View article

This paper presents analysis of citizen encounters with specialists in a deliberative process, called Deliberative Mapping, which explored options for addressing the shortage of organs for transplantation in the UK. There is a rich theoretical literature about the extent to which citizens are competent to question the knowledge claims of specialists in complex decision-making processes, suggesting the trustworthiness of scientific expertise will depend on the qualities of social interaction in face-to-face dialogue, but little empirical analysis of specific encounters. This paper presents evidence of how citizens located specialist expertise in making judgements about the legitimacy and credibility of specialist knowledge claims, in ways that reflect differences in epistemic procedures valued by the panels of men and women in this process.