Falling Down Before the Divine Right of Experts? Exploring the significance of epistemic communities in multi-level governance arrangements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Public policy is increasingly made and governed using experts across many levels of ‘governance’ – from the international to the local. But how experts influence the design of this ‘multi-level’ governance is not well understood. This thesis investigates this puzzle by examining how groups of experts, conceptualised as ‘epistemic communities’, and those processes of multi-level governance influence each other. But the design of those processes can also be influenced by matters such as national identity. Therefore, the thesis also explores the extent to which experts holding a linguistic cultural identity, which highlights the importance of language and associated culture, influences the epistemic community-multi-level governance relationship. This study uses a specific definition of expertise to describe epistemic communities, which concerns the mastery of the language and practice of a field of knowledge, to make an original contribution to the literature. A further important contribution is made by examining the relationship between epistemic communities and multi-level governance in new settings. The cases of the development of the Loi sur le patrimoine culturel and the Historic Environment (Wales) Act in Québec and Wales show the usefulness of cultural heritage policy in these territories for understanding the two concepts. Epistemic communities were found to ‘frame’ policy problems, especially those that were technical or uncertain, in ways that created demands for more expertise. The design of multi-level policymaking processes was shown to be frequently shaped by these frames to different extents. Linguistic cultural identity shaped epistemic community actions too, at times, especially when it was perceived as politically relevant. This influenced multi-level policymaking designs primarily by reducing the number of different actors and different fields of knowledge represented. The findings imply that experts can be very important for shaping the design of policymaking processes but that this may limit their effectiveness and legitimacy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.030 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.030 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".