Abstract
<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title> <jats:p>This chapter examines how turbulence reshapes what it means to ‘see like an expert’ in governance contexts. Traditionally, crisis-related expert governance has relied on boundary work: the active demarcation of science and politics through which experts claim impartiality, suspend contestation, and legitimize (often undemocratic) courses of action. In such settings, experts are mobilized to stabilize decision-making under conditions of urgency. By contrast, contexts framed as turbulent tend to legitimize collaborative governance arrangements and open space for a distinctive form of managerial expertise. Rather than primarily policing the boundary between science and politics, managerial experts present themselves as uniquely capable of navigating turbulence and its politics. From organizing interaction and facilitating deliberation across heterogeneous actors, to managing conflict, they present themselves as better equipped to address long-term challenges. Yet their engagement with ‘politics’ remains tightly constrained, reduced to a coordination exercise. Through an analysis of the global food governance field, this chapter argues that managerial expertise, while appearing non-hierarchical and less prescriptive, still insulates governance from deeper forms of political engagement. More broadly, the chapter reflects on how, under conditions characterized as turbulent, the ‘demarcation problem’ appears as less central to the assertion of expertise.</jats:p>