International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, Vol. 5, No. 7, July 2015

Epistemic Communities and Epistemic Operating Mode

Marianna Y. Smirnova and Sergey Y. Yachin

 communities are regarded as a permanent structure. Abstract—The article deals with the phenomenon of epistemic communities. The concept (and the term) was coined by P. Haas in the late XX century in an attempt to analyze II. THE FORMING OF THE EPISTEMIC COMMUNITY CONCEPT functions and political prospects of expert and professional knowledge in the modern knowledge-based society. The concept The concept of epistemic community in its current has been used widely during the recent decades in sociology of meaning was formed in the late ХХ century (the 90-s) by E. knowledge, policy studies and social philosophy. However, no Haas, P. Haas and E. Adler. However, the idea that (or very few) attempts to rethink the concept of epistemic knowledge-based communities are of political importance communities have been made, despite some critical remarks. was developed earlier, in the 70-s and 80-s. The article gives a review of research into epistemic communities and introduces the concept of epistemic mode in The concept of epistemic community takes its origin in the order to rethink the concept and make clear operational “” concept. The latter was widely used by M. mechanisms of epistemic communities as a specific form of Foucault. In 1975, J. Ruggie introduced the term «epistemic knowledge (expert) communities. community» with the reference to Foucault [1]. The concept grew more and more policy-oriented. However, in the 80-s Index Terms—Epistemic communities, experts communities, the term «epistemic community» still had various epistemic mode, knowledge-based society. interpretations.

E. Haas and P. Haas followed J. H. Marx and B. Holzner who defined epistemic communities as «those I. INTRODUCTION knowledge-oriented work communities in which cultural The concept of epistemic communities was developed by P. standards and social arrangements interpenetrate around a Haas in the late XX century to explain how decision-makers primary commitment to epistemic criteria in knowable and politicians interact with scientific and/or professional production and application» [2]. communities when challenged with global problems that E. Haas expanded this definition and included into the list require expert consulting. E. Haas and E. Adler also of basic characteristics of epistemic communities adherence contributed to the concept formation. to certain values and political initiative. In 1989 P. Haas The concept of epistemic communities suggests that these analyzed factors underlying the success of the so-called scientific and professional communities share ideas and Mediterranean Plan. He found that it had succeeded due to resources to promote them (reputation, knowledge). engaging scientists, marine biologists and ecologists Moreover, an epistemic community combines various (members of an epistemic community) in the agenda forming characteristics: political initiative, scientific objectivity. This [3]. makes epistemic communities different from NGOs, Haas gave his own interpretation of the epistemic advocacy coalitions, interest groups, etc. and gives them a community concept in the «Introduction: Epistemic special status. communities and International Policy Coordination» (1992). The concept has been used widely during the recent Today, it is the most widely-recognized (and widely decades in sociology of knowledge, policy studies and social discussed) definition of epistemic communities [4]. philosophy, mainly in various case studies. The earliest According to it, epistemic communities have following attempts to sum up the research material date back to the first features: decade of the ХХ century. The current tendency to expand or 1) A shared set of normative and principled beliefs which even rethink the concept is relevant only for certain aspects, provide a value-based rationale for the social action of not for the concept as a whole. Some questions are still to be community members; answered, namely, the question of defining epistemic 2) Shared causal beliefs, which are derived from their communities‟ boundaries and limits of their independence, analysis of practices leading or contributing to a central the mechanisms of their functioning, etc. set of problems in their domain and which then serve as The article suggests the concept of «epistemic operating the basis for elucidating the multiples linkages between mode», which is intended to clear up the issue of defining possible policy actions and desired outcomes; borders of epistemic communities and eliminates some 3) Shared notions of validity – that is, intersubjective, contradictions, which inevitably emerge when epistemic internally defined criteria for weighting and validating knowledge in the domain of their expertise; Manuscript received April 20, 2014; revised June 25, 2014. This paper 4) A common policy enterprise – that is, a set of common was supported by a grant of Far Eastern Federal University #12-05-06-680-09/13 practices associated with a set of problems to which their The authors are with the Far Eastern Federal University, School of professional competence is directed, presumably out of Regional and International Studies (e-mail: the conviction that human welfare will be enhanced as a [email protected], [email protected]).

