The Social Construction of Expertise
In The Social Construction of Reality, Berger and Luckmann discuss experts. They contrast the stabilizing monopoly traditionally enjoyed by “universal experts” with the destabilizing competition of a modern pluralistic society. “When a particular definition of reality comes to be attached to a concrete power interest, it may be called an ideology.” The current institutions of forensic science illustrate the claim that monopoly in expertise is associated with political power. Applying the analysis of universal experts in The Social Construction of Reality to forensic science provides useful insights into forensic science as a social phenomenon.
KeywordsExperts Expertise Social construction of reality Science Forensic science
- Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. 1966. The social construction of reality. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
- Berger, V., Matthews, J. R., & Grosch, E. N. 2007. On improving research methodology in clinical trials. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 1–12.Google Scholar
- Cole, S. 2007. Where the rubber meets the road: Thinking about expert evidence as expert testimony. Villanova Law Review, 803, 819–824.Google Scholar
- Friedman, R. 2003. Squeezing Daubert out of the picture. Seton Hall Law Review, 33, 1047–1070.Google Scholar
- Gestring, Brian. 2009. The Dawn of the ‘Forensic Science Provocateur.’ CAC News, 1st quarter 2009: 25–28.Google Scholar
- Grann, D. 2009. Trial by fire. The New Yorker, 7 September 2009. Downloaded 7 September 2009 from http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann?currentPage=all.
- Greene, S., & Moffiet, M. 2007. Bad faith difficult to prove. The Denver Post, 22 July 2007. Downloaded 28 January 2009 from http://www.denverpost.com/evidence/ci_6429277.
- Koppl, R. 2010. Organization economics explains many forensic science errors. Journal of Institutional Economics, 6(1), 71–81.Google Scholar
- Koppl, R., & Cowan, E. J. 2010. “A battle of forensic experts is not a race to the bottom,” with E. J. Cowan Review of Political Economy, forthcoming.Google Scholar
- Mills, S., & Possley, M. 2004. Texas man executed on disproved forensics: Fire that killed his 3 children could have been accidental. Chicago Tribune, 9 December 2004. Downloaded 27 January 2005 from http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0412090169dec09,0,1173806.story.
- NAS Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community. 2009. Strengthening forensic science in the United States: A path forward, National Academies Press, http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12589.
- Office of the Inspector General. 2008. Review of the Office of Justice Programs’ Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grants Program. U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
- Pyrek, K. M. 2007. Forensic science under siege: The challenges of forensic laboratories and the medico-legal death investigation system. Amsterdam: Academic.Google Scholar
- Risinger, M. 2007. Innocents convicted: An empirically justified factual wrongful conviction rate. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 97(3), 761–806.Google Scholar
- State of Maryland v. Bryan Rose, Memorandum Decision, 19 October 2007, Circuit Court for Baltimore County, K06–545.Google Scholar
- Thompson, W. C., & Cole, S. A. 2007. Psychological aspects of forensic identification evidence. In M. Costanzo, D. Krauss, & K. Pezdek (Eds.), Expert psychological testimony for the courts (pp. 31–68). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Thompson, W. C., & Dioso-Villa, R. 2008. Turning a blind eye to misleading scientific testimony: Failure of procedural safeguards in a capital case. Albany Journal of Science and Technology, 18, 151–304.Google Scholar
- Willingham v. State, 897 S.W.2d. 351, 357, Tex.Crim.App. 1995.Google Scholar