IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v37y2010i5p355-367.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Breaking the expertise barrier: understanding activist strategies in science and technology policy domains

Author

Listed:
  • Shobita Parthasarathy

Abstract

This article develops a classificatory framework for analyzing advocacy group strategy in S&T policy domains — an area of increasing citizen activism since the 1960s. In such domains, activists may be locked out by what I call the ‘expertise barrier’, which blocks those lacking specialized knowledge from full participation. This article argues that activists' strategies to break through the expertise barrier can be classified into four categories: deploying established expertise, introducing new kinds of facts, introducing new policy-making logics, and attacking bureaucratic rules. It suggests further that focusing research on these four categories can facilitate hypothesis generation and future avenues of inquiry, including comparison among advocacy challenges in diverse technical domains. To illustrate this framework, I present examples from activism in two areas: breast cancer research and patents on life forms. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Shobita Parthasarathy, 2010. "Breaking the expertise barrier: understanding activist strategies in science and technology policy domains," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 37(5), pages 355-367, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:37:y:2010:i:5:p:355-367
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/030234210X501180
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Shobita Parthasarathy, 2011. "Whose knowledge? What values? The comparative politics of patenting life forms in the United States and Europe," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 44(3), pages 267-288, September.
    2. Jessica Weinkle, 2020. "Experts, regulatory capture, and the “governor's dilemma”: The politics of hurricane risk science and insurance," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(4), pages 637-652, October.
    3. Lisa Dilling & Rachel Hauser, 2013. "Governing geoengineering research: why, when and how?," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 121(3), pages 553-565, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:oup:scippl:v:37:y:2010:i:5:p:355-367. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    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.