OBSERVARE

Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 9, Nº. 2 (November 2018-April 2019), pp. 1-15

EPISTEMIC COMMUNITIES AND THEIR INFLUENCE IN INTERNATIONAL

POLITICS: UPDATING OF THE CONCEPT

Miloslav Machoň

miloslav.machon@vse.cz

He works in Jan Masaryk Centre for International Studies at the University of Economics (Prague,

Czech Republic). He focuses on actors of political negotiations in the area of the international

management of the outer space. Field of his specialization also encompasses problematics of

science diplomacy.

Jana Kohoutová

jana.kohoutova@vse.cz

Jana Kohoutová does her research on the Faculty of International Relations at the University of

Economics (Jan Masaryk Centre for International Studies, Prague, Czech Republic). She is

focused on new forms of diplomacy and strategies of political negotiation.

Jana Burešová

jana.buresova@vse.cz

Jana Burešová is on the Faculty of International Relations at the University of Economics (Jan

Masaryk Centre for International Studies, Prague, Czech Republic). She specialises in research of

international norms and rules, human rights and security studies.

Jaroslava Bobková

jaroslava.bobkova@vse.cz

Jaroslava Bobková is on the Faculty of International Relations at the University of Economics (Jan

Masaryk Centre for International Studies, Prague, Czech Republic). Her current research revolves

around non-state actors in international relations.

Abstract

The decreasing importance of the state as a prominent actor in international politics has

opened a debate about the rising importance of transnational relations. The research focuses

on other actors, including epistemic communities. The paper traces previous research using

the concept of epistemic communities and their influence in international politics and responds

to its limitations. It uses the social constructivist approach for the elaboration of criteria of

the professionalization process needed for recognition of epistemic communities. The paper

also elaborates the concept of their influence in international regulation, including defining

conditions of demand for epistemic communities’ activities. The conditions include the

introduction of complex problems with an element of uncertainty, acquisition of direct or

indirect access to the political decision-making process in the arenas of international politics,

and the ability of these arenas to execute international regulation. The paper also explains

and elaborates the diffusion process of shared beliefs created by epistemic communities. The

ability to diffuse shared beliefs supports modes of persuasion including statistical indicators,

focusing events and narratives. Shared beliefs transfer via a process of institutional learning.

Successful transfer means that shared beliefs become part of a political agenda. Utilization of

the shared beliefs for creation, execution and enforcement of political decisions manifests the

influence of epistemic communities in international politics.

Keywords

Epistemic community, Complexity, Uncertainty, Focusing event, Statistical indicator,

Narrative, International regulation, Social constructivism

How to cite this article

Machoň M; Kohoutová, J; Burešová, J; Bobková, J (2018). "Epistemic communities and their

influence in international politics: updating of the concept". JANUS.NET e-journal of

International Relations, Vol. 9, N.º 2, November 2018-April 2019. Consulted [online] on the

date of the last visit, https://doi.org/10.26619/1647-7251.9.2.1

Article received on January 23, 2018 and accepted for publication on September 3, 2018

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 9, Nº. 2 (November 2018-April 2019), pp.1-15

Epistemic communities and their influence in international politics: updating of the concept

Miloslav Machoň, Jana Kohoutová, Jana Burešová, Jaroslava Bobková

EPISTEMIC COMMUNITIES AND THEIR INFLUENCE IN INTERNATIONAL

POLITICS: UPDATING OF THE CONCEPT

Miloslav Machoň

Jana Kohoutová

Jana Burešová

Jaroslava Bobková

1. Introduction

The decreasing importance of the state as a prominent actor in international politics has

opened a debate in international relations theory about the gradual transformation of

international politics (Burton, 1967). The debate has focused the attention of

international relations scholars on transnational relations, i.e. contacts and interactions

across state boundaries that evade control by foreign policy institutions of governments

(Keohane – Nye, 1971: 330-331). Transnational corporations have become new actors

in international politics, because they influence the formation of North-South relations.

In the 1980s, social constructivism strengthened its position in international relations

with its increased focus on the research of social and ideological structures rather than

purely material factors (Kratochwil, 1989). At the same time, the intensity of bipolar

conflict decreased, which has sparked the debate about the increasing importance and

extent of interdependence (Rosenau, 1990: 11). Aside from states and transnational

corporations, transnational advocacy networks (Finnemore – Sikkink, 1998),

transnational civil society (Kaldor, 2003), transnational social movements (Tarrow, 2005)

and criminal networks (Kahler, 2009) have become fully-fledged actors of international

politics.

Networks of professionals called “epistemic communities” (Haas, 1990: 2) have also

become actors of international politics. The previous research of epistemic communities

has been based mostly on a positivist approach to social sciences (Greene, 2014). Only

a couple of studies on epistemic communities have taken the social constructivist

approach into consideration. However, these studies lack a complex theoretical and

methodological approach. Instead, they focus only on partial aspects, such as formal

communication among members of epistemic communities in journals (Toke, 1999) or

the selection process of epistemic community members (Gjefsen, 2017) or they do not

We would like to thank Jeremy Alan Garlick, PhD (University of Economics, Prague) for English language

review. We also acknowledge Radka Druláková, PhD, Associate Professor and Štěpánka Zemanová, PhD,

Associate Professor for suggestion with framing of this paper.

