Court expert status in Poland. Flagging up the selected problems

The intent of this written presentation is to analyse the multi-faceted issue of the position and functioning of court experts in the Polish legal system. Particular attention should be paid in this respect to the appointment and verification of the competencies of candidates for experts, as well as to the instruments of control over their work. These selected aspects are extremely important, not only from the point of view of public interest, but in particular from the perspective of the party’s right to a fair trial, and to have the case heard within a reasonable time. The problems identified and briefly discussed have a structural and systemic nature, and result in arrangements which confirm the necessity for legislative changes proposed for many years, relating to court experts as well as to the practice of judicial authorities. The discussion of these issues has an informative purpose, especially for readers unfamiliar with the Polish legal system.

Citizen experts in participatory governance: Democratic and epistemic assets of service user involvement, local knowledge and citizen science

Initiatives that attribute expert status to ‘ordinary citizens’ proliferate in a range of societal realms and are generally celebrated for ‘democratising expertise’. By tapping new sources of knowledge and participation simultaneously, such ‘citizen expertise’ practices seem to provide responses to the contemporary decline of trust in political elites and traditional experts that seriously challenges the legitimacy of democratic policy-making. This study distinguishes between three quintessential types of citizen expertise (‘local knowledge’, ‘service user involvement’ and ‘citizen science’) and, from an integrated perspective, critically discusses the value of citizen expertise for public knowledge production and democratic governance. Drawing on empirical insights and on theories of democracy and of expertise and knowledge, the concepts of expertise and participation are refined and quality conditions of citizen expertise are developed. The study argues that citizen expertise is epistemically particularly valuable when it is based on distinct, non-ubiquitous experiences and on collective, not just individual, insights. It contends that representativeness is key to the democratic legitimacy of citizen experts in the policy context and points to the key role of organised civil society in establishing the required accountability relationships.

Quality Requirements for gynecological ultrasound examinations of DEGUM level II – Recommendations of the Sections/Working Groups Gynecology and Obstetrics of DEGUM, ÖGUM and SGUM

Gynecological sonography is the central and most frequently used technical examination method used by gynecologists. Its focus is on the clarification of masses of the uterus and the adnexa, fertility diagnosis, clarification of bleeding disorders and chronic and acute pelvic problems, pelvic floor and incontinence diagnosis as well as the differential diagnosis of disturbed early pregnancy. The indication for diagnostic and therapeutic interventions, preoperative planning and postoperative controls are largely based on the findings of gynecological sonography. These examinations are particularly dependent on the experience of the examiner.Based on the proven multi-stage concept of obstetric diagnostics, gynecological sonography should primarily be performed by an experienced and specialized examiner in patients for whom the initial gynecological examinations have not yet led to a sufficient assessment of the findings. So that the expert status required for this has an objective basis, the Gynecology and Obstetrics Section of DEGUM in cooperation with ÖGUM and SGUM implemented the option of acquiring DEGUM Level II for gynecological sonography. The effectiveness of the care in the multi-level concept depends on the quality of the ultrasound examination at level I. Quality requirements for the basic examination and the differentiation between the basic and further examination have therefore already been defined by DEGUM/ÖGUM. The present work is intended to set out quality requirements for gynecological sonography of DEGUM level II and for the correspondingly certified gynecologists.Common pathologies from gynecological sonography and requirements for imaging and documentation are described.

Moral or Ethical Experts? The Role of Bioethicists in a Democratic Society

"It is often believed that if bioethicists are to play the role of experts, the nature of their expertise must be explained and the authority of their advice justified. This presentation will be a moderate challenge to this view. It will be contended that the nature of bioethical expertise and the source of bioethicists’ authority depends on the kind of advice that is expected from them. If one expects a moral advice, i.e. a self-standing instruction about what to do in a given situation, it is indeed hardly possible to identify a moral expert in a rational way, and so to take their advice as authoritative. If, however, the counsel sought is to be an ethical advice, that is, a recommendation guided by a particular normative context, bioethicists can be sufficiently good experts and their instructions can enjoy a significant authority. Since bioethics is a field of research and social practice which developed in a democratic society, the bioethicist’s advice presupposes the normative framework of the values and ideals of democracy such as mutual recognition and respect, liberty and equality. Accordingly, although a bioethicist is not to be expected to be a moral expert (this role belongs, for example, to spiritual or religious leaders), she can be an ethical expert, who – on the ground of her knowledge of the values and ideals of a democratic society, ethical theory and, among other things, social theory and law – can offer a reliable advice which addresses a particular problem. The expert status of a bioethicist and the authority of her advice derives crucially from the values and ideals of a democratic society and her ethical knowledge, rather than from a moral insight into a realm of context-independent values. "

Developing an Expert Community and Defining its Role in the Politics and Decision-Making of a World Heritage City: The Experience of Bamberg

This article investigates the role of expertise and the expert community through local politics and decision-making in a World Heritage City. The expert public community and its inclusion in decision-making are important factors influencing the successful coordination of public interests. The authors demonstrate how developing forms of public governance change the local expert community and transform its structure and core principles, leading to more open and democratic expertise. Using the case study of local urban politics, the authors illustrate that the social authority of expert knowledge and its influence on decision-making is increasingly dependent on public opinion and the diversification of the structures of expert communities. The latter implies, in particular, the inclusion of citizens who do not have formal expert status but who have sufficient experience and authority to influence urban policy. Using the example of the World Heritage City, the authors consider cases where the harmonization of the interests of the participants of urban policies requires an unusual approach from the public administration, taking into account its obligation to follow formal procedures and regulations and its need to ensure greater involvement of citizens in the decision-making process. Our research showed that, in some situations, these recommendations were more authoritative and earned a higher degree of trust from the citizens than recommendations from people with formal expert status. This trend is in line with larger changes in public administration, which is becoming more adaptive, complex, polycentric, and oriented towards productive cooperation. Expert communities are becoming more fragmentary due to the active involvement of actors who, by their socio-professional status, are not formal experts but have significant experience and social influence, especially in the local community.

