Contestations over expert knowledge in legislative debates of four parliaments, 1960–2020

Abstract

Two parallel, seemingly contradictory trends appear to co-exist: the scientization of politics and the increasing contestation of science in politics. This article examines the long-term development of these trends through legislative debates of parliaments of Canada, Finland, Kenya, and the United Kingdom from 1960 to 2020. While contestations around expert knowledge occur throughout the period, results indicate that in recent decades legislators have become increasingly inclined to debate its appropriate or problematic use in lawmaking. This development is closely linked to the consolidation of the norms and ideals of evidence-based policymaking. In this sense, contestations around the use of expert knowledge intensify, which is particularly visible in the upsurge of explicit accusations that others are violating these norms and ideals. Even as the role of evidence becomes more intensively politicized, most contestations still reflect the highly legitimized status of science and expert knowledge. We discuss the findings in relation to world society theory's scientization thesis, emphasizing the importance of accounting for contrasting trends. The article contributes to understanding the complex relation of expert knowledge to lawmaking by foregrounding politicians’ metadiscourse on the relationship between expert knowledge and politics as a cultural resource that political actors both draw upon and seek to shape.

The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Acta Sociologica, 2026 · DOI ↗