Exploring the Social Construction and Public Perceptions of Expertise Through the Lens of Fandom


J Overholser, University of Calgary

What is considered “expertise” in contemporary western society? Who is able to claim the status of “expert” and how do they do so? How do traditional “experts” maintain positions of authority in a time when there is growing distrust of formal institutions of knowledge and power? Exploring these questions, we argue in our paper that fandom studies offer a conceptual framework and empirically driven insights that help inform directions for researching the social construction and public perceptions of expertise. Expertise, especially the legitimacy and credibility of expert knowledge, has faced growing challenges in recent years. The increasing erosion of what we consider traditional notions of expertise has become more prevalent under what some dub a post-truth era replete with misinformation, disinformation, and uncertainties regarding what constitute basic facts and scientific knowledge. Furthermore, historical distrust of formal institutions of knowledge and power, especially by various marginalized communities continues to grow and add to these challenges. These challenges impact all areas of life from politics to social movements and activism, to popular culture and more. Yet especially since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, they have particularly impacted and been exacerbated regarding medical expertise, e.g., the professional knowledge and guidance provided by physicians, epidemiologists, and other specialists on disease and contagion. In our presentation, we will provide a brief overview of fandom studies and outline the basis of our arguments for the relevancy of fandom studies for examining the social construction and public perceptions of expertise. To illustrate how a fandom studies framework can be used to analyze the construction and perception of expertise, we will use a case study comparing two prominent claims-makers, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, over medical knowledge and advice. The first half of the case study will analyze Dr. Anthony Fauci, who has served as the Chief Medical Advisor under the Biden administration, and during the Trump administration as the lead of the White House Coronavirus Task Force. We frame Fauci as a traditional elite medical expert and one who faced challenges in the present climate with retaining legitimacy in the eyes of some audiences. In contrast, the second half of the case study looks at Dr. Joseph Mercola, one of the recently identified ‘disinformation dozen’ accused of peddling ‘fake news’ regarding the coronavirus, mask mandates, and so forth. Mercola, we argue, made use of his charismatic persona in linking up to online fandoms to develop a position of authority as an opinion leader. Rather than take up a normative framework demonstrating one ‘side’ to be right over the other, we instead will show how experts who are unable to secure and maintain a ‘fan base’ or a similar connection to the public using online tools and strategies identified within fandom studies, will suffer from a lack of relevance (i.e., credibility and legitimacy). This analysis holds key implications for sociologists themselves, including a discussion of to what extent are sociologists, who wish to gain traction for their research and be recognized as experts themselves, behooved to cultivate and maintain their own fandoms?

Non-presenting author: Michael Adorja, University of Calgary

This paper will be presented at the following session: