Paper long abstract:

Coherent knowledge is a prerequisite for evidence-based policy-making. A substantial part of policy processes can therefore be devoted to collecting and synthesizing knowledge claims. Experts who are recruited to fulfil this task frequently represent different knowledge paradigms. Studies demonstrate that such situations can lead to futile discussions among experts concerning what is the general "truth". It has therefore been argued that experts involved in policy processes should be pragmatic and willing to compromise in order to find temporary "workable truths". This paper continues this discussion.

The paper is based on an ethnographic study of the Weight Project, a policy project run in a Swedish county council. The aim was to produce a knowledge-based action plan for reducing the population's overweight. A variety of experts were recruited and tasked with synthesizing knowledge on prevention and treatment of overweight. The paper investigates, analyses and elaborates on why the experts failed this task. It is argued that a key explanation is that although the experts represented different epistemological (and ontological) knowledge paradigms, they were quite willing to listen to other experts critique of their knowledge claims. The effect was that the experts as a group gradually came to question the validity for the Weight Project of almost all potentially relevant knowledge, including evidence-based guidelines produced by well established institutes.