Epistemic churn: Rethinking layperson & expert relations for digital times

Abstract

This thesis examines how digital platforms are transforming epistemic relationships between credentialed experts and laypersons, asking whether and how these changes lead to constructive collective engagement or destructive societal fragmentation. I employ qualitative, inductive methodology and theoretical analysis across various digital spaces to understand this phenomenon. The findings highlight that digital platforms simultaneously empower laypersons as epistemic agents while creating new vulnerabilities, including the ‘spiraling’ and epistemic polarization processes I theorize in this work. In these dynamics, conflicting expertise and knowledge claims can compound rather than resolve problems. My analysis also reveals how credentialed experts adapt their practices when digital platforms mediate their relationship with laypersons, bringing into sharp relief both the benefits and risks of relying on layperson knowledge. Importantly, rather than focusing on laypersons’ misunderstanding and misuse of expert knowledge, this research examines how expert responses to layperson claims modulate polarization in society. Instead of advocating for restoration of pristine expert authority or complete knowledge democratization, the thesis proposes epistemic pluralism as a practical pathway forward in a digitally mediated world. This approach requires institutional arrangements and good-faith engagement that balance professional expertise with layperson experience and needs, creating more space for productive collaboration rather than adversarial contestation.