This paper was published within the scope of internal research project at the University of Economics,

Prague “IGS 77/2017 Nation Branding and Care about Country Name via New Forms of Diplomacy”.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 9, Nº. 2 (November 2018-April 2019), pp.1-15

Epistemic communities and their influence in international politics: updating of the concept

Miloslav Machoň, Jana Kohoutová, Jana Burešová, Jaroslava Bobková

acknowledge the existence of common culture in an organization associating an epistemic

community (Bueger, 2015).

This paper responds to the limitations of the previous research by clarifying the concept

of epistemic communities and the influence of these communities in international politics.

The paper proceeds in five steps. First, it presents the concept of epistemic communities

introduced by Peter M. Haas and the main points of its critics. Second, the paper

elaborates on the concept of epistemic communities using the social constructivist model

introduced by Cross that emphasizes the presence of professionalization in governmental

and non-governmental organizations. The social constructivism approach is also used for

the study of epistemic communities’ influence in international regulation.

Third, the paper develops aspects of complexity and uncertainty. Fourth, conditions of

epistemic communities’ access to decision-making processes in international politics

arenas and the ability of these arenas to execute international regulation are discussed.

Fifth, the presentation strategies of epistemic communities are specified and qualitative

operationalization of their influence in international regulation clarified. Among

presentation strategies the paper has included focusing events, statistical indicators and

framing beliefs through narratives. For qualitative operationalization of the influence, the

concept of institutional learning is applied.

2. The concept of epistemic communities

The research on networks of professionals has drawn inspiration from studies published

by Foucault (1970; 1980). In compliance with them, knowledge is based on the

relationship between the historically- and culturally-based social rules of “episteme”

(Foucault, 1970: 285-287). The epistemic function is to determine adequate resources

and methods for organizing knowledge.

Ruggie (1975: 567-570) further developed Foucault's epistemic concept by generalizing

the activity of epistemic communities. According to Ruggie (1975: 569-570), epistemic

communities participate in the institutionalization of policies adopted in international

political arenas for they form social reality by explaining the relationship between causes

and consequences.

Drawing on previous authors, Haas (1992: 3-5) defined the epistemic community as a

network or as a set of relations between professionals with a recognized degree of

expertise and competence in a particular thematic domain (Carayannis et al., 2011: 132).

Within this network, (1) a set of normative, value and (2) causal beliefs, (3) the concept

of validity and (4) political belief are shared. The recognized degree of expertise and

competence enables this network of professionals to have an authoritative claim to assess

the state of knowledge in a given domain (Haas, 1992: 7-14). According to Haas (2001:

11579-11580), the shared criteria of the epistemic community for assessing the level of

expertise are an essential feature that significantly differentiates epistemic communities

from other actors influencing political decisions (e. g. social movements and interest

groups – Haas, 1992: 17-19).

Despite the high degree of elaboration, the concept of epistemic communities and their

influence in international politics has been criticized several times. Criticism explicitly

challenged the criteria by which Haas defined the concept of epistemic communities

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 9, Nº. 2 (November 2018-April 2019), pp.1-15

Epistemic communities and their influence in international politics: updating of the concept

Miloslav Machoň, Jana Kohoutová, Jana Burešová, Jaroslava Bobková

(Dunlop, 2000: 140-141). Haas put a great deal of emphasis on shared normative and

causal beliefs, along with shared procedures for determining accuracy.

However, the criteria do not outline the relationship between the internal cohesion of the

epistemic community and its ability to diffuse shared normative and causal beliefs among

other actors of international politics (Waarden – Drahos, 2002: 930). Moreover, the

criteria do not specify the precise conditions for admission of new members to an

organization associating epistemic communities (Lorenz-Meyer, 2010: not paged). In

addition to that, Haas did not allow for the possibility of change of these criteria (Dunlop,

2000: 41). However, this change occurs in the process of negotiation that takes place

within the epistemic community and in its interaction with other actors (Sebenius, 1992:

324-325).

The theoretical framework must take into account the fact that the epistemic community

is an active international policy actor interacting with other actors of international politics

(Dunlop, 2012: 234). Therefore, the conditions for the entry of epistemic communities

into the arena of politics should be specified in detail during the revision (Håkanson,

2010: 12-17).

The way of articulation and diffusion of the political beliefs of the epistemic community

also requires more specification. It should be based on the analysis of used

communication symbols, including statistical outputs such as image and graphical

representations. Thus, the concept of epistemic communities should be broadened to

encompass the findings of social constructivism. As such, its analytical capacity would be

broadened and a wider spectrum of international networks might be included in the

research program of epistemic communities (Zito, 2001: 600-601).

3. Professionalization in governmental and non-governmental

organisations

The weak points of the Haas’s concept of epistemic communities have been addressed

by Cross (2013: 147-159). Her revision of the original model puts emphasis on

professionalization which offers more concrete criteria for identification of an organisation

that gathers epistemic communities and for judging their influence on other actors of

international relations (see Table 1). Her concept builds on the assumption that an

epistemic community is a functioning social mechanism which coordinates the activity of

its members (Cross, 2013: 149-150; Tarko, 2015: 65-66). The capability of an epistemic

community to create shared normative and causal beliefs and to persuade other actors

of international politics of them through a process of institutional learning depends

primarily on the degree of internal cohesion of the organisation gathering the epistemic

community rather than just the degree of recognised expertise and its governmental (or

non-governmental) character (Carayannis et al., 2011: 138-139).

