IsisCB Explore

Article ID: CBB635897203

Judges’ socio-technical review of contested expertise (June 2019)

Taipale, Jaakko (Author)

Social Studies of Science
Volume: 49
Issue: 3
Pages: 310-332

URI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312719854538

DOI: 10.1177/0306312719854538

Outside Links

PubMed

WorldCat

Google Scholar

JSTOR

Academia.edu

Sociotechnical systems Traumatic brain injuries Science and law Medicine and law Technoscience; science and technology studies Expertise Finland Expertise 21st century

This article investigates how civil court judges practice meta-expertise in cases that feature contradictory and inconclusive medical expertise. The empirical case study consists of a sample of eleven Helsinki district court verdicts from 2014–2017, drawn from a larger number of similar traffic insurance compensation cases. The case-type features a medical controversy concerning traumatic brain injury (TBI) diagnostics. I contend that the difficulties judges face in evaluating the medical expertise result from epistemic asymmetries between legal and medical professionals. This study highlights the importance of explaining and understanding how judges overcome uncertainty and discriminate between expert positions. Drawing from earlier studies on meta-expertise and judges’ practice of evaluating expertise in court, I introduce the concept ‘socio-technical review’ to describe judges’ practice of facilitating highly technical and esoteric scientific expertise to needs of judicial decision making. I argue that socio-technical review is a special form of practicing meta-expertise, which effectively allows meta-experts to manage epistemic asymmetries. In examining how meta-expertise is practiced in the TBI case-type, the paper contributes to general sociological understanding of decision-making under uncertainty and suggests further studies in comparable settings.

...More

Citation URI

https://data.isiscb.org/isis/citation/CBB635897203/

Citations Indexes

Similar Citations

Article Federico Brandmayr; (May 2017)
How Social Scientists Make Causal Claims in Court: Evidence from the L’Aquila Trial (/isis/citation/CBB603433424/)

Article Florencia Arancibia; Renata Motta; (2019)
Undone Science and Counter-Expertise: Fighting for Justice in an Argentine Community Contaminated by Pesticides (/isis/citation/CBB193478831/)

Article John Carson; (December 2018)
‘Every Expression is Watched’: Mind, Medical Expertise and Display in the Nineteenth-century English Courtroom (/isis/citation/CBB111652964/)

Article Logan D. A. Williams; Sharlissa Moore; (2019)
Guest Editorial: Conceptualizing Justice and Counter-Expertise (/isis/citation/CBB521476031/)

Article Aviram Sharma; (2017)
Drinking Water Quality in Indian Water Policies, Laws, and Courtrooms: Understanding the Intersections of Science and Law in Developing Countries (/isis/citation/CBB115411091/)

Article Philip R. Egert; Barbara L. Allen; (2019)
Knowledge Justice: An Opportunity for Counter-expertise in Security vs. Science Debates (/isis/citation/CBB135681924/)

Article Colleen Lanier-Christensen; (September 2021)
Creating Regulatory Harmony: The Participatory Politics of OECD Chemical Testing Standards in the Making (/isis/citation/CBB606231580/)

Article Paige L Sweet; Danielle Giffort; (June 2021)
The bad expert (/isis/citation/CBB216520442/)

Article Christian Ross; (2022)
Handservant of Technocracy: Public Engagement and Expertise in Heritable Human Genome Editing (/isis/citation/CBB828766557/)

Article Beth Greenhough; Emma Roe; (July 2018)
Exploring the Role of Animal Technologists in Implementing the 3Rs: An Ethnographic Investigation of the UK University Sector (/isis/citation/CBB661318783/)

Article Logan D. A. Williams; (March 2018)
Mapping Superpositionality in Global Ethnography (/isis/citation/CBB873960993/)

Article Robert Evans; (February 2022)
SAGE advice and political decision-making: ‘Following the science’ in times of epistemic uncertainty (/isis/citation/CBB466460955/)

Article Nina Frahm; Tess Doezema; Sebastian Pfotenhauer; (January 2022)
Fixing Technology with Society: The Coproduction of Democratic Deficits and Responsible Innovation at the OECD and the European Commission (/isis/citation/CBB550648723/)

Article Christy Spackman; Gary A. Burlingame; (June 2018)
Sensory politics: The tug-of-war between potability and palatability in municipal water production (/isis/citation/CBB215070697/)

Article Monamie Bhadra Haines; (February 2019)
Contested credibility economies of nuclear power in India (/isis/citation/CBB710438620/)

Article Carmen McLeod; Sarah Hartley; (July 2018)
Responsibility and Laboratory Animal Research Governance (/isis/citation/CBB564349730/)

Article Collins, Harry; (April 2011)
Language and practice (/isis/citation/CBB239803920/)

Article John Gardner; Gabrielle Samuel; Clare Williams; (November 2015)
Sociology of Low Expectations: Recalibration as Innovation Work in Biomedicine (/isis/citation/CBB250077809/)

Article Kathleen M. Vogel; Michael A. Dennis; (September 2018)
Tacit Knowledge, Secrecy, and Intelligence Assessments: STS Interventions by Two Participant Observers (/isis/citation/CBB829576730/)

Article Durant, Darrin; (October 2011)
Models of democracy in social studies of science (/isis/citation/CBB562394056/)

Comments

{{ comment.created_by.username }} on {{ comment.created_on | date:'medium' }}