HPSC90012 Trust, Communication and Expertise
The Complete Study & Assessment Guide · S2 2026HPSC90012 Overview
- Faculty of Arts
- Semester 2, 2026
- graduate coursework
- 12.5 points
- an HPS graduate subject
HPSC90012 Trust, Communication and Expertise covers philosophical and social analysis of trust, expertise, science communication, disagreement, transparency, metascience and post-truth. It is taught within Faculty of Arts. It is graduate coursework. It carries 12.5 points.
- Trust is relational Warrant depends on who relies on whom, for which claim and action, under what vulnerability.
- Expertise is socially organised Competence is recognised and mediated by communities, institutions and reputations.
- Communication changes authority Explanation, transparency and participation can support trust but can also burden or surveil speakers.
- Critique can repair or corrode Contestation and metascience need institutional conditions that distinguish correction from manufactured doubt.
How HPSC90012 is assessed
| Component | Weight | Format |
|---|---|---|
| Essay 1 (1500 words) | 30% | 28 August 2026 at 5 pm |
| Essay 2 (3500 words) | 70% | 6 November 2026 at noon |
| Seminar and tutorial attendance · hurdle | N/A | At least 75% attendance at both; hurdle requirement |
| Submission of all assessment · hurdle | N/A | All assessment must be submitted |
The 2026 syllabus publishes Essay 1 (1500 words) at 30%, due 28 August at 5 pm, and Essay 2 (3500 words) at 70%, due 6 November at noon. At least 75% attendance at both seminars and tutorials is a hurdle, all assessment must be submitted, and late work loses 2% per working day for up to five days. The 30% and 70% essays must both be submitted; submission of all assessment and at least 75% attendance at both seminars and tutorials are required to pass the subject.
Current HPSC90012 dates
| Date | Item | Control |
|---|---|---|
| 28 August 2026 at 5 pm | Essay 1 | 30%, 1500 words. |
| 6 November 2026 at noon | Essay 2 | 70%, 3500 words. |
Dates are as published in the current course materials. Confirm exact deadlines and submission settings in the live LMS.
What HPSC90012 covers
Build the course in three arcs: Truth, Trust and Social Dependence establishes the frame, Contestation, Democracy and Public Expertise deepens it, and Post-Truth, Gaslighting and Trust Repair tests the complete method.
Truth, Trust and Social Dependence
epistemic trust · testimony · epistemic dependence · frame a public knowledge dispute as a relation of relianceDefine epistemic trust
The course material gives this chapter a concrete anchor: Week 1 asks whether the apparent crisis of truth is better understood as a crisis of trust.
- Epistemic trust
- Testimony
- Epistemic dependence
- Applying epistemic trust
- Limits of testimony and epistemic dependence
Epistemic Injustice and Marginalised Knowers
testimonial injustice · hermeneutical injustice · credibility excess · identify how social power shapes who is heard and understoodDefine testimonial injustice
The course material gives this chapter a concrete anchor: Week 3 centres epistemic marginalisation and the politics of credibility.
- Testimonial injustice
- Hermeneutical injustice
- Credibility excess
- Applying testimonial injustice
- Limits of hermeneutical injustice and credibility excess
Models of Science Communication
deficit model · dialogue model · participation model · compare deficit, dialogue and participation modelsDefine deficit model
The course material gives this chapter a concrete anchor: Week 4 examines why deficit assumptions persist in science communication.
- Deficit model
- Dialogue model
- Participation model
- Applying deficit model
- Limits of dialogue model and participation model
Transparency, Explanation and Their Limits
transparency · explanation · accountability · distinguish disclosure, explanation and accountabilityDefine transparency
The course material gives this chapter a concrete anchor: Weeks 5 and related readings test whether transparency and explanation reliably build trust.
- Transparency
- Explanation
- Accountability
- Applying transparency
- Limits of explanation and accountability
Contestation, Democracy and Public Expertise
contestation · epistemic democracy · manufactured controversy · distinguish productive challenge from strategic doubtDefine contestation
The course material gives this chapter a concrete anchor: Week 6 asks whether contestation can build rather than merely erode trust.
- Contestation
- Epistemic democracy
- Manufactured controversy
- Applying contestation
- Limits of epistemic democracy and manufactured controversy
Expertise, Experience and Deference
contributory expertise · interactional expertise · deference · compare credentials, tacit skill, experience and institutional recognitionDefine contributory expertise
The course material gives this chapter a concrete anchor: Week 8 examines whether people who know how deserve special trust.
- Contributory expertise
- Interactional expertise
- Deference
- Applying contributory expertise
- Limits of interactional expertise and deference
Metascience, Reputation and Institutional Self-Critique
metascience · reproducibility · reputation system · evaluate whether self-critique improves trustworthy practiceDefine metascience
The course material gives this chapter a concrete anchor: Week 11 asks whether metascientific criticism increases trust in science.
- Metascience
- Reproducibility
- Reputation system
- Applying metascience
- Limits of reproducibility and reputation system
Post-Truth, Gaslighting and Trust Repair
post-truth · gaslighting · trust repair · distinguish misinformation, gaslighting and structural distrustDefine post-truth
The course material gives this chapter a concrete anchor: The closing sequence connects post-truth diagnosis to possible institutional repair.
- Post-truth
- Gaslighting
- Trust repair
- Applying post-truth
- Limits of gaslighting and trust repair
It is positioned as an HPS graduate subject.
The subject connects epistemology to institutions and public communication through two sustained argumentative essays.
The operational assessment conditions matter here.
Current subject materials and the official timetable control any examination operation.
What makes HPSC90012 demanding is concrete: deciding when reliance on expertise is warranted without treating either distrust or deference as a context-free virtue
Submit both the 30% and 70% essays, and attend at least 75% of both seminars and tutorials; these are required to pass the subject.
For enrolment planning, confirm current eligibility in the 2026 Handbook.
Build the course in three arcs: Truth, Trust and Social Dependence establishes the frame, Contestation, Democracy and Public Expertise deepens it, and Post-Truth, Gaslighting and Trust Repair tests the complete method.
Worked example · free
Audit an appeal to expertise
- 1Specify the claim and decision.
- 1Identify relevant competence and track record.
- 1Inspect independence and procedures.
- 1State what evidence or participation could repair doubt.
Key terms
- Epistemic trust
- Reliance on another person or institution for knowledge under limited direct access. This chapter uses the concept when students frame a public knowledge dispute as a relation of reliance.
- Testimony
- A person's communicative presentation of a claim as true. It helps explain the reasoning required to frame a public knowledge dispute as a relation of reliance.
- Epistemic dependence
- Dependence on others' knowledge, methods or infrastructures to form belief. Its limit matters because scepticism about one institution does not establish a general crisis of truth.
- Testimonial injustice
- Credibility deficit imposed through identity prejudice. This chapter uses the concept when students identify how social power shapes who is heard and understood.
- Hermeneutical injustice
- Unfair disadvantage in making social experience intelligible because interpretive resources are structurally limited. It helps explain the reasoning required to identify how social power shapes who is heard and understood.
- Credibility excess
- Inflated credibility assigned through social power or stereotype. Its limit matters because adding voice without changing interpretive and decision structures may preserve injustice.
- Deficit model
- Communication model treating public disagreement primarily as a lack of scientific information. This chapter uses the concept when students compare deficit, dialogue and participation models.
- Dialogue model
- Two-way engagement in which publics and experts exchange perspectives and knowledge. It helps explain the reasoning required to compare deficit, dialogue and participation models.
- Participation model
- Approach giving affected publics a role in framing or making decisions. Its limit matters because more participation does not automatically resolve unequal power or technical uncertainty.
- Transparency
- Making selected information, processes or interests visible to an audience. This chapter uses the concept when students distinguish disclosure, explanation and accountability.
- Explanation
- Account connecting reasons, mechanisms or evidence to a claim or decision. It helps explain the reasoning required to distinguish disclosure, explanation and accountability.
- Accountability
- Obligation to justify conduct and face appropriate review or consequence. Its limit matters because unstructured disclosure can overwhelm audiences or become surveillance of researchers.
- Contestation
- Structured challenge to claims, reasons or authority. This chapter uses the concept when students distinguish productive challenge from strategic doubt.
HPSC90012 FAQ
Where is the hardest reasoning in Trust, Communication and Expertise?
Deciding when reliance on expertise is warranted without treating either distrust or deference as a context-free virtue. Philosophical and social analysis of trust, expertise, science communication, disagreement, transparency, metascience and post-truth.
How does assessment work in Trust, Communication and Expertise?
The published assessment components listed on this page. Current subject materials and the official timetable control any examination operation. Submit both the 30% and 70% essays, and attend at least 75% of both seminars and tutorials; these are required to pass the subject.
What form does the final assessed task take in Trust, Communication and Expertise?
Current subject materials and the official timetable control any examination operation. The published assessment components listed on this page. Submit both the 30% and 70% essays, and attend at least 75% of both seminars and tutorials; these are required to pass the subject.
Which pass conditions apply in Trust, Communication and Expertise?
Submit both the 30% and 70% essays, and attend at least 75% of both seminars and tutorials; these are required to pass the subject. The published assessment components listed on this page.
Which teaching period does this Trust, Communication and Expertise resource cover?
It is aligned to Semester 2, 2026; confirm your enrolled class and timetable in the current institutional system. Essay 1: 28 August 2026 at 5 pm; Essay 2: 6 November 2026 at noon. Philosophical and social analysis of trust, expertise, science communication, disagreement, transparency, metascience and post-