Cross is also the first to study the preconditions of an epistemic community for its

adaptation and integrity (Schein, 2010: 17-18; Cross, 2013: 150-151). Adaptation and

integrity influence the efficiency level of activity of the epistemic community and its

relevance to other actors of international relations. An epistemic community is relevant

and its activities efficient when the ways of perception, thinking and position-taking on

problems that disrupt the adaptation and integrity of the epistemic community are

transferred between the individual members of that community in the right way.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 9, Nº. 2 (November 2018-April 2019), pp.1-15

Epistemic communities and their influence in international politics: updating of the concept

Miloslav Machoň, Jana Kohoutová, Jana Burešová, Jaroslava Bobková

Cross (2013: 149) calls the social interaction between members of epistemic

communities “professionalization”, or a special kind of it that establishes, refines, and re-

establishes the role and status of a given profession. Professionalization reinforces

internal cohesion of an epistemic community for it contributes to formulation, diffusion

and adoption of ideas within the epistemic community (Cross, 2015: 91-93). This process

exists within the organisation gathering the epistemic communities. In its framework,

common visions, shared standards and the professional identity itself are formulated and

modified.

On the national level, epistemic communities consist of professionals working in different

institutions, including government, universities, private sector entities or non-

governmental organisations (Carayannis et al., 2011: 131-132). On the international

level, these professionals meet within international governmental and non-governmental

organisations. In doing so, they create transnational networks with a degree of

recognised knowledge and expertise in a particular domain (Carayannis et al., 2011:

134; Cross, 2013: 150).

Identification of an epistemic community thus requires an assessment of whether there

is (in international organisations) the professionalization process that is delimited by

three criteria: (1) common culture, (2) selections of members and opportunities for their

further professional development, and (3) meeting frequency and quality.

Table 1: Criteria for recognition of epistemic communities by Haas and Cross

AUTHOR

CRITERIA

Peter M. Haas

 normative and value beliefs

 causal beliefs

 notions of validity

 policy enterprise

Mai'a K. Davis Cross

 common culture (purpose, symbolism, heritage, identity, and

consensus)

 selections of new members and their further professional

development

 personal meetings

Source: authors on the basis of the above identified used sources

Common culture comprises five elements (Schein, 2010: 14-16; Cross, 2013: 150-151).

The first of them is the shared purpose, which are the common publicly stated values,

for the realization of which the epistemic community struggles through its activities. It is

through fulfilment of these publicly stated values that the epistemic community achieves

scientific progress. It consists in the accumulation of scientific truths, which are a part of

logical models representing scientific theories and which help us to realize, understand

and explain phenomena of the surrounding world (Fano – Macchia, 2015: 65, 72).

The second element of common culture is the shared symbolism that consists of a set of

characteristics of the epistemic community. It is imprinted in official materials, including

buildings, office equipment or presentation on the internet. The third element is the

common heritage which the epistemic community passes to next generations. It is

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 9, Nº. 2 (November 2018-April 2019), pp.1-15

Epistemic communities and their influence in international politics: updating of the concept

Miloslav Machoň, Jana Kohoutová, Jana Burešová, Jaroslava Bobková

created in conformity with democratic values and it becomes a socio-economic

contribution to the next generations (Lacey, 2016: 14).

The fourth element of common culture lies in shared identity. These are the ideological

principles and mental models that determine the way of perception, thinking and acting

of members of the epistemic community. The common ideological principles and mental

models are based on neutrality, impartiality and resistance (Lacey, 2016: 2-3).

Lastly, the fifth element of common culture is the shared focus on reaching consensus

(Tarko, 2015: 70). A consensus-driven process represents an alternative to voting and

the final phase of deliberation, in which members of the epistemic community formulate

and modify common visions, shared standards, and the professional identity itself.

According to Cross (2013: 150-151), professionalization is reinforced also by selection of

new members and professional development of the current ones. Both types are

dependent on the size of contribution to scientific progress and the consequent level of

prestige (Tarko, 2015: 71-72). Contribution to scientific progress is assessed in a self-

evaluative process. It is a kind of communication that is used, despite of its sizeable

criticism (cf. Binswanger, 2014), for evaluation of professional quality and

methodological admissibility of a broad range of epistemic communities’ activities (Lee

et al., 2013: 2-3, 10-12). The evaluation respects the principles of neutrality,

impartiality, autonomy, methodology, cognitive criteria and resistance to outer

influences. This reinforces its reliability from which is consequently derived the level of

prestige and contribution to scientific progress which takes on the form of a quotation

index (Lee et al., 2013: 4). An intensive professional preparation equally contributes to

reinforcement of professionalization (Cross, 2015: 150-151).

