Abstract
The role and functions of expertise in international politics is, since decades, a core research theme. This chapter outlines a history of how the relation between science and international politics has been approached through the lenses of expertise. My intention is to offer a heuristic device. I argue that the debate can be structured in three generations. A first generation is interested in experts as actors that have a causal influence on international politics. The second generation scrutinizes discourses of expertise and their constitutional role in making the international. And the third generation concentrates on practices of expertise and the way these perform the epistemic arrangements of the international. To think about the study of expertise in the frame of three generations each offering different insights and carrying advantages and problems provides not only a practical tool for sorting ideas, but clarifies what one ‘buys in’ by following a specific generation.
Keywords
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
For earlier scholarly debates about the role of experts and technical expertise within nineteenth century international legal organizations see Howland (2014).
- 2.
Including scientific disciplines, professions, interest groups, social movements or bureaucracies (Haas 1992b: 16–20).
- 3.
- 4.
- 5.
See for instance Collins and Evans (2002) and the related debate on how to demark experts by internal criteria.
- 6.
- 7.
- 8.
- 9.
- 10.
References
Acuto, M., & Curtis, S. (Eds.). (2014). Re-assembling international theory. Assemblage thinking and international relations. Basingstroke: Palgrave MacMillan.
Adler, E., & Bernstein, S. (2005). Knowledge in power: The epistemic construction of global governance. In M. Barnett & R. Duvall (Eds.), Power in global governance (pp. 294–318). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Adler, E., & Haas, P. M. (1992). Epistemic communities, world order, and the creation of a reflective research program. International Organization, 46(1), 367–390.
Adler, E., & Pouliot, V. (2011). International practices. International Theory, 3(1), 1–36.
Antoniades, A. (2003). Epistemic communities, epistemes and the construction of (world)politics. Global Society, 17(1), 21–38.
Ashley, R. K. (1987). The geopolitics of geopolitical space: Toward a critical social theory of international politics. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 12(4), 403–434.
Ashley, R. K., & Walker, R. B. J. (Eds.) (1990). Speaking the language of exile. Dissidence in International studies. Special Issue of International Studies Quarterly 34 (3).
Berling, T. V. (2011). Science and securitization: Objectivation, the authority of the speaker and mobilization of scientific facts. Security Dialogue, 42(4–5), 385–397.
Berling, T. V. (2012). Bourdieu, international relations, and European security. Theory and Society, 41(5), 451–478.
Best, J., & Walters E, (Eds.) (2013). Forum on “Actor-Network Theory” and international relationality: lost (and found) in Translation, International Political Sociology 7(3).
Bigo, D. (2008). The emergence of a consensus: Global terrorism, global insecurity, and global security. In A. C. D’Appollonia & S. Reich (Eds.), Immigration, integration and security: America and Europe in comparative perspective (pp. 67–94). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Brown, M. B. (2009). Science in democracy: Expertise, institutions, and representation. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Bueger, C. (2014). Making Things Known: Epistemic Practice, the United Nations and the Translation of Piracy, mimeo, Cardiff: Cardiff University.
Bueger, C., & Bethke, F. (2014, January 18). Actor-networking the failed state: An enquiry into the life of concepts. Journal of International Relations and Development, advance online publication. 17(1): 30–60 doi:10.1057/jird.2012.30.
Bueger, C., & Gadinger, F. (2007). Reassembling and dissecting: International relations practice from a science studies perspective. International Studies Perspectives, 8(1), 90–110.
Bueger, C., & Gadinger, F. (2014). The play of international practice. Minimalism, pragmatism and critical theory. International Studies Quarterly, forthcoming.
Bueger, C., & Villumsen, T. (2007). Beyond the gap: Relevance, fields of practice and the securitizing consequences of (democratic peace) research. Journal of International Relations and Development, 10(4), 417–448.
Callon, M. (2007). What does it mean to say that economics is performative? In D. MacKenzie, F. Muniesa, & L. Siu (Eds.), Do economists make markets? On the performativity of economics (pp. 311–357). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Campbell, D. (1992). Writing security: United States foreign policy and the politics of identity. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Collins, H. M., & Evans, R. (2002). The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science, 32(2), 235–295.
Cross, M. K. D. (2012). Rethinking epistemic communities twenty years later. Review of International Studies, 39(1), 137–160.
Eriksson, J., & Sundelius, B. (2005). Molding minds that form policy: How to make research useful. International Studies Perspectives, 6(1), 51–72.
Fougner, T. (2008). Neoliberal governance of states: The role of competitiveness indexing and country benchmarking. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 37(2), 303–326.
George, J., & Campbell, D. (1990). Patterns of dissent and the celebration of difference: Critical social theory and international relations. International Studies Quarterly, 34(3), 269–293.