Expert Assistance in Security Politics: Problems and Possibilities

The article examines the problem of correlation between the “knowledge society” and “knowledge practice,” based on analysis of the phenomenon of security expertise as a part of political expertise. In the article, we consider the relationship between politics and security and demonstrate under what circumstances security becomes politics. It is noted that at present the concept of security has become very multifaceted and includes various spheres, from military-political to informational and humanitarian. We defines security expertise, list its key parameters, origin, its institutionalization and practices. Special attention is paid to the characteristics of the main schools in the study of security expertise problems. Their general ideology and inherent problems are analyzed, including the correspondence of the quality of the expertise to recognized standards of scientific knowledge. We explain why security issues appeal to experts and result in numerous studies. We raise an issue of causes that may lead to possible deprofessionalization of security expertise. We identify a number of institutions with an expert status in the field of security and explain the global growth of analytical centers specializing in security expertise. A brief description of such analytical centers and their main features is given. We look into examples of practical impact of expertise on political decision-making, and possible mechanisms of expert support. It is concluded that expert analysis can exercise direct impact on political processes, and the experts become influential shadow participants. On the one hand, this may contribute to adopting more balanced decisions, but, on the other hand, it may result in deprofessionalization of experts who will try to adjust to the demands of politicians. Thus, in the sphere of security expertise, one of the results of the formation of a “knowledge society” is a decrease in the autonomy of the scientific sphere, which has a side effect in the form of deprofessionalization of knowledge.

From expert to advanced clinical practitioner and beyond

This article considers the potential development of advanced clinical practitioners (ACPs) and consultant practitioners, beyond the ‘expert’ status as defined by Pat Benner in 1984. The suggested Derby Model: 7 Levels of Practice Advancement, adapted from Benner's From Novice to Expert, recognises Health Education England's four pillars of advanced practice and how they can be implemented and enhanced within these senior roles, and what that means in a 21st century healthcare system.

Epistemic competitions over Jewish Holocaust survivors’ stories in interviews

In this article, we scrutinise epistemic competitions in interviews about World War II. In particular, we analyse how the interlocutors draw on their epistemic authority concerning WWII to construct their interactional telling rights. On the one hand, the analyses illustrate how the interviewers rely on their historical expert status – as evidenced through their specialist knowledge and ventriloquisation of vicarious WWII narratives – in order to topicalise certain master narratives and thereby attempt to project particular identities upon the interviewees. On the other hand, the interviewees derive their epistemic authority from their first-hand experience as Jewish Holocaust survivors, on which they draw in order to counter these story projections, whilst constructing a more distinct self-positioning to protect their nuanced personal identity work. Overall, these epistemic competitions not only shaped the interviewees’ identity work, but they also made the link between storytelling and the social context more tangible as they brought – typically rather elusive – master narratives to the surface.

Whose Voices? Whose Knowledge? A Feminist Analysis of the Value of Key Informant Interviews

Key informant interviews are a stalwart of qualitative research, particularly policy-focused research. So ubiquitous is this research method that it is sometimes taken for granted that key informants indeed have important knowledge and value. This commentary interrogates the emphasis that is sometimes placed on key informant interviews over other qualitative research methods, asking important questions including: why are these informants “key,” and who says they are “key”? This article uses a feminist lens to analyze key informant interviews, suggesting that the power and privilege surrounding key informants might inadvertently lead to key informant interviews being less participatory and more infused with vested interests than researchers might admit. Within the hierarchy of research methods, key informant interviews may be positioned as producing more valuable knowledge because of the status and expertise of the person being interviewed. Their “expert” status may lead to assumptions that key informants understand and represent their communities. This article draws attention to the gendered consequences of prioritizing the knowledge of key informants, contrasting this with feminist perspectives on knowledge production which value the voices and perspectives of “ordinary” community members. This article also points to the methodological advantages which power-holders benefit from when they participate in key informant interviews compared to focus group discussions or surveys, advocating for greater community voice (especially women’s voice) through in-depth interviews with “ordinary” women and increased critical analysis of the limits of key informant interviews.

TOWARDS THE MODEL OF CONTRIBUTORY EXPERT GENERALISTS

The study of expertise has focused on the concept of specialization and specialists, both from a sociological and a biological perspective. It has been taken for granted that expertise concerns only specialization; even an individual characterized as a “polymath” or homo universalis is considered to be an expert specialist in many fields. Can expert specialists in many fields exist today? This question is deceitful or irrelevant since it cannot accommodate the concept of individuals who are neither specialists nor “poly-specialists”, but have knowledge of a different level: not analytic, but, rather, synthetic and abstract stemming out from general surveillance, not from specific experience. Here, a new type of expert is proposed: a contributory expert generalist. Their necessity stems from the methodology of epistēmē proper. Their characteristics will be identified and discussed, some empirical examples will be given and their expert status is going to be discussed using various theoretical approaches on expertise, namely SEA, SEE and STS (Science of Exceptional Achievement, Study of Expertise and Experience, Science Technology and Society).