The third element of the professionalised epistemic community is frequent long “face-to-

face” meetings of individual members (Cross, 2013: 151). At these meetings, the

members of the epistemic community strengthen shared professional norms, such as

internal procedures, protocol, and standards of consensus-building, which is done in a

less formal way than a conversation hosted by journal papers (Tarko, 2015: 74). During

the meetings of epistemic communities, also informal (behind-the-scenes) meetings in

smaller groups take place and enable a more intensive socialisation and strengthening of

personal relations.

The reinforcement of shared professional norms can be considered effective when the

cores of problems are dealt with in the formal and informal meetings and when the

personal meetings are frequent (Cross, 2013: 150-151; Cross, 2015: 92). The meetings

of epistemic communities’ members are also a kind of a ritual where important events

are recalled, awards granted, and results of professional activities of individual members

announced. It is also the place where friendly relations and commitment to common

objectives, or “esprit de corps”, are reinforced (Cross, 2011: 28; Cross, 2015: 91-93).

The development of esprit de corps is more intensive when individual members of an

epistemic community used to cooperate together in a professional way before or when

they used to hold the same working positions in different periods of time. Due to that,

the members do consider themselves as “one team” (Cross, 2011: 29; Cross, 2015: 92).

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 9, Nº. 2 (November 2018-April 2019), pp.1-15

Epistemic communities and their influence in international politics: updating of the concept

Miloslav Machoň, Jana Kohoutová, Jana Burešová, Jaroslava Bobková

4. Complexity and problems uncertainty

In international politics, demand for activities of epistemic communities tends to rise

when complex problems with an element of uncertainty arise (Adler – Haas, 1992: 373,

375; Cross, 2015: 92). A complex problem is a problem where a cause-effect relationship

is difficult to identify (Renn, 2015: 55-56). Complexity of problems in international

politics is reinforced by globalisation (Turner – Holton, 2015: 14-15). Globalisation is a

multidimensional planetary social process in the framework of which the number and

quality of interdependent relations between cultures, commodities, information and

people increase.

During political negotiations on complex problems of international politics, the causes

and effects of these problems are dealt with (see Table 2). Impact of mutual relations

and dependence are taken into consideration in the discussion. Mutual relations concern

the relation between causes, effects and the problems of international politics. Discussion

of mutual relations assesses whether two or more mutually independent causes lead to

a problem of international politics and whether this problem does not produce two or

more independent effects.

On the other hand, discussion of mutual dependence focuses only on the relation between

causes and effects of problems in international politics, though not only on problems

alone. The evaluation consists in examination of mutual influence between causes and

effects of problems of international politics. When discussion of mutual relations and

mutual dependence is combined, dilemmas occur. Their solution does not get by without

coordination of mutually different actors of different identities and interests (Renn –

Klinke, 2012: 61; Renn, 2015: 55-56).

Table 2: Complexity and problems uncertainty

ASPECT

COMPONENT OF ASPECT

COMPLEXITY

Difficulty in identification and quantification of cause and effect

Widening and deepening of the influence of globalisation

Mutual relations and dependence

UNCERTAINTY

Interferential effects

Variability of problems

Lack of knowledge

Indeterminacy of problems

Source: author on the basis of identified used sources

Political actors have limited or even no knowledge of the element of uncertainty. This

makes it more difficult to assess the expected positive and negative consequences of a

political decision (Adler-Haas, 1992: 373, 375, Cross, 2013: 151-153). Subjective or

objective lack of knowledge is a permanent part of international politics which goes even

beyond the situations called "crisis". It exists in almost all of its areas, including political

negotiations on global pandemics, mass migration, the way to fight pirates, or to slow

down climate change even beyond the situations which are called "crisis" (Hay, 1999:

317-335). The lack of knowledge occurs if the problem shows at least one of the

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 9, Nº. 2 (November 2018-April 2019), pp.1-15

Epistemic communities and their influence in international politics: updating of the concept

Miloslav Machoň, Jana Kohoutová, Jana Burešová, Jaroslava Bobková

uncertainty characteristics - interferential effects, variability of problems, lack of

knowledge, and indeterminacy of problems (Renn – Klinke, 2012: 61-62, Türkşen –

Özkan, 2014: 160).

The first two characteristics of uncertainty – variability and interferential effects – are

subjective components of uncertainty. This arises as a result of faulty measurements that

can be narrowed down or almost eliminated by improving the level of existing knowledge

and assessment methods (Renn – Klinke, 2012: 61-62). Variability arises in a situation

where the problem creates a different relationship with each political actor, leading to

mutual disagreements. Interferential effects are related to the overlapping of the problem

with other problems and the occurrence of systematic and random errors that emerge

during problem evaluation by modelling, statistical methods, or experiments.

The remaining characteristics of the uncertainty - lack of knowledge and indeterminacy

of the problem – are objective characteristics of uncertainty (Renn – Klinke, 2012: 61-

62). Lack of knowledge is associated with a lack of information about the nature of the

problem or a lack of information about the occurrence of a harmful event and its possible

consequences. Indeterminacy of the problem lies in the presence of a random event and

the inclusion of a suboptimal number of variables into the problem evaluation. An

objective component of uncertainty may be, in contrast to its subjective one, only

partially eliminated, but not entirely removed by the improvement of existing knowledge

and evaluation methods (Türkşen – Özkan, 2014: 160).

