Expertise in online forest discussion

Examining the shared values ​​and discursive strategies of citizen discussions

Abstract

The Finnish public forest debate is characterized by the so-called dispute over expertise, i.e., the struggle over who can participate and on what basis. In the past, the research has mostly focused on the official forest debate, but in the article the focus is on online citizen debate about the forest. The material consists conversations from six different public platforms. The analysis aims to find out, by what discursive strategies and based on what shared values, the expertise and the legitimate status of the expertise of the various parties is produced and invalidated in these discussions. The research shows that the shared values, combining values of the forest discussion and expertise, are repeated in the civil debate: 1) information, 2) reason, 3) reliability, 4) responsibility and 5) morality. Expertise is produced, maintained
and invalidated through various discursive means, and these strategies are driven by shared values. A total of three discursive strategies can be identified from the discussions: 1) authorization, 2) rationalization and 3) moralization. These are complemented and challenged by means of 4) storytelling and 5) compromise speech. These strategies often act as counterparts to each other, and through them different shared values ​​are set against each other.