DOI: 10.7763/IJSSH.2015.V5.533 646 International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, Vol. 5, No. 7, July 2015

consequence» [4]. an intermediary. R. Tiller, T. Brekken, J. Baily highlight the Besides, P. Haas and E. Adler analyzed the role of intermediary function when analyzing political processes in epistemic communities in establishing a new world regime. integrated management of coastal aquacultures in Norway. Unlike some of their followers, Adler and Haas considered Despite the fact that epistemic communities are epistemic communities to be a kind of interpretative filter for underdeveloped there, the scholars hope that their emergence political choices, not a new political actor. could prevent conflicts in this field [12]. However, it is Highly illustrative are two works by Haas and Adler, difficult to measure how influential epistemic communities «Banning Chlorofluorocarbons: Epistemic Community can be. D. J. Galbreath and J. McEvoy were challenged with Efforts to Protect Stratospheric Ozone» (1992) [5] and «T he this problem when trying to clear up the role of epistemic Emergence of Cooperation: National Epistemic communities in the EU policy concerning minorities [13]. Communities and the International Evolution of the Idea of L. Dobush and S. Quack analyze the case of 《Creative Nuclear Arms Control» (1992) [6]. The first article presents Commons 》 , a non-profit organization which addresses research into activities of a transnational environmental intellectual property issues [14]. They regard it as a epistemic community. It made a basis for the Montreal politically successful epistemic community of lawyers. But Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. The their success is accounted to activities going far beyond the second article analyzes how the idea of global nuclear limits of an epistemic community. In fact, the 《Creative disarmament evolved in the political interaction between the Common》: acted as a social movement because interpretative Soviet Union and the USA, which resulted in the Treaty on functions of epistemic communities were obviously Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems in 1972. (This research was insufficient. resumed and expanded by М. Dover in 2013 in an article on It is to note that there are few attempts to theoretically international cooperation expand or rethink the concept. Among them are ideas of K. between the USA and the Russian Federation in the field of Bukhari, who, in search for theoretical foundations, pointed nuclear weapon non-proliferation in the last decade of the out that constructivism, with its vision of scientific 20th century) [7]. knowledge as a socially constructed phenomenon, correlated Also, Haas and Adler made a hypothesis that epistemic with the epistemic community concept well [15]. But it was communities are able to help establish a new alternative not a cover-all theoretical review. world regime without hegemons [8]. This theory can come Remarkable in this regard is the article by M. D. Cross true only under a number of conditions. The scholars made it «Rethinking epistemic communities twenty years later». clear that effectiveness and success of this alternative global The article sums up the research into epistemic regime depends on the extent in which it is based on shared communities. According to Cross, the concept requires values of the humanity, not individual states. It is self-evident further conceptual development. Her own idea is that that this is the highest goal to strive, which, however, cannot international epistemic communities should not be limited to be achieved by formal procedures. scientific ones, that is, their knowledge should not be limited The above-mentioned works resulted in a commonly to scientific data [16]. recognized and shared by numerous scholars‟ interpretation M. Meyer and S. Molyneux-Hogson also reviewed and of epistemic community. S. Mendelson, T. Craig, A. summed up existing variants of the concept. They pointed out Antoniades and others followed Haas when defining that they do not explain how epistemic communities form and epistemic communities. function [17]. The concept has made its way into policy and social Epistemic communities are currently under research. studies. But it is used mainly in case studies, predominantly Interpretations of the phenomenon vary slightly, but most of in such fields as health (Z. Heritage, J. Green, and J. the scholars follow Haas' definition and highlight two crucial McGivern), environment protection (S. Murphy, K. features of epistemic communities: their political potential Rosendal), economics (W. Drake, E. Karayannis), and shared knowledge and values of their members. The intellectual property (L. Dobush, S. Quak), etc. Works on majority of works dedicated to epistemic communities are Asia-Pacific are focused on regional security and economic case studies which provide diverse examples but do not development (J. Dosch, М. Mols), etc. rethink or reinterpretate the concept itself (with some Z. Heritage and J. Green analyze activities of a exceptions). However, the concept of epistemic communities transnational health epistemic community. According to the needs refining (if not redefining). scholars, the community significantly