5. Epistemic Communities' access to International Regulation

To diffuse beliefs among other actors in international politics, epistemic communities

must first acquire direct or indirect access to the political decision-making process in the

arena of international politics (Adler – Haas, 1992: 375-378; Carayannis et al., 2011:

135). Direct access is understood as involving members of an epistemic community in

political decision-making and in transferring responsibility for creating and implementing

policies to members of epistemic communities or the epistemic community as such.

Organizations unifying epistemic communities can gain direct access by acquiring a

consultative status, while individuals from epistemic communities can gain direct access

to the decision-making process in the policy arenas by getting long-term jobs or by

concluding one-time consultative contracts (Adler - Haas, 1992: 376, Carayannis et al.,

2011: 135). Organizing professional symposia during political negotiations and the

formulation of statements on political issues in professional studies is an example of

indirect access by epistemic communities to the decision-making process in policy

arenas.

Within the international policy arena, international political decisions are negotiated and

implemented (Webber – Smith, 2014: 30). Their function is to exercise international

regulation that represents a deliberate and direct intervention in activities of actors in a

particular area of international politics through the making of a set of rules, norms,

principles and decision-making procedures (see Table 3 / Krasner, 1982: 186, Koop –

Lodge, 2017: 105). The rules are understood as abstract objects that exist independently

of human activities outside of space and time and guide behaviour (Hage, 2015: 14).

Human activity in the form of an expression of consent by an individual or community

decides whether these rules are valid (Sainsbury – Tye, 2013: 42).

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 9, Nº. 2 (November 2018-April 2019), pp.1-15

Epistemic communities and their influence in international politics: updating of the concept

Miloslav Machoň, Jana Kohoutová, Jana Burešová, Jaroslava Bobková

Table 3: Elements of international regulation

 Rules

 Norms

 Principles

 Decision-making procedures

Source: authors on the basis of identified used sources

The rules that define acceptable or forbidden manners of behaviour using a value-based

reason are called norms (Hage, 2015: 14; Wang-Wang, 2015: 200). The value-based

reason takes the form of a causal or guiding relationship (Hage, 2011: 156-157). The

causal relationship explains the connection between the cause and consequence of the

relationship between two or more events or between events and the mental state. In

contrast, the guiding relationship defines the connection between events and acceptable

or forbidden behaviour or between the mental state and the acceptable or forbidden

manners of behaviour (Hage, 2011: 157-158). The principles are rules that alike norms

create acceptable or forbidden behaviour using moral reason (Bix, 2015: 135-142). Moral

reason is distinguished from norm assessment reason since its validity must be accepted

- if possible - by all members of a particular group or society (Grabowski, 2015: 344).

Decision-making procedures are also elements of international regulation. They

represent a process of negotiation during which political actors argue about formulation,

execution and enforcement of political decisions (Krasner, 1982: 186; Wu et al., 2012:

50-51; Ciot, 2014: 64-65). Their form depends on the character of active actors

participating in the political arena – particularly on their perceptions, preferences,

attitudes to the problem and their capacity of power. An actor can be an individual or

group of individuals that represent mentioned political and bureaucratic elites and has

full responsibility for fulfilling their political goals. Within the negotiating process, they

take up a particular position which affects their bargaining approach or, more precisely,

their influence on a solution to an international political problem (Ciot, 2014: 107-111).

Actors’ perceptions, preferences and positions to the problem are related to broader

national interests, including security issues, which embrace values that are crucial to the

actor’s survival and its economic prosperity (Webber – Smith, 2014: 39-42). The form of

a decision-making procedure dealing with a particular problem is determined by

complexity and uncertainty levels. These are directly linked to an actor’s ability to foresee

consequences and outcomes of adopted political decisions (Wu et al., 2012: 53-54). If

he is able to anticipate them in advance and supposing there is consensus on the

development of a political decision between all of the relevant actors, their decision-

making is considered to be rational, since they contemplate maximization of interests

and values (Wu et al., 2012: 53).

Contrarily, if a given decision-making process is pressed for time and an actor’s ability

to forestall the consequences of a particular political decision is limited, decisions of

actors active in the political arena depend on the given conflict, and their own ability to

negotiate and make a compromise. In this case, the desired outcome would be successive

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 9, Nº. 2 (November 2018-April 2019), pp.1-15

Epistemic communities and their influence in international politics: updating of the concept

Miloslav Machoň, Jana Kohoutová, Jana Burešová, Jaroslava Bobková

comparisons between proposed amendments and decisions that have been previously

carried out and enforced. It usually indicates marginal alteration of the current state. The

maximisation of individual goals is objectionable.

Regarding this marginal change, political decisions correspond with discharging of

interests and values of individual actors rather than with the technologically most efficient

problem-solving method (Wu et al., 2012: 53-54). Provided there is apparently high

uncertainty between actors regarding decision consequences and there is a high number

of actors involved in the process, the final political decision will be in accordance with the

temporary goals and values of the actor or group of actors having the biggest power

potential at their disposal (Wu et al., 2012: 54).

