IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/poango/v3y2015i1p90-100.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Limits of Epistemic Communities: EU Security Agencies

Author

Listed:
  • Mai'a K. Davis Cross

    (Department of Political Science, Northeastern University, USA, and ARENA—Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo, Norway)

Abstract

This article examines the cases of the European Defence Agency (EDA) and EU Intelligence Analysis Centre (IntCen) to argue that although they are comprised of high-level security experts, they do not constitute epistemic communities. Research on other groups of security experts based in Brussels has shown that epistemic communities of diplomats, military experts, security researchers, and civilian crisis management experts, among others, have been able to influence the trajectory of security integration by virtue of their shared knowledge. Importantly, these security epistemic communities have been shown to significantly impact outcomes of EU security policy beyond what would be expected by looking only at member-states’ initial preferences. In exploring two examples of “non-cases” that are at the same time very similar to the other examples, the author seeks to shed light on why some expert groups do not form epistemic communities, and how this changes the nature of their influence. In so doing, the goal is to sharpen the parameters of what constitutes epistemic communities, and to add to our understanding of why they emerge. The argument advanced in this article is that institutional context and the nature of the profession matter as preconditions for epistemic community emergence.

Suggested Citation

  • Mai'a K. Davis Cross, 2015. "The Limits of Epistemic Communities: EU Security Agencies," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 3(1), pages 90-100.
  • Handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v3:y:2015:i:1:p:90-100
    DOI: 10.17645/pag.v3i1.78
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/78
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17645/pag.v3i1.78?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v3:y:2015:i:1:p:90-100. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Vieira or IT Department (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.