Search

'Experiential knowledge' has been identified as a key epistemic resource used by lay people to contest medical authorities and build new knowledge related to health. The Internet has created unprecedented opportunities for such experience-based epistemic projects. This article contributes to understandings of the as yet under-theorised concept of experiential knowledge by analysing accounts of a group of Swedish women who claim that their use of contraceptive copper IUDs has led to systemic side effects not recognised by health care providers. Based on digital group interviews and written essays, we distinguish between three components or stages of experiential knowledge at work in the women's use of experience as an epistemic resource: somatic knowing, collective validation and self-experimentation. Drawing on a critical realist framework, we defend a notion of experiential knowledge as crucially, while only partially, based on a bodily and practical access to aspects of reality organised by extra-discursive principles. By providing theoretical complexity to the notion of experiential knowledge, we contribute resources for discriminating between and evaluating various experience-based claims, something that is particularly needed in the current 'post-truth' era where experience-based knowledge claims pointing in divergent directions flourish.

As an epistemic authority providing valid knowledge and measures for handling current environmental problems or preventing new ones from occurring, environmental expertise is a crucial factor in regulation and in the development of environmental discourses. At the same time, scientific expertise is also questioned; its capacity to deliver both trustworthy and relevant knowledge is contested. This situation constitutes the point of departure for this chapter, which critically discusses the meaning and implications of environmental expertise. Starting with an exploration of current trends within, and challenges to, expertise, it discusses why expertise needs to comprise other forms of knowledge than only scientific ones. It presents several theoretical proposals for tackling the situation of contested expertise, all of which stress the need to re-draw the boundaries between experts and non-experts. The chapter investigates how these proposals differ in terms of who, what, why and how to include non-scientific knowledge. By way of conclusion, it raises questions about the role of expertise in the current quest for social transformation.

As an epistemic authority providing valid knowledge and measures for handling current environmental problems or preventing new ones from occurring, environmental expertise is a crucial factor in regulation and in the development of environmental discourses. At the same time, scientific expertise is also questioned; its capacity to deliver both trustworthy and relevant knowledge is contested. This situation constitutes the point of departure for this chapter, which critically discusses the meaning and implications of environmental expertise. Starting with an exploration of current trends within, and challenges to, expertise, it discusses why expertise needs to comprise other forms of knowledge than only scientific ones. It presents several theoretical proposals for tackling the situation of contested expertise, all of which stress the need to re-draw the boundaries between experts and non-experts. The chapter investigates how these proposals differ in terms of who, what, why and how to include non-scientific knowledge. By way of conclusion, it raises questions about the role of expertise in the current quest for social transformation.

As an epistemic authority providing valid knowledge and measures for handling current environmental problems or preventing new ones from occurring, environmental expertise is a crucial factor in regulation and in the development of environmental discourses. At the same time, scientific expertise is also questioned; its capacity to deliver both trustworthy and relevant knowledge is contested. This situation constitutes the point of departure for this chapter, which critically discusses the meaning and implications of environmental expertise. Starting with an exploration of current trends within, and challenges to, expertise, it discusses why expertise needs to comprise other forms of knowledge than only scientific ones. It presents several theoretical proposals for tackling the situation of contested expertise, all of which stress the need to re-draw the boundaries between experts and non-experts. The chapter investigates how these proposals differ in terms of who, what, why and how to include non-scientific knowledge. By way of conclusion, it raises questions about the role of expertise in the current quest for social transformation.

As an epistemic authority providing valid knowledge and measures for handling current environmental problems or preventing new ones from occurring, environmental expertise is a crucial factor in regulation and in the development of environmental discourses. At the same time, scientific expertise is also questioned; its capacity to deliver both trustworthy and relevant knowledge is contested. This situation constitutes the point of departure for this chapter, which critically discusses the meaning and implications of environmental expertise. Starting with an exploration of current trends within, and challenges to, expertise, it discusses why expertise needs to comprise other forms of knowledge than only scientific ones. It presents several theoretical proposals for tackling the situation of contested expertise, all of which stress the need to re-draw the boundaries between experts and non-experts. The chapter investigates how these proposals differ in terms of who, what, why and how to include non-scientific knowledge. By way of conclusion, it raises questions about the role of expertise in the current quest for social transformation.

As an epistemic authority providing valid knowledge and measures for handling current environmental problems or preventing new ones from occurring, environmental expertise is a crucial factor in regulation and in the development of environmental discourses. At the same time, scientific expertise is also questioned; its capacity to deliver both trustworthy and relevant knowledge is contested. This situation constitutes the point of departure for this chapter, which critically discusses the meaning and implications of environmental expertise. Starting with an exploration of current trends within, and challenges to, expertise, it discusses why expertise needs to comprise other forms of knowledge than only scientific ones. It presents several theoretical proposals for tackling the situation of contested expertise, all of which stress the need to re-draw the boundaries between experts and non-experts. The chapter investigates how these proposals differ in terms of who, what, why and how to include non-scientific knowledge. By way of conclusion, it raises questions about the role of expertise in the current quest for social transformation.