contributed into the building of the European national networks «Health City» in 2003-2008 [9]. S. Sturdy, R. Freeman and J. Smith-Merry III. POLITICAL INDEPENDENCE OF EPISTEMIC COMMUNITIES: cover a wider chronological scope by studying activities of CRITICS AND DEBATES the World Health Organization from the 70-s to today [10]. The concept of epistemic communities also made a The concept of epistemic communities, despite its wide theoretical basis for an article by A. Balch‟s article on usage, provokes critics when applied to international policy migration policy of Great Britain in the first decade of the coordination as its only explanation. J. Sebenius made some 21st century [11]. critical remarks to Haas‟ works in 1992 by pointing out that Informal links among epistemic communities‟ members mechanisms of transforming values and ideas into political contribute into consensus -building among decision-makers. influence were not properly explained and cleared up [18]. Not only do they provide expert knowledge, but also act as Nearly a decade later A. Mooney and B. Evans voiced similar

647 International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, Vol. 5, No. 7, July 2015 critics. They doubted that epistemic communities always Sometimes scholars (M. King, for instance) regard have access to political agenda [19]. epistemic communities‟ success as a result of mere Epistemic communities cannot exist without direct links to coincidence of their goals with the goals of decision-makers politicians, and P. Haas underlined this fact: epistemic [27]. communities are neither scientific nor political groups. That is why some scholars, for example, J. Peel, claim that institutionalization of epistemic communities is vitally IV. DEFINING BOUNDARIES OF EPISTEMIC COMMUNITIES important for their efficiency [20]. Especially difficult is the problem of defining boundaries Of course, it is commonly accepted that the process of or epistemic communities. They do not have a strict structure institutionalization can transform an epistemic community and, like an «invisible college», can include members of into some kind of interest group or advocacy coalition which several organizations: scientists, researchers, politicians, acts to benefit governments or corporations. In this case no officials, etc. However, no epistemic community can be fully independence is possible. integrated into governmental structures or corporations. Some scholars are much more optimistic, however. M. Within an epistemic community only horizontal links can be Sundstroem suggests that international epistemic effective. Any epistemic community, with its communities can influence national experts so effectively interdisciplinarity and absence of a formal leader, can be that the latter develop a shared vision of current global described as a network with a number of local “centers”. problems and tend to arrive at an international conclusion P. Haas was the first to try to differentiate between easier [21]. epistemic communities and other groups of the kind. He Of much interest is D. Toke‟s critic of the epistemic made up two schemes to illustrate the differences using two community concept. He «accused» Haas of underestimating differentiating criteria: 1) shared causal beliefs; 2) influence of interest groups [22]. K. Litfin and G. Kuetting knowledge basis of a certain type. provided some critics, too. Lift in analyzed the process of the Epistemic communities are sometimes compared to policy Montreal Protocole in 1987 and admitted that scientists communities or policy transfer networks (М. Evans, J. Davis), played an important role in developing political agreement. NGOs (J. Braithwaite, P. Drahos, K. Gough), However, she pointed out that the epistemic communities coalitions (K. Litfin), etc. It is quite obvious that all these approach simply underestimated how often scientific data groups and communities can be compared to epistemic ones were used just for the legitimization of current policy courses from the standpoint of their functional and structural features. [23]. G. Kuetting claimed that Haas‟ statement that epistemic But they do not form the basis for epistemic communities. communities played the decisive role in forming the Expert groups do. Mediterranean Plan has no foundations [24]. In the broad context of information society studies it is The above-described critics can make one think about how important to take into account the role of goal-setting epistemic communities (knowledge) interact with decision subjects of knowledge (groups and individuals) in this makers (power) in general. Scholars have not arrived at an society. The phenomenon of epistemic communities is agreement in this question yet. Their opinions range from connected with the process when scientists do not just serve very optimistic to highly pessimistic. J. McGivern presented the interests of economic and political actors but also try to an example of an effective epistemic community without solve global problems. Under these conditions, scientists do governmental support: the multidisciplinary biomedicine not just seek new knowledge and, consequently, the truth, network «University Genetics Knowledge Park» made to which is the essence of scientific cognition. While transfer