ABSTRACT

This chapter offers several themes for approaching the study of expertise in legal, regulatory and political settings. Contests around expertise and procedures for handling expertise may extend beyond the local legal or regulatory context into other settings, such as policy fora and the popular media. The institutions and processes designed to deal with experts and expertise are inherently and unavoidably political, conferring (dis)advantages and opening the possibility for strategic action both in particular settings and beyond. The idea of objectivity may be useful as a rhetorical resource but it is inadequate as a description of expert practice or characterization of knowledge. To impose a stark dichotomy between competence and incompetence, between experts on one hand and judges, lawyers, juries and administrators on the other, would draw the line sharply and peremptorily. Daubert requires judges to adopt a rigorous scientific mindset for evaluating the validity of the scientific research that supports expert testimony.