Mrs Claire MacLeod

Abstract:

Abstract It is clear that international organizations rely on expertise in fundamental ways. To ensure that they can continue to do so, this volume presented new conceptual tools and empirical insights to reframe turbulence and reclaim expertise. This allows us to resist slipping back into a false choice between either expertise or politics. Resilient, expert-based governance in turbulent times requires that both scholars and policy-makers allow room for contestation and uncertainty. Both are, after all, at the heart of the production false choice between either expertise or politics. Resilient, expert-based governance in turbulent times requires that both scholars and policymakers allow room for expert knowledge itself. The conclusion to this volume returns to its overarching questions and draws connections and comparisons between the different chapters. It argues that issue insulation allows for a reframing and reshaping of the literature on expertise in both history and international relations, yet it also discusses the limitations of this view as well as types of expertise, and types of expert politics, that have not been covered by this volume. It ends with a brief discussion of ways forwards, both for scholars and practitioners interested in reclaiming expertise in ways that acknowledge its limitations and make the most of its strengths.

Abstract:

It is clear that international organizations rely on expertise in fundamental ways. To ensure that they can continue to do so, this volume presented new conceptual tools and empirical insights to reframe turbulence and reclaim expertise. This allows us to resist slipping back into a false choice between either expertise or politics. Resilient, expert-based governance in turbulent times requires that both scholars and policy-makers allow room for contestation and uncertainty. Both are, after all, at the heart of the production false choice between either expertise or politics. Resilient, expert-based governance in turbulent times requires that both scholars and policymakers allow room for expert knowledge itself. The conclusion to this volume returns to its overarching questions and draws connections and comparisons between the different chapters. It argues that issue insulation allows for a reframing and reshaping of the literature on expertise in both history and international relations, yet it also discusses the limitations of this view as well as types of expertise, and types of expert politics, that have not been covered by this volume. It ends with a brief discussion of ways forwards, both for scholars and practitioners interested in reclaiming expertise in ways that acknowledge its limitations and make the most of its strengths.