During the Brexit referendum campaign, British MP Michael Gove famously suggested that the British people had had enough of experts.  It’s a claim that underpinned the emotional message of the leave campaign and successfully limited any attempt to imbue the debate with facts and considered opinion.

Recent research from the University of Sheffield suggests the claim doesn’t have a great deal of evidence to back it up.  When it comes to who we want advising government, especially on things like science and technology, it seems that most people want the job to befall upon experts rather than Joe Public.

The study examined how people feel about expertise, experts themselves, and trust more generally, and it found that there really is very little basis for the claims made by Gove et al.

“It’s perhaps no surprise that those casting doubt on the status of experts haven’t based their claims on robust evidence,” the authors explain.  “This idea has taken on a life of its own over the past three years. But the evidence that does exist suggests broadly positive public attitudes towards experts—contradicting the bleak commentary associated with the so-called ‘post-truth era’.”

A broader perspective

Nonetheless, the team believe that we need a better understanding of how people do perceive experts, and when they perceive their input to be most valuable.  If we can understand when the general public are most likely to accept or dismiss expert input it will help in the successful deployment of the expertise available.

Until that time however, they urge us to treat any claims that expertise no longer has any currency with a large dose of scepticism, as there is precious little evidence to support such a claim.

“The current political moment has led to a wave of public commentary and reflection on the role of experts and expertise in democracies. It’s crucial that academic research catches up with this important debate and provides broad and robust evidence to inform it,” they conclude.