Haas, E. B. (1964). Beyond the nation-state: Functionalism and international organization. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Haas, E. B. (1990). When knowledge is power. Three models of change in International Organizations. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Haas, P. M. (1992a). Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization, 46(1), 1–35.
Haas, P. M. (Ed.) (1992a). Knowledge, power, and international policy coordination. Special Issue of International Organization 46 (1).
Haas, P. M., & Haas, E. B. (2002). Pragmatic constructivism and the study of international institutions. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 31(3), 573–601.
Haas, E. B., Williams, M. P., & Babai, D. (1977). Scientists and world order: The uses of technical knowledge in international organizations. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Hagmann, J., & Cavelty, M. D. (2012). National risk registers: Security scientism and the propagation of permanent insecurity. Security Dialogue, 43(1), 79–96.
Hansen, L. (2006). Security as practice. Discourse analysis and the Bosnian War. Milton Park and New York: Routledge.
Howland, D. (2014). Telegraph technology and administrative internationalism in the 19th century. In M. Mayer, M. Carpes, & R. Knoblich (Eds.), The global politics of science and technology. Heidelberg: Springer.
Huysmans, J. (2006). The politics of insecurity. Fear, migration and asylum in the EU. Milton Park: Routledge.
Jackson, P. T. (2008). Foregrounding ontology: Dualism, monism, and IR theory. Review of International Studies, 34(1), 129–153.
Jacobs, L. R., & Benjamin, I. P. (2005). Who influences U.S. foreign policy? American Political Science Review, 99(1), 107–123.
Jaeger, H.-M. (2010). UN reform, biopolitics, and global governmentality. International Theory, 2(1), 50–86.
Kaufmann, C. (2004). Threat inflation and the failure of the marketplace of ideas. International Security, 29(1), 5–48.
Kennedy, D. (2001). The politics of invisible college: International Governance and the politics of expertise. European Human Rights Law Review, 5, 463–497.
Klein, B. S. (1994). Strategic studies and world order: The global politics of deterrence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leander, A., & van Munster, R. (2007). Private security contractors in the debate about darfur: Reflecting and reinforcing neo-liberal governmentality. International Relations, 21(2), 201–216.
Lidskog, R., & Sundqvist, G. R. (2002). The role of science in environmental regimes: The case of LRTAP. European Journal of International Relations, 8(1), 77–100.
Litfin, K. (1995). Framing science: Precautionary discourse and the ozone treaties. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 24(2), 251–277.
Mallin, M., & Latham, R. (2001). The public relevance of international security research in an era of globalism. International Studies Perspectives, 2(2), 221–230.
Mayer, M. (2012). Chaotic climate change and security. International Political Sociology, 6, 165–185.
Mitrany, D. (1943). A working peace system. London: Royal Institute of International Affairs.
Nincic, M., & Lepgold, J. (2000). Being useful. Policy relevance and international relations theory. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Pielke, R. A., Jr. (2007). The honest broker. Making sense of science in politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Porter, T. (2012). Making serious measures: Numerical indices, peer review, and transnational actor-networks. Journal of International Relations and Development, 15, 532–557.
Rouse, J. (1996). Engaging science. How to understand its practices philosophically. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Ruggie, J. G. & Haas, E. B. (Eds.) (1975). International responses to technology. Special Issue of International Organization 29 (3).
Slaughter, A.-M. (2004). A new world order. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Smith, S. (2004). Singing our world into existence: International relations theory and september 11. Presidential address to the international studies association, February 27, 2003, Portland, OR. International Studies Quarterly 48: 499–515.
Sokhi-Bulley, B. (2011a). Governing (through) rights: Statistics as technologies of governmentality. Social & Legal Studies, 20(2), 139–155.
Sokhi-Bulley, B. (2011b). Government(ality) by experts: Human rights as governance. Law and Critique, 22(3), 251–271.
Toke, D. (1999). Epistemic communities and environmental groups. Politics, 19(2), 97–102.
Turner, S.P. (2003). Liberal democracy 3.0 civil society in an age of experts. London: Sage Publications.
Walker, R. B. J. (1993). Inside/outside: International relations as political theory. Cambridge studies in international relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Acknowledgements
For discussions and comments which have informed and improved this chapter I am grateful to Maximilian Mayer and Trine Villumsen Berling. Research for this article has been supported by the Economic and Social Research Council [ES/K008358/1].
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bueger, C. (2014). From Expert Communities to Epistemic Arrangements: Situating Expertise in International Relations. In: Mayer, M., Carpes, M., Knoblich, R. (eds) The Global Politics of Science and Technology - Vol. 1. Global Power Shift. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-55007-2_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-55007-2_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-55006-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-55007-2
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)