Abstract
This chapter highlights four familiar case studies central to the development of interactional expertise. Essential types are summarized in a table and this chapter pays particular attention to potential asymmetrical knowledge transfer characteristics in each profile. It argues that accounting for this plurality of profiles is an important project both for improving the descriptive accuracy of accounts of interactional expertise and for ensuring that future research and normative projects understand the diversity of motivations among interactional experts. Further, it argues that attending to the diversity of motivations, situations, and experiences is relevant not only to interactional expertise but also to the study of expertise, collaboration, and socio-technical integration more broadly.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Most of this perspective on IE remains similar throughout papers from 2002 to 2007. Earlier work (2002) provides the source of broader conceptions of IE (e.g., the ability to “interact interestingly” with experts), while later publications emphasize the importance of the imitation game and enculturation process to a higher degree.
- 2.
In this chapter, I am focused on recognizing epistemic diversity among special interactional experts.
- 3.
In short, the imitation game requires a judge to question two other participants about the specialized area and assess their anonymized replies. One participant is a contributory expert, while the other is a candidate interactional expert. According to Collins et al. (2006), if the IE is able to convincingly reply as an expert in the field, their replies will be identified at only a chance rate, and they will “pass” the imitation game.
- 4.
Note that it is not always the case that challengers wish to avoid being seen as knowing the language. In the case of Epstein’s AIDS activists, for instance, the ability to acquire linguistic expertise was positively linked with achieving the desired change and feeling increasingly empowered.
- 5.
The imitation game, described in note 3 above, relies on the transmission of blinded text replies to questions posed by a judge. While identifying information like names are removed from the replies and each is delivered simultaneously to account for speeds of reply, I suggest that the blinding process may not remove idiosyncratic examples, references to experience, or particular phrasings in the replies that become more salient and prominent when this diversity is acknowledged.
- 6.
In Plaisance and Kennedy 2014, we raise the concerns that recent citations of Collins and Evans seem to take the imitation game to be a test to be applied in individual cases (e.g., can a prospective interactional expert pass this test to validate their status, yes or no?) and that early formulations of IE seem to leave open this possibility. In their response, Collins and Evans (2015) clarify that the imitation game is not a test to be applied in individual cases. The point about how an individual would react to a prospective imitation game, however, is still salient, as it reveals the different priorities, concerns, and inclusion/exclusion. Some prospective IEs, for instance, would be entirely unfazed by such a request or opportunity; others would take it as an affront, have serious concerns with the language of “passing,” or see it as indicative of problematic power dynamics overall.
References
Collins, Harry. 2004. Interactional Expertise as a Third Kind of Knowledge. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 3 (2): 125–143.
———. 2011. Language and Practice. Social Studies of Science 41 (2): 271–300.
Collins, Harry, and Robert Evans. 2002. The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience. Social Studies of Science 32 (2): 235–296.
———. 2015. Expertise Revisited, Part I – Interactional Expertise. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 54: 113–123.
Collins, Harry, Rob Evans, Rodrigo Ribeiro, and Martin Hall. 2006. Experiments with Interactional Expertise. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 37 (4): 656–674.
Collins, Harry, Robert Evans, and Martin Weinel. 2016. Expertise Revisited, Part II: Contributory Expertise. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 56: 103–110.
Epstein, Steven. 1995. The Construction of Lay Expertise: AIDS Activism and the Forging of Credibility in the Reform of Clinical Trials. Science, Technology, & Human Values 20 (4): 408–437.
Evans, Robert, and Harry Collins. 2007. Rethinking Expertise. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Fehr, Carla, and Kathryn Plaisance. 2010. Making Philosophy of Science More Socially Relevant [Special Issue]. Synthese 177 (2).
Plaisance, Kathryn. 2006. Behavioral Genetics and the Environment: The Generation and Exportation of Scientific Claims. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
Plaisance, Kathryn, and Eric B. Kennedy. 2014. A Pluralistic Approach to Interactional Expertise. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 47: 60–68.
Whyte, Kyle Powys, and Robert P. Crease. 2010. Trust, Expertise, and the Philosophy of Science. Synthese 177 (3): 411–425.
Wynne, Brian. 1989. Sheep Farming After Chernobyl: A Case Study in Communicating Scientific Information. Environment Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 31 (2): 10–39.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kennedy, E.B. (2019). Why They’ve Immersed: A Framework for Understanding and Attending to Motivational Differences Among Interactional Experts. In: Caudill, D.S., Conley, S.N., Gorman, M.E., Weinel, M. (eds) The Third Wave in Science and Technology Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14335-0_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14335-0_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-14334-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-14335-0
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)