LAUSR

ABSTRACT At the decision-making stage, a large-scale infrastructure project is essentially a broad concept, and this means the expert analyses will differ from each other and become contested over time, leading to the emergence of rival narratives. It is only where there is a limited range of expert analyses that the bases for decision-making will remain relatively clear-cut. Over time the contested nature of expertise can significantly inhibit the construction of effective narratives, either for or against the project, and also make decision-making more complex and problematic. Decision makers may also seek greater clarification through the construction of narratives that rise above these disputed areas of expertise, and the scientific evidence becomes less important. This paper examines the changing nature of contested expertise through a comparative analysis of political decision-making between UK trunk roads policy and the case of High Speed Rail 2, through the framework of epistemic communities.