scientific data into the British health system. He considering the truth to be the highest value, they are also tracked main parts of this process and described interaction able to use their shared vision of the truth (knowledge) to between the epistemic community and other actors. Strictly address global political and economic issues. speaking, the network was initiated by the government. But The Pugwash Movement, which was founded in 1955 by a the latter failed to control it and cut the financing. In spite of group prominent scientist, can serve as an example of such this, the data provided by the experts found its way into the community. The Movement positions itself as a community health system [25]. of technical experts engaged in policy-oriented studies in the On the contrary, K. Dunlop described a totally different field of international security and arms control. case by comparing two scientific groups which worked in the In the modern knowledge-based society it is crucial for EU as two types of epistemic community. The groups scientists to understand which criteria can be used to justify addressed the issue of the growth hormone. One was their theories, because their object of cognition are not government-initiated, the other formed evolutionally. natural objects but technical/sociotechnical objects and Dunlop came to a conclusion that decision makers cannot developments. delegate their power to an independent epistemic community, Importantly and predictably, an emerging 《knowledge so they tend to establish their own communities by recruiting economy》(or 《innovative economy》) results in increasing experts [26]. This conclusion undermines the idea of an influence of scientists – bearers of domain-specific, independent and yet influential epistemic community. predominantly scientific knowledge. The influence manifests However, some researchers (for example, the itself in all social spheres: , culture, everyday life. As above-mentioned Heritage and Green) regard a rule, these recommendations are collective. In other words, governmentally initiated epistemic communities as normal they express a shared epistemic (knowledge-based) position and effective.

648 International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, Vol. 5, No. 7, July 2015 of a certain scientific community. communities can only be understood in the context of the The tendency to rely upon integrated expert knowledge for forming of broader communities – epistemic ones. (predominantly) political and economic decision-making is a This historical sequence can be imagined as building one kind of modern innovation in itself. First of all, this tendency integration level over another. Epistemic communities can be means that it s possible to integrate knowledge of various based on expert ones, being a higher level of their specialists (scientists) and obtain new knowledge which is development to the extent in which they take human shared by all scientists but does not belong to any scientist as well-being into account. an individual. That is why it is necessary to differentiate the However, one cannot say that an expert community ends competence of an individual expert, which is as old as human where an epistemic one begins. Their similarities are not the civilization, from the competence of an expert group, a only reason. The main reason is that any epistemic community of specialists capable of proposing collective community is not an institution. It is a process of a kind, a solutions. Special methods are required to obtain such shared state of mind which is enabled but a number of factors knowledge. A popular method of polling scientist has been including human factor. An expert community can act as an known since the 60th of the ХХ century under the name epistemic one, which means, it is an epistemic community «Delphi method». under current conditions. There is no reason to apply expert polls in highly specialized fields of knowledge which require experimental proof. Knowledge integration becomes useful when V. EPISTEMIC OPERATING MODE knowledge is a «direct productive force» and, when Epistemic communities do not have strict boundaries. On practically applied, leads to significant economic, political one hand, they can be regarded as a higher level of expert and social changes. That is why knowledge integration and knowledge integration and development (compared to expert expert evaluation are usually required at the conceptual communities). But an epistemic community does not remain (empirically non-verifiable) level and to forecast active forever. A. Antoniades divided epistemic communities development of technical systems, weapons, climate changes, into two categories: ad-hoc coalitions and permanent social institutions, on one hand, and develop scenarios of coalitions [28]. multi-level social subjects‟ actions, on the other. Any international expert (scientific) community can Expert knowledge differs from classical scientific operate in different modes: as an interdisciplinary scientific knowledge by its structure. It is required to use integrated community united by a common problem to solve; as an expert knowledge to solve strategic economic and political expert community given a task by some institution or problems. However, a paradox