Ribeiro Rodrigo, Lima Francisco P A
Soc Stud Sci. 2016 Apr;46(2):282-311. doi: 10.1177/0306312715615970.
Collins and Evans have proposed a 'normative theory of expertise' as a way to solve the 'problem of demarcation' in public debates involving technical matters. Their argument is that all citizens have the right to participate in the 'political' phases of such debates, while only three types of experts should have a voice in the 'technical' phases. In this article, Collins and Evans' typology of expertise--in particular, the idea of 'interactional expertise'--is the focus of a detailed empirical, methodological and philosophical analysis. As a result, we reaffirm the difference between practitioners and non-practitioners, contesting the four central claims about interactional expertise--namely, that (1) the idea of interactional expertise has been proven empirically, (2) it is possible to develop interactional expertise through 'linguistic socialization alone', (3) the idea of interactional expertise supports the 'the minimal embodiment thesis' that the individual human body or, more broadly, 'embodiment' is not as relevant as linguistic socialization for acquiring a language and (4) interactional experts have the same linguistic fluency, understanding and judgemental abilities of practitioners within discursive settings. Instead, we argue, individuals' abilities and understandings vary according to the 'type of immersion' they have experienced within a given practice and whether they bring with them another 'perspective'. Acknowledging these differences helps with demarcation but does not solve the 'problem of demarcation'. Every experience is perspectival and cannot handle, alone, the intertwined and complex issues found in public debates involving technical matters. The challenge, then, concerns the ways to mediate interactions between actors with distinct perspectives, experiences and abilities.
柯林斯和埃文斯提出了一种“专业知识规范理论”，作为解决涉及技术问题的公共辩论中“划界问题”的一种方式。他们的论点是，所有公民都有权参与此类辩论的“政治”阶段，而只有三种类型的专家应该在“技术”阶段发声。在本文中，柯林斯和埃文斯的专业知识类型学——特别是“互动式专业知识”的概念——是详细的实证、方法论和哲学分析的焦点。因此，我们重申从业者和非从业者之间的差异，对关于互动式专业知识的四个核心主张提出质疑，即：（1）互动式专业知识的概念已得到实证证明；（2）仅通过“语言社会化”就有可能发展互动式专业知识；（3）互动式专业知识的概念支持“最小体现论点”，即个体人体或更广泛地说“体现”对于获取语言而言不如语言社会化重要；（4）在话语环境中，互动式专家具有与从业者相同的语言流利程度、理解能力和判断能力。相反，我们认为，个人的能力和理解因他们在特定实践中所经历的“沉浸类型”以及他们是否带有另一种“视角”而有所不同。承认这些差异有助于划界，但并不能解决“划界问题”。每一种经历都是有视角的，无法单独处理涉及技术问题的公共辩论中发现的相互交织且复杂的问题。那么，挑战在于如何调解具有不同视角、经历和能力的行为者之间的互动。
