| Title |
The Problem of Expertise in Knowledge Societies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Minerva, September 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11024-016-9308-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Reiner Grundmann |
| Abstract |
This paper puts forward a theoretical framework for the analysis of expertise and experts in contemporary societies. It argues that while prevailing approaches have come to see expertise in various forms and functions, they tend to neglect the broader historical and societal context, and importantly the relational aspect of expertise. This will be discussed with regard to influential theoretical frameworks, such as laboratory studies, regulatory science, lay expertise, post-normal science, and honest brokers. An alternative framework of expertise is introduced, showing the limitations of existing frameworks and emphasizing one crucial element of all expertise, which is their role in guiding action. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 82 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 12 | 15% |
| United States | 10 | 12% |
| Canada | 3 | 4% |
| France | 3 | 4% |
| Australia | 3 | 4% |
| South Africa | 2 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 2 | 2% |
| Germany | 1 | 1% |
| Finland | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 11 | 13% |
| Unknown | 34 | 41% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 62 | 76% |
| Scientists | 17 | 21% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 328 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 326 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 67 | 20% |
| Researcher | 38 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 38 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 30 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 21 | 6% |
| Other | 60 | 18% |
| Unknown | 74 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 112 | 34% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 29 | 9% |
| Arts and Humanities | 20 | 6% |
| Psychology | 13 | 4% |
| Environmental Science | 10 | 3% |
| Other | 59 | 18% |
| Unknown | 85 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 89. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 January 2024.
All research outputs
#488,957
of 25,724,500 outputs
Outputs from Minerva
#6
of 433 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,266
of 331,937 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Minerva
#1
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,724,500 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 433 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,937 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them