Picture this. Your car brakes start to make a grinding noise, a hazard light glows on your dashboard and you know absolutely nothing about cars. What do you do? Most people would call a mechanic — someone who specializes in automobiles as their job and can be trusted to efficiently diagnose and repair the issue. Even if you know nothing about cars, it still makes sense to trust the expertise of a mechanic. Seems logical, right?
Then why do we not apply the same logic to political and societal questions? Society’s dismissal of social science expertise reflects a dangerous conflation of lived experience with expertise — one that also frames training as elitism, resulting in less informed political decision-making.
In the press and within research, numerous concerned academics warn Americans of the looming threat of an authoritarian regime, with some even leaving the country to escape this fear. It begs the question, why are many Americans not listening to their expertise? These academics undergo extensive social science training through PhD programs and post-doctoral research positions, meaning they understand political systems and trajectories in greater depth than the average voter. Yet, many political conversations fail to consult the expertise of professors.
Contributing to this phenomenon is the common mistake of conflating experience with expertise. Although many Americans drive a car or ride in one regularly, a vast majority have never once popped a hood. So, it’s easy for those people to admit their lack of knowledge around car mechanics and consult an expert in cars when having car troubles.
But societal questions are more complex. All Americans interact with society in one way or another. Whether that be dealing with government bureaucracy at the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), navigating healthcare coverage with Medicaid or even filling out an election ballot, everyone has experience interacting with sociopolitical structures, not just academics and those who study society extensively.
But it is vital to understand that one person’s lived experience, while important, does not amount to years of built expertise.
Many Americans have had incredibly frustrating experiences navigating Medicaid, but that does not automatically mean that each person is an expert on healthcare policy. For instance, a personal account of Medicaid frustration often does not answer vital questions about where the Medicaid funding should come from. This is where the expertise of policy experts and academics comes in to fill in the gaps.
For instance, experts are able to ensure healthcare providers recognize Medicaid as a valid form of insurance, and research which racial and socioeconomic demographics have the highest need for programs like Medicaid. Although the average American may have valid personal experiences or thoughts on these questions, experts have explored these questions much more thoroughly, holistically and objectively.
It is also imperative to clarify that experiences are still valid, especially when it comes to systemic issues within a program as important as Medicaid. First-hand experiences are highly important in policy debates to ensure efficiency and recognize the issues to begin with. Yet, expertise is also crucial to the conversation and is currently being devalued.
Emphasizing the importance of expertise in policymaking does not place academics or hyper-educated people above others, nor does it ignore the ivory tower argument that university scholars are detached from everyday life. Expertise is not a marker of superiority but of training. Just as a mechanic’s knowledge of cars is trusted and consulted by an academic, consulting a political scientist on political questions is a mutual exchange of specialized knowledge. Additionally, many professors ground their research by directly engaging with the very people their work seeks to serve, such as conducting interviews with first-hand dissatisfaction stories about Medicaid.
There is also an argument that the issue isn’t an academic’s earned social sciences credentials, but that education itself teaches political leftism. Thus, the mistrust of experts is not personal but stems from education as a whole. What doesn’t add up with this argument is that, just as we would trust a mechanic with car troubles, the majority of Americans would trust their physician with their health. Doctors — along with academics — undergo extensive training in medical school and in their residency requirements, making healthcare officials the most qualified individuals to diagnose and treat health-related issues. So, if we trust doctors more or less the same as we trust a mechanic, the mistrust is not with education but with social science disciplines themselves.
The consequences of sidelining trained experts in favor of populist skepticism is a slippery slope. Whether expertise in the social sciences and humanities is being overlooked because of capitalist histories, perceptions of uselessness or just someone’s simple disinterest in the subjects themselves, the takeaway remains the same.
Trust your professors. They have studied their respective subjects for decades, contributing original, cutting-edge ideas to their chosen discipline. If anyone understands the ins and outs of the economic impacts of President Donald Trump’s tariffs, it is your economics professor.
Alexander Randall is an Opinion Staff Writer. He can be reached at arandal1@uci.edu.