6. Diffusing beliefs of epistemic communities

Epistemic communities use modes of persuasion when introducing a problem, and their

ability to diffuse shared normative and causal beliefs among other actors of international

politics grows (see Table 4). Modes of persuasion include statistical indicators, focusing

events and framing beliefs by narratives. Statistical indicators as an exact method

demonstrate accuracy, correctness and objectivity through fine measuring (Stone, 2011:

184, 197). Before that, the data are sorted by analogy into two groups. The one having

substantial characteristics of the problem becomes the subject of measurement, while

the other one with inessential features will be omitted (Stone, 2016: 161). By

commencing this process, the epistemic community indicates interest in pursuing further

development which is related to the rising importance of the problem (Kingdon, 2014:

90-94; Stone 2016: 166). The course of categorization depends on the judgment of an

actor who assesses the problem and on a form of created categories which is conditional

on social culture in a particular place and time (Stone, 2016: 162).

Table 4: Modes of persuasion of epistemic communities

 statistical indicators

 focusing events

 narratives

Source: author on the basis of identified used sources

Epistemic communities can diffuse their beliefs more easily by expressing the nature of

the problem through figures. It expresses the common attributes of a particular problem

and unifies them into groups (Stone, 2011: 194). Furthermore, diffusion is facilitated

also by identification of problem magnitude through several statistical indexes from

different sources (Birkland, 2011: 192-193). The ability of epistemic communities to do

that is associated with the particular interpretation of indexes dealing with the problem

(Kingdon, 2014: 93-94). If the statistical indexes are related to a crucial argument

supporting adoption of a political decision, it increases (Pearson, 2010: 344-346).

Focusing events also significantly augment the ability of an epistemic community to

diffuse its beliefs (Birkland, 2011: 180). They symbolise triggers that transform negligible

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 9, Nº. 2 (November 2018-April 2019), pp.1-15

Epistemic communities and their influence in international politics: updating of the concept

Miloslav Machoň, Jana Kohoutová, Jana Burešová, Jaroslava Bobková

problems to ones that require fundamental decisions. They increase not only the

probability of a long-lasting problem remaining on the political agenda but also the

possibility of finding a solution to the given problem.

Their common characteristics are suddenness and relative rareness (Birkland –

Warnement, 2013: 4). They cause consequences that are focused on an exact place and

time and cover a large realm. They bring negative externalities to the immediate

attention of political actors.

Narratives are another option for epistemic communities to diffuse their beliefs among

other actors of international politics. These communication means comprise of four

elements: the frame of the narrative, characters, storyline and lessons to be learned

(Jones et al., 2014: 5). By its creation, the narrative is framed into a particular context

(indisputable legal and institutional principles, commonly known and widely respected

facts relating to specific geographical area – Jones et al. 2014: 6).

The characters of a given narrative as anthropomorphic abstractions of specific context

do not have to be just persons. However, they always have human characteristics or

appearance (Stone, 2011: 166-169). Characters play three different roles: heroes, if they

solve a political problem; villains, if they cause one; and victims, if they are aggrieved

by it. The storyline defines the relation between the characters and the story. It can be

found all over the story.

The denouement of a given storyline can be detected by the alteration of problem-solving

and by use of power. The second option can lead to both gain/loss of control over a

political problem (Stone, 2011: 159-168). The story ends either with a moral which

constitutes a draft of a political decision and strengthens the current situation, or

information about uncertainty that requires thorough specification of a problem (McBeth

et al., 2012: 163-164).

Epistemic communities diffuse their beliefs among other actors of international politics

via a process of institutional learning (Carayannis et al., 2011: 138-140). Provided

transfer of beliefs is successful, they are taken into consideration and beliefs gradually

become part of a political agenda (Birkland, 2011: 169-170). An agenda comprises a list

of problems and their solutions which are debated by actors of international politics in

the international political arena. In practice, it means that a given problem has caught

actors’ attention. After a problem is solved, it is pulled out of the political agenda.

Supposing actors utilize shared beliefs for formulation, execution and enforcement of

political decisions during this process, epistemic communities’ influence is manifested in

a particular international political agenda, more precisely in international politics (Dunlop,

2012: 238-240).

7. Conclusion

This paper traced previous research using the concept of epistemic communities and their

influence in international politics and responded to its limitations. The paper used a social

constructivist approach for elaboration criteria of the professionalization process needed

for recognition of epistemic communities. It nominally concretized and elaborated

elements of common culture, the selection process of new members, possibilities of their

further professional development and the importance of frequent meetings of individual

members.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 9, Nº. 2 (November 2018-April 2019), pp.1-15

Epistemic communities and their influence in international politics: updating of the concept

Miloslav Machoň, Jana Kohoutová, Jana Burešová, Jaroslava Bobková

It also elaborated the concept of their influence in international regulation. The paper

specified conditions of demand for activities of epistemic communities. Among these

conditions is the introduction of complex problems with an element of uncertainty,

acquisition of direct or indirect access to the political decision-making process in the

arenas of international politics and the ability of these arenas to execute international

regulation.

Finally, the paper explained and elaborated the diffusion process of shared beliefs created

by epistemic communities. It is diffused between other actors of international politics by

modes of persuasion that are comprised of three main attributes: statistical indicators,

focusing events and narratives. Shared beliefs are transferred between epistemic

communities and other actors via a process of institutional learning. The process is

considered successful when they become part of the political agenda. Utilization of the

shared beliefs for formulation, execution and enforcement of political decisions is

manifested in the influence of epistemic communities in international politics. Theoretical

framework presented here opens the horizon for doing case study research on different

specific areas, such as environmental and climate diplomacy, trade agreements,

monetary unions reforms and many others.