emerges: knowledge of government; as an epistemic community promoting its shared physics, , economics, etc. as separated fields of knowledge to help solve global problems. That is why expertise looses its social (innovative) importance. Scientific research should be done into ways of epistemic communities' knowledge becomes a political and economic power only in functioning, their operating mode. its systems, integrated and, to a great extent, interdisciplinary In this article, it is suggested to regard any form. knowledge-based society from the standpoint of its specific Expert knowledge is differentiated from scientific operating mode which can be defined as epistemic operating knowledge by its subject. Whereas the latter studies real mode. objects, while the expert knowledge deals with tendencies Epistemic mode can be estimated with the help of a set of and foresight, which is non-existing or virtual objects. features given below: Therefore, expert knowledge is predominantly applicable to 1) Self-organization future scenarios developing (foresight). Members of an “ideal” epistemic community act on their The different ways of functioning of scientific and expert own initiative and cannot be recruited by governments or knowledge are the key to understanding the forming factors corporations to make their policy legitimate. However, grants of expert communities, decision-making processes and or contracts do not make epistemic mode wholly impossible. politically or economically relevant recommendations, as Expert groups of international organizations or members of well as to understanding the reason why any major international projects can switch to the epistemic mode, being organization – an industrial corporation, public authorities or partly self-organizing. international organizations like APEC – have to rely upon 2) Scientific truth as a shared value trust expert evaluations and form expert groups. No personal interest can be taken into account. Search for The answer to the question how modern expert political compromise does not necessarily deny search for the communities (groups) are formed should be based upon truth. But it remarkably changes the operating mode of a historical retrospective. Epistemic communities are to be community. viewed as as a specific form of scientific community, because 3) Personal position of any expert member of the any cognitive activity is collective (meaning «live» community knowledge exchange). The forming of increasingly broader This basically means that experts willingly take personal scientific communities can be traced back to antiquity, when responsibility for their recommendations. these communities were limited to scientific schools [4]. 4) Adherence to shared values Later, professional communities (and universities) A community working in the epistemic mode has a emerged. Expert communities emerged no earlier than in the common system of values. On the contrary, a distinctly ХХ century. It is not the final stage, though. Today expert neutral (ethically) position of experts indicates that their

649 International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, Vol. 5, No. 7, July 2015 community is not epistemic. [11] A. Balch, “Labour and epistemic communities: the case of „managed 5) Political influence migration‟ in the UK,” The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 613-633, 2009. Epistemic mode requires significant political influence [12] R. Tiller, T. Brekken, and J. Bailey, “Norwegian aquaculture expansion which can be ensured by engaging decision-makers and Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM): Simmering (politicians, investors). conflicts and competing claims,” Marine Policy, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 1086-1095, 2012. 6) Interdisciplinarity [13] D. J. Galbreath and J. McEvoy, “How epistemic communities drive In many cases, it ensures that projects under discussion can international regimes: The case of minority rights in Europe,” Journal be realized. Therefore, high level of interdisciplinarity of European Integration, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 169-186, 2013. [14] L. Dobusch and S. Quack, “Epistemic communities and social indicated epistemic mode. A strictly theoretical problem movements: transnational dynamics in the case of creative commons,” limited by a single discipline makes operating in this mode in Transnational Communities: Shaping Global Economic Governance, impossible. UK: Cambridge University Press, 2010, pp. 226-252. [15] K. Bukhari, “Constructivism and epistemic community: theoretical 7) Focus on global problems which affect human tools for understanding the crafting of foreign policy toward non-state development, well-being and security actors,” The McMaster Journal of Communication, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. Such activities as foresight, scenarios of possible future 34-66, 2004. variants are indicative. Epistemic communities seldom focus [16] D. M. Cross, “Rethinking epistemic communities twenty years later,” Review of International Studies, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 137-160, 2012. on solving problems which do not have any long-term [17] M. Meyer and S. M. Hogson. (2010). Introduction: The dynamics of consequences. epistemic communities. Sociological Research Online. [Online]. 