In the run-up to the Brexit referendum, the then justice secretary Michael Gove famously argued that Britons had “had enough of experts”. Of course, he was primarily arguing against the mainstream orthodoxy who thought that Brexit was a terrible idea.
As is so often the case, Gove’s remark was extremely reductionist, albeit with an element of truth to it. The specialization of knowledge in the modern world means that most experts have very deep expertise in their chosen domain, but are often amateurs in other fields.
Held to account
A recent paper from Stanford reminds us that while experts are undoubtedly valuable, they also need to be held to account. The authors argue that things like expertise and meritocracy are vital to any functioning democracy, but oversight and accountability are nonetheless vital for democracy to thrive, and that this oversight often has to come from people who are very far from experts themselves.
The chances of amateurs adequately scrutinizing experts may seem a bizarre notion in an age in which misinformation is rife, especially on social media where platforms are given according to one’s popularity rather than one’s expertise. Indeed, the likes of Twitter (X) and Facebook have been hotbeds of misinformation on topics such as climate change and Covid-19 in recent years.
Nonetheless, the Stanford paper suggests that blindly deferring experts is not the answer, and indeed, unchecked hierarchies can be a huge mistake when experts are not accountable to the rest of society. It’s a tension that is, of course, not confined to democracies, and the authors showcase similar tensions in Imperial Germany and even the ancient Roman triumvirate, where authority and power lacked sufficient checks and balances, with poor decision-making the ultimate result.
Judging expertise
In On Expertise, the University of Waterloo’s Ashley Rose Mehlenbacher explores how effective we are at actually judging experts and expertise.
She reminds us that it’s impossible for people to be experts on everything, so we have to rely on others to make informed decisions. To do this effectively, she argues that we need a good understanding of the different kinds of expertise, including things like local and traditional knowledge that can often boil down complex topics into digestible chunks.
She also highlights how difficult it can be to accurately judge people’s expertise and credentials in a social media age in which imitation and misdirection are so commonplace. Many platforms obscure the credentials individuals have, which makes it much harder for people to know who can be trusted and who can’t. X is a good example of this, after the platform removed the verified ticks assigned to people of note and replaced it with a verified status that can be bought by anyone.
Regaining trust
In a so-called “post truth” era, it can easily appear as though expertise has lost the battle against mob rule. Mehlenbacher argues that it’s crucial for experts to be transparent in the way they communicate, and to especially accept the limits to their knowledge. This can be challenging on social media in particular, where people are encouraged to comment on everything, even if they lack expertise in that domain.
Despite all of this, and the willingness of politicians to use experts as scapegoats when it suits their agenda, research from Columbia Business School offers a glimmer of hope. They found that politicians are generally interested in scientific expertise and do often try to integrate it into their decision-making.
The study found that exposure to the latest scientific thinking tends to bleed through into policies. Indeed, one year after being exposed to research on increasing tax revenue through reminder letters, leaders were 10% more likely to have implemented such a policy intervention.
Rising to the top
The Stanford researchers’ perspective on climate change underscores this dynamic well. Lawmakers and individuals who are not climate scientists must determine actions and whom to trust. They argue for a meritocratic system where accountability ensures that only effective and reliable experts influence policy. If climate models consistently fail, the scientists behind them should lose credibility, much like how markets respond to ineffective products.
In the end, for organizations and democracies to thrive, we have to effectively balance expertise and accountability. This can be done via transparent communication, recognition of diverse knowledge types, and robust oversight mechanisms, which can help to maintain trust in the decisions we make.
Given the complex challenges we face, it’s vital that we’re able to integrate the latest scientific research and expertise into decision-making and policymaking. To do so, we need to acknowledge the limits of expertise and the importance of accountability. If we can do so, then we’re much more likely to deploy informed and accountable decision-making against the most pressing issues of our age.