References

Adler, Emanuel – Haas, Peter (1992). Conclusion: Epistemic Communities, World Order,

And The Creation of a Reflective Research Program. International Organization. (46)1:

367-390.

Binswanger, Mathias (2014). Excellence by Nonsense: The Competition for Publications

in Modern Science, in: Bartling, Sönke – Friesike, Sascha (eds.), Opening Science.

Springer, 49-72.

Birkland, Thomas – Warnement, Megan (2013). Defining, Explaining, and Testing the

Role of Focusing Events in Agenda Change: 30 Years of Focusing Event Theory [online].

APSA 2013 Annual Meeting Paper. [15. 1. 2018]. Available at

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2300441.

Birkland, Thomas (2011). An Introduction to the Public Policy Process: Theories,

Concepts, and Models of Public Policy Making. Armonk: Sharpe.

Bix, Brian (2015). Rules and normativity in law, in: Araszkiewicz, Michał – Banas, Paweł

– Gizbert-Studnicki, Tomasz – Pleszka, Krysztof (eds.), Problems of Normativity, Rules

and Rule-Following. Springer, 125-146.

Bueger, Christian (2015). Making things known: epistemic practices, the United Nations,

and the translation of piracy. International Political Sociology. (9)1: 1-18.

Burton John (1967). International Relations: A General Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Carayannis, Elias – Pirzadeh, Ali – Popescu, Denisa (2011). Institutional learning and

knowledge transfer across epistemic communities: new tools of global governance.

Springer Science & Business Media.

Ciot, Melania-Gabriela (2014). Negotiation and Foreign Policy Decision Making.

Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 9, Nº. 2 (November 2018-April 2019), pp.1-15

Epistemic communities and their influence in international politics: updating of the concept

Miloslav Machoň, Jana Kohoutová, Jana Burešová, Jaroslava Bobková

Cross, Mai'a (2011). Security Integration in Europe: How Knowledge-Based Networks are

Transforming the European Union. University of Michigan Press.

Cross, Mai'a (2013). Rethinking Epistemic Communities Twenty Years Later. Review of

International Studies. (39)1: 137-160.

Cross, Mai'a (2015). The Limits of Epistemic Communities: EU Security Agencies. Politics

and Governance. (3)1: 90–100.

Dunlop, Claire (2000). Epistemic Communities: A Reply to Toke. Politics. (20)3: 137-

144.

Dunlop, Claire (2012). Epistemic Communities, in: Araral, Eduardo – Fritzen, Scott –

Howlett, Michael – Ramesh, Michael – Wu, Xun (eds.), Routledge Handbook of Public

Policy. Routledge, 229-243.

Fano, Vincenzo – Macchia, Giovanni (2015). Scientific Progress. in: Alai, Mario – Buzzoni,

Marco – Tarozzi, Gino (eds.), Science Between Truth and Ethical Responsibility. Springer,

65-78.

Foucault, Michel (1970). The order of things: An archaeology of the human sciences. New

York: Pantheon.

Foucault, Michel (1980). Power/knowledge. New York: Pantheon.

Gjefsen, Mads (2017). Crafting the expert-advocate: training and recruitment efforts in

the carbon dioxide capture and storage community. Innovation: The European Journal of

Social Science Research. (30)3: 1-24.

Grabowski, Andrzej (2015). The Validity of Moral Rules and Principles as a Legal Problem.

in: Araszkiewicz, Michał – Banas, Paweł – Gizbert-Studnicki, Tomasz – Pleszka, Krysztof

(eds.), Problems of Normativity, Rules and Rule-Following. Springer, 341-349.

Greene, Jack (2014). The Upside and Downside of the ‘Police Science’ Epistemic

Community. Policing. (8)4: 379-392.

Haas, Peter (1990). Saving the Mediterranean: The Politics of International

Environmental Cooperation. New York: Columbia University Press.

Haas, Peter (1992). Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination:

Introduction. International Organization. (46)1: 1-35.

Haas, Peter (2001). Policy Knowledge: Epistemic Communities. in: Baltes, Paul – Neil,

Smelser (eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. Oxford:

Pergamon, 11578-11586.

Hage, Jaap (2015). Separating rules from normativity. in: Araszkiewicz, Michał – Banas,

Paweł – Gizbert-Studnicki, Tomasz – Pleszka, Krysztof (eds.), Problems of normativity,

rules and rule-following. Springer, 13-29.

Håkanson, Lars (2010). The firm as an epistemic community: the knowledge-based view

revisited. Industrial and Corporate Change. (19)6: 1801-1828.

Hay, Colin (1999). Crisis and The Structural Transformation of The State: Interrogating

The Process Of Change. The British Journal of Politics & International Relations. (1)3:

317-344.

Jones, Michel – McBeth, Mark – Shanahan, Elizabeth (2014). Introducing the narrative

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 9, Nº. 2 (November 2018-April 2019), pp.1-15

Epistemic communities and their influence in international politics: updating of the concept

Miloslav Machoň, Jana Kohoutová, Jana Burešová, Jaroslava Bobková

policy framework. in: Jones, Michel – McBeth, Mark – Shanahan, Elizabeth (eds.), The

Science of Stories. Springer, 1-25.