15. When most of these features are distinctly seen in the Available: http://www.socresonline.org.uk/15/2/14.html [18] J. Sebenius, “Challenging conventional explanations of international activity of a certain international scientific community, this cooperation: Negotiation analysis and the case of epistemic community can be regarded as epistemic – which means, communities,” Knowledge, Power, and International Policy acting in the epistemic mode. Coordination, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 323-265, 1992. [19] A. Mooney and B. Evans, Globalization: the Key Concepts, Taylor and Francis, 2007. [20] J. Peel, Science and Risk Regulation in International Law, Cambridge VI. CONCLUSION University Press, 2010. [21] M. Sundstroem. (2000). A Brief Introduction: What is an Epistemic It is to note that any knowledge-based community can be Community. [Online]. Available: characterized with the help of these criteria. They allow www.svet.lu.se/joluschema/epistcomm.pdf defining when and under what conditions it functioned in the [22] D. Toke, “Epistemic communities and environmental groups,” Politics, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 97-102, 1999. epistemic mode. This approach explains or even eliminates [23] K. Litfin, Ozone : Science and Politicsin Global many contradictions of existing concepts. They can also be Environmental Cooperation, Columbia University Press, 1994. used in developing measures to initiate epistemically [24] G. Kuetting, Environment, Society and International Relations: Towards More Effective International Agreements, UK: Routledge, functioning communities or switch existing expert groups 2000. into this mode. [25] G. McGivern, “Inter-epistemic power and transforming knowledge objects in a biomedical network,” Organization Studies, vol. 31, no. 12, pp. 1667-1686, 2010. REFERENCES [26] C. Dunlop, “Epistemic communities, relational distance and the two [1] J. Ruggie, Constructing the world polity: Essays on International goals of delegation: Hormone growth promoters in the European Institutionalization, UK: Routledge, 1998. Union,” Science and Public Policy, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 205-217, 2010. [2] J. H. Marx and B. Holzner, Knowledge Application: the Knowledge [27] M. King, “Epistemic communities and the diffusion of ideas: central System in Society, Allyn and Bacon, 1979. bank reform in the United Kingdom,” West European Politics, vol. 28, [3] P. M. Haas, “Do regimes matter? Epistemic communities and no. 1, pp. 94-123, 2005. Mediterranean pollution control,” Knowledge, Power, and [28] A. Antoniades, “Epistemic communities, and the International Policy Coordination, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 77-403, 1992. construction of (world) politics,” Global Society, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. [4] P. M. Haas, “Introduction: epistemic communities and international 21-38, 2006. policy coordination,” Knowledge, Power, and International Policy Coordination, vol. 43, no 3, pp. 1-35, 1992. [5] E. Adler and P. M. Haas, “Banning chlorofluorocarbons: epistemic community efforts to protect stratospheric ozone,” Knowledge, Power, Marianna Y. Smirnova is an assistance lecturer at and International Policy Coordination vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 187-224, the department of liguistics and intercultural 1992. communication at the Far Eastern Federal [6] E. Adler and P. M. Haas, “Conclusion: epistemic communities, world University, School of Regional and International order, and the creation of a reflective research program,” Knowledge, Studies, and a post-graduate student majoring in Power, and International Policy Coordination, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. social philosophy. Her areas of research interest are 367-390, 1992. methodology of social cognition and social [7] M. Dover, “Hard problems, soft answers: impact of epistemic processes in the knowledge-based society. communities on U.S. - Russian nuclear cooperation,” dissertation, American University, 2013. [8] E. Adler and P. M. Haas, “Conclusion: epistemic communities, world Author‟s formal order, and the creation of a reflective research program,” Knowledge, photo Sergey Y. Yachin is a Ph.D. who obtained the degree Power, and International Policy Coordination, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. in philosophy in 1975 and is currently the head of the 367-390, 1992. department of philosophy at the Far Eastern Federal [9] Z. Heritage and G. Green, “European national healthy city networks: University, School of Humanities. His areas of the impact of an elite epistemic community,” Journal of Urban Health, research interest are methodology of social cognition vol. 90, no. 1, pp. 154-166, 2013. and philosophical anthropology. S. Yachin is the [10] S. Sturdy, R. Freeman, and J. Smith-Merry, “Making knowledge for author of more than 70 works including monographs international policy: who Europe and mental health policy, and has been the head of a number of 1970-2008,” Social History of Medicine, vol. 26, no 3, pp. 532-554, government-funded federal research projects in 2013. 2008Author-2013.‟s formal photo

650