3.5 Practice Theory as a Direction-Finding Beacon
215
2019). As a result of their education, experts are not immune to biases, which could
mean that their predispositions can offset the benefits of an epistocracy. It is for this
reason that actors can distribute knowledge across society to offset the biases by
perspectives from other parts of society (Min 2015).
Furthermore, experts cannot access the privileged information effecting citizens,
and that carry the burden and consequences of expert decisions, especially when
things go wrong. People have varying levels of knowledge, skills, intelligence and
talents that are related to different areas of inquiry. Since experts are not epistemically
privileged, they do not always know how their policies will affect individuals; only
individuals know how the policies will influence them, either directly or indirectly. It
is for this reason that deliberation is necessary to construct a more complete picture
of the political problems and their solutions. Political problems are complex, which
is reason enough for them to be framed from all the relevant perspectives, because
what one person knows is often unknown to others (Meissner et al. 2017a, b), and
vice versa. A missing perspective will therefore frame an incomplete picture of the
problem, which is an argument that I have made when formulating the theoretical
foundations of PULSE
3 . In this regard, I refer to the discussion on paradigms and
theories in Chap. 1 in that perspectives are not merely knowledge claims about a
proposition; rather, perspectives are the experiential source of an epistemic agent
that informs a person’s reasons, opinions, beliefs and worldviews. We listen to the
perspectives of others, not only to critique them, but also to gain an open-ended
understanding of an issue (Bohman and Richardson 2009; Min 2015).
Holst (2012: 53) stated that epistocracies are not inherently wrong. She went on
to say that: ‘…knowledge-based decision-making is acceptable, and even a good
thing if it is institutionalized adequately and legitimately, as well as democratically…whatever that might mean, more specifically’. In other words, science is not
enough, which means that one cannot make decisions on science alone.
Over my many years as a researcher in water governance and transboundary
water politics, I have witnessed many scientists being frustrated with practitioners,
decision-makers and politicians; they have said that they ‘do not listen to our policy
recommendations that are based on robust science’, or ‘they ignore our advice
completely’. These experts are usually, but not always, natural scientists who are
often unaware of other disciplines, such as Political Science or International Relations, let alone Public Administration, and consequently, they often do not understand
political and policy processes. They accept it as a forgone conclusion that their scientific research will save the day, but they ignore the wider governance, political, public
and private administration processes that decision-makers need to consider, when
developing and implementing policies. Policy development, adoption and implementation depend on various reflections, including the level of stakeholder participation,
as well as the selection of either a top-down or bottom-up approach, which is only an
insignificant consideration, compared to the complexities surrounding government,
policy and political process. For instance, stakeholder participation, including that
of scientists, will not automatically result in improved policy outcomes and effective legislation (Atisa 2020). Participation is just that; it is about participating in the
policy process. Other steps in the process include agenda setting, as well as policy
215
2019). As a result of their education, experts are not immune to biases, which could
mean that their predispositions can offset the benefits of an epistocracy. It is for this
reason that actors can distribute knowledge across society to offset the biases by
perspectives from other parts of society (Min 2015).
Furthermore, experts cannot access the privileged information effecting citizens,
and that carry the burden and consequences of expert decisions, especially when
things go wrong. People have varying levels of knowledge, skills, intelligence and
talents that are related to different areas of inquiry. Since experts are not epistemically
privileged, they do not always know how their policies will affect individuals; only
individuals know how the policies will influence them, either directly or indirectly. It
is for this reason that deliberation is necessary to construct a more complete picture
of the political problems and their solutions. Political problems are complex, which
is reason enough for them to be framed from all the relevant perspectives, because
what one person knows is often unknown to others (Meissner et al. 2017a, b), and
vice versa. A missing perspective will therefore frame an incomplete picture of the
problem, which is an argument that I have made when formulating the theoretical
foundations of PULSE
3 . In this regard, I refer to the discussion on paradigms and
theories in Chap. 1 in that perspectives are not merely knowledge claims about a
proposition; rather, perspectives are the experiential source of an epistemic agent
that informs a person’s reasons, opinions, beliefs and worldviews. We listen to the
perspectives of others, not only to critique them, but also to gain an open-ended
understanding of an issue (Bohman and Richardson 2009; Min 2015).
Holst (2012: 53) stated that epistocracies are not inherently wrong. She went on
to say that: ‘…knowledge-based decision-making is acceptable, and even a good
thing if it is institutionalized adequately and legitimately, as well as democratically…whatever that might mean, more specifically’. In other words, science is not
enough, which means that one cannot make decisions on science alone.
Over my many years as a researcher in water governance and transboundary
water politics, I have witnessed many scientists being frustrated with practitioners,
decision-makers and politicians; they have said that they ‘do not listen to our policy
recommendations that are based on robust science’, or ‘they ignore our advice
completely’. These experts are usually, but not always, natural scientists who are
often unaware of other disciplines, such as Political Science or International Relations, let alone Public Administration, and consequently, they often do not understand
political and policy processes. They accept it as a forgone conclusion that their scientific research will save the day, but they ignore the wider governance, political, public
and private administration processes that decision-makers need to consider, when
developing and implementing policies. Policy development, adoption and implementation depend on various reflections, including the level of stakeholder participation,
as well as the selection of either a top-down or bottom-up approach, which is only an
insignificant consideration, compared to the complexities surrounding government,
policy and political process. For instance, stakeholder participation, including that
of scientists, will not automatically result in improved policy outcomes and effective legislation (Atisa 2020). Participation is just that; it is about participating in the
policy process. Other steps in the process include agenda setting, as well as policy