis & Strategic Management · doi:10.1080/09537325.2018.1518521 · Cited by 42
Design multiple: How different configurations of participation matter in design practice
Fischer, B., Östlund, B., & Peine, A. (2021) · Design Studies · doi:10.1016/j.destud.2021.101016 · Cited by 31
Trading expertise: the rise and demise of an industry/government committee on survey trawl design
Johnson, T. R., & McCay, B. J. (2012) · Maritime Studies · doi:10.1186/2212-9790-11-14 · Cited by 17
Aydeniz, M. (2026) · Sociology Compass · doi:10.1111/soc4.70230 · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- Collins, H. M., & Evans, R.
- Venue
- Social Studies of Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2002-04
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 235-296
- ISSN
- 0036-8539 (ISSN-L)
- 0306-3127
- 1460-3659
- OpenAlex
- W2150643376
- Cited by
- 2,094
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 39.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
