Paper short abstract

This paper shows how emotional/affective judgments shape knowledge integration in pandemic science advice. We argue that trust is an affective, anticipatory practice, and that acknowledging this emotional dimension is key to building more socially robust, legitimate and inclusive crisis expertise.

Paper long abstract

This paper examines how emotional dynamics shape the credibility of evidence and expertise in pandemic science advice. While trust in science is often framed as rational and evidence-based, the act of trusting always involves uncertainty and thus emotions of hope, doubt or fear. Sociological work on emotion has long challenged the binary between cognition and feeling, showing that emotions are not irrational impulses but socially and culturally constituted ways of knowing. Drawing on this insight, the paper argues that trust in expert advice during crises is co‑constituted through such emotional practices. For example, what feels resonant tends to appear more trustworthy, and affective ties, charisma, and perceived goodwill influence which experts are judged credible. These dynamics are central to how advisory systems integrate different knowledges under urgency and uncertainty.

Using interviews and observations from UNITY—a Dutch consortium studying integrated science advice during pandemics—we examine how emotional judgments shape knowledge integration within advisory bodies. Experts rely on affective cues when assessing evidence under time pressure, while publics evaluate advisory outputs through culturally grounded interpretations of what counts as “real science.” As advisory systems attempt to include e.g. biomedical, social, ethical, and experiential knowledges, affective dynamics and “economies of credibility” play a decisive role in negotiating legitimacy, authority, and whose knowledge is taken up.

We argue that crisis preparedness frameworks must recognize trust as an affective, anticipatory practice. Making knowledge integration more participatory and just requires attending to the emotional infrastructures through which expertise is granted, contested, and enacted during crises.