Rethinking Expertise
Abstract
What does it mean to be an expert? In Rethinking Expertise, Harry Collins and Robert Evans offer a radical new perspective on the role of expertise in the practice of science and the public evaluation of technology. Collins and Evans present a Periodic Table of Expertises based on the idea of tacit knowledge—knowledge that we have but cannot explain. They then look at how some expertises are used to judge others, how laypeople judge between experts, and how credentials are used to evaluate them. Throughout, Collins and Evans ask an important question: how can the public make use of science and technology before there is consensus in the scientific community? This book has wide implications for public policy and for those who seek to understand science and benefit from it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Criteria that focus on the evaluation of expertise may include noting judgments by other relevant experts, past track record and experiences in the field, and credentials.
“Some criteria that focus on the evaluation of expertise may include noting judgments by other relevant experts, past track record and experiences in the field, and credentials (Collins & Evans, 2007;Goldman, 2001;Nichols, 2017).”
From Learning to evaluate sources of science (mis)information on the internet: Assessing students' scientific online reasoning (2025) · cites this paper as Collins & Evans, 2007
Expertise generally requires the intersubjective circulation of knowledge, that is, a pool of dynamic knowledge and intersubjective criticism of data, knowledge and processes.
“Expertise generally requires the intersubjective circulation of knowledge, that is, a pool of dynamic knowledge and intersubjective criticism of data, knowledge and processes (e.g. Prior 2003; Collins and Evans 2007).”
From Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care (2022) · cites this paper as Collins and Evans 2007
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Toward a Comparative Sociology of Valuation and Evaluation
Lamont, M. (2012) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-120022 · Cited by 1,492 · see citing works
Autistic expertise: A critical reflection on the production of knowledge in autism studies
Milton, D. E. (2014) · Autism · doi:10.1177/1362361314525281 · Cited by 421 · see citing works
Algorithms in practice: Comparing web journalism and criminal justice
Christin, A. (2017) · Big Data & Society · doi:10.1177/2053951717718855 · Cited by 379 · see citing works
Reconceptualizing nature‐of‐science education in the age of social media
Höttecke, D., & Allchin, D. (2020) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.21575 · Cited by 303 · see citing works
Anthony, C. (2021) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.1177/00018392211016755 · Cited by 191 · see citing works
Parviainen, J., & Rantala, J. (2022) · Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy · doi:10.1007/s11019-021-10049-w · Cited by 146 · see citing works
Grounds for Trust: Essential Epistemic Opacity and Computational Reliabilism
Durán, J. M., & Formanek, N. (2018) · Minds and Machines · doi:10.1007/s11023-018-9481-6 · Cited by 138 · see citing works
Thompson, J., Bissell, P., Cooper, C., Armitage, C. J., & Barber, R. (2012) · Health: An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Social Study of Health, Illness and Medicine · doi:10.1177/1363459312441008 · Cited by 111 · see citing works
Expert Trespassing Testimony and the Ethics of Science Communication
Gerken, M. (2018) · Journal for General Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1007/s10838-018-9416-1 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
Milton, D. E. M., Heasman, B., & Sheppard, E. (2018) · Encyclopedia of Autism Spectrum Disorders · doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-6435-8_102273-1 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
Pimentel, D. R. (2025) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.21974 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Aydeniz, M. (2026) · Sociology Compass · doi:10.1111/soc4.70230 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Collins, H., & Evans, R.
- Venue
- University of Chicago Press eBooks
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 2007
- OpenAlex
- W4242302141
- Cited by
- 1,503
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 107 · 2025: 100 · 2024: 84 · 2023: 101 · 2022: 79 · 2021: 91 · 2020: 88 · 2019: 116 · 2018: 98 · 2017: 81 · 2016: 79 · 2015: 90 · 2014: 65 · 2013: 68 · 2012: 55
- FWCI
- 50.23
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- University of Chicago Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (submittedVersion)
- DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Education, Healthcare and Sociology Research
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Research, Science, and Academia
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
- Keywords
- expertise, tacit knowledge, science assessment, technology assessment, credentials, scientific consensus, public understanding of science, science policy
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
