The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance

knowledge is productive because it can be used to define new tasks and to take over jurisdiction for these tasks. Currently, we can observe the struggle of genetic biologists and medicine regarding the jurisdiction for genetic consulting. The medical profession defines genetic consulting as part of the doctor’s therapeutic work; genetic biologists understand it as the transposition of scientific genetic analysis into practice. There has been a discussion on role conflicts of professionals in organizations (as organizations tend to restrict the autonomy of professional work (Hall, 1968; Mieg, 2000, 2001); this is, so to say, a struggle for the power of defining performance, defined by the organization or by the profession. Today, consumer movements and public discussion on the status of professions drive professions into redefining their professional standards in a more explicit and transparent manner, thus redefining themselves (cf. Evetts, 2003). Experts and Society: Trust in Experts? Trust in experts is personalized trust as well as institutionalized trust. According to Anthony Giddens (1990), trust in expert systems is perhaps the core dilemma of modernity (“expert systems” here referring to networks of experts). Because of the complexity of modern societies, we cannot but rely on expert judgment and expert services in many domains of life. However, societies have to ensure control of experts. According to Niklas Luhmann, trust in general serves to reduce social uncertainty and can be considered a functional equivalent of power (Luhmann, 1979). Francis Fukuyama emphasizes that trust is a form of social capital (Fukuyama, 1995), regulating social order as well as financial markets. The beginning of the 21st century brought along some spectacular cases of misled trust in experts in the financial sector, for example, the Enron case and the failures of accounting firms on the one hand, and the cases of financial analysts who promoted the products of their clients, pushing stock prices ever higher, on the other. These cases of misled trust in experts also highlight a common practice, the legitimizing use of experts (Mieg, 2001). Companies, for instance, make use of experts for advertising or public-relation purposes. The experts certify the quality of certain products or services. In the domain of national and international politics, the legitimizing use of P1: JzG 052184097Xc41 CB1040B/Ericsson 0 521 84087 X July 15 , 2006 2 :44 social and sociological factors in the development of expertise 755 experts is ubiquitous. We find all administrations using expert panels in order to demonstrate the severity of problems and the necessity of administrative work, thus creating a demand for bureaucratic staff and funds (as Jasanoff [1994] describes it for the relation between the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] and its Science Advisory Board). And, of course, we find experts who directly play into politics, promoting themselves, as in the case of the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC has itself become a powerful international expert system with an impact on academic course programs and scientific fund raising by supporting international climate politics. An intriguing case of experts and trust can be found in courts. In US trials, experts are a type of witness. The expert can testify on almost anything that is helpful and relevant to the trial (Rossi, 1991). Experts in US trials, as introduced here, are a helpful means to the parties involved in a trial. The adversary process prevents the jury from undue deference to experts. In practice, many of the critical aspects of using experts – such as, What qualifies a person as an expert? or What data form the basis for an expert’s opinion? – are left to cross-examination by the lawyers. It is in the interest of each party to examine the experts of the adversary party and demonstrate lack of evidence if this proves to be the case. There is also the possibility of employing a “court-appointed expert” (Federal Rule of Evidence 706). However, they are employed very infrequently. Appointment of experts through the court transcends the adversary system of common law. Thus the social form “The expert” comes into play again and the consequences of “The expert”-interaction have to be taken into account. A survey revealed that “juries and judges alike tend to decide cases consistent with the advice and testimony of court-appointed experts” (Cecil & Willging, 1993 , p. 52): The most dramatic illustration of dominance by a court expert occurred in a case in which a large number of workers claimed damages due to working conditions. At the behest of the court, a physician examined all of the workers and reported findings for each plaintiff. The physician’s courtappointed status was disclosed to the jury, and the judge reported “the jury discounted the experts for each side. ” In fact, in each individual case, the jury followed the findings of the court-appointed expert, finding sometimes for the plaintiff and sometimes for the defendant. (loc. cit., p. 54) Statutory judicial frameworks, such as in France and Germany, tend to systematize and differentiate legal matters, including actors and functions. In statutory systems, the role of the expert in the court is more systematized than in common law. In German law, for example, the expert is considered as a “judicial clerk” or “clerk of the judge” who, under the supervision of the judge, helps the court interpret and understand a case. To summarize: Expert roles and the attribution of expertise serve an important function in organizations as well as in society. However, the social form “The expert” has its own dynamics that can run into conflict with organizational or public constraints, as we saw in the case of experts in court. This raises awareness for expert-performance criteria. Mediating Processes in the Development of Expertise Having discussed the contexts of expertise and expert work, we can now turn to the question of the contexts that nourish the development of expertise. I will start with the process of socialization and then introduce some selected more or less psychological approaches. We will leave the discussion of the social form “The expert” and come to what Simmel had called “content”: expertise. Thereby, we return to the more classical examples of expertise (see also pertinent Chapters in Section V), such as chess, the medical profession, or sports, for the simple reason that these activities have gained a certain social function. However, we should not forget that the very challenging cases, the ones where individual P1: JzG 052184097Xc41 CB1040B/Ericsson 0 521 84087 X July 15 , 2006 2 :44 756 the cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance expertise and social context are interwoven, such as in entrepreneurs or politicians, are not addressed here.