| Article ID | Journal | Published Year | Pages | File Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1160235 | Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A | 2015 | 4 Pages |
•Replies to a paper by Goddiksen centred on the definition of expertise.•Immersion in the relevant community of experts is essential for acquiring expertise.•Goddiksen misses this central point and is unable to refine the concept of expertise.
We analyse a recent paper by Goddiksen (2014) where the author raises questions about the relationship between authorship, attribution and Collins & Evans' concept of contributory and interactional expertise. We then highlight recent empirical work in the sociology of climate change science that has made similar points in order to clarify how authorship, division of labour and contribution are handled in real scientific settings. Despite this, Goddiksen's critique of both contributory and interactional expertise is ultimately ineffective because it rests on a misguided attempt to de-socialise these concepts. We conclude by stressing the importance of collective tacit knowledge acquisition through immersion as a critical step in becoming a full-blown contributory or interactional expert.