Kahler, Miles (2009). Collective action and clandestine Networks: The case of al Qaeda.

in: Kahler, Miles (ed.), Networked politics: Agency, power, and governance, New York:

Cornell University Press, 103-124.

Kaldor, Mary (2003): The Idea Of Global Civil Society. International Affairs, (79)3: 583-

593.

Keohane, Robert – Nye, Joseph (1971). Transnational Relations And World Politics: An

Introduction. International Organization. (25)3: 329–349.

Kingdon, John (2014): Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. London: Pearson

Education.

Koop, Christel – Lodge, Martin (2017). What is regulation? An interdisciplinary concept

analysis. Regulation & Governance. (11)1: 95–108.

Krasner, Stephen (1982). Structural causes and regime consequences: regimes as

intervening variables. International Organization. (36) 02: 185–205.

Kratochwil, Friedrich (1989). Norms, Rules and Decisions. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Lacey, Hugh (2016). Science, respect for nature, and human well-being: democratic

values and the responsibilities of scientists today. Foundations of Science. (21)1: 51–67.

Lee, Carole – Sugimoto, Cassidy – Zhang, Guo – Cronin, Blaise (2013). Bias in peer

review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. (64)1:

2–17.

Lorenz-Meyer, Dagmar (2010). Possibilities of enacting and researching epistemic

communities. Sociological Research Online. (15) 2: 1–13.

McBeth, Mark – Shanahan, Elizabeth – Arrandale Anderson, Molly – Rose, Barbara

(2012). Policy story or gory story? Narrative policy framework analysis of Buffalo field

campaign’s YouTube videos. Policy & Internet. (4)3–4: 159–183.

Pearson, Robert (2010). Statistical persuasion: How to collect, analyze, and present

data... accurately, honestly, and persuasively. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Renn, Ortwin – Klinke, Andreas – Asselt, Marjolein van (2012). Complexity, uncertainty

and ambiguity in inclusive risk governance. Collingwood: CSIRO Publishing.

Renn, Ortwin (2015). Risk. In: Pattberg, Philipp – Zelli, Fariborz (eds.): Encyclopedia of

Global Environmental Governance and Politics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, s.

53–60.

Ruggie, John (1975). International Responses To Technology: Concepts And Trends.

International Organization. (29)3: 557–583.

Sainsbury, Mark – Tye, Michael (2013). Seven Puzzles of Thought: And How to Solve

Them: An Originalist Theory of Concepts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sebenius, James (1992). Challenging conventional explanations of international

cooperation: negotiation analysis and the case of epistemic communities. International

Organization. 46(1): 323–365.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 9, Nº. 2 (November 2018-April 2019), pp.1-15

Epistemic communities and their influence in international politics: updating of the concept

Miloslav Machoň, Jana Kohoutová, Jana Burešová, Jaroslava Bobková

Schein, Edgar (2010). Organizational Culture and Leadership. New York: John Wiley &

Sons.

Stone, Deborah (2011). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York:

WW Norton and Company.

Stone, Deborah (2016). Quantitative analysis as narrative. In: Bevir, Mark – Rhodes,

Arthur William (eds.) Routledge Handbook of Interpretive Political Science. Routledge,

157–170.

Tarko, Vlad (2015). Polycentric structure and informal norms: competition and

coordination within the scientific community. Innovation: The European Journal of Social

Science Research. (28)1: 63–80.

Tarrow, Sidney (2005). The New Transnational Activism. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Toke, Dave (1999). Epistemic Communities And Environmental Groups. Politics. (19)2:

97–102.

Türkşen, Burhan – Özkan, Ibrahim (2014). Recent Advancement in Fuzzy System: Full

Type 2 Fuzziness. Chaos and Complexity Theory in World Politics. IGI Global, 158–168.

Turner, Bryan – Holton, Robert (2015). Theories of Globalization: Issues and origins. In:

Turner, Bryan – Holton, Robert (eds.). The Routledge International Handbook of

Globalization Studies. Abingdon: Routledge, 1–22.

Waarden, Frans van – Drahos, Michaela (2002). Courts and (Epistemic) Communities in

The Convergence Of Competition Policies. Journal of European Public Policy. (9)6: 913–

934.

Wang, Peng-Hsiang – Wang, Linton (2015). Rules as Reason-Giving Facts: A Difference-

Making-Based Account of the Normativity of Rules. In: Araszkiewicz, Michał – Banas,

Paweł – Gizbert-Studnicki, Tomasz – Pleszka, Krysztof (eds.): Problems of Normativity,

Rules and Rule-Following. Springer, s. 199–213.

Webber, Mark – Smith, Michael (2014). Foreign policy in a transformed world. London:

Routledge.

Wu, Xun – Ramesh, Martin – Howlett, Michael – Fritzen, Scott (2012). The public policy

primer: Managing the policy process. London: Routledge.

Zito, Anthony (2001). Epistemic Communities, Collective Entrepreneurship and European

Integration. Journal of European Public Policy. (8)4: 585–603.