Epistemic Communities and Epistemic Operating Mode
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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 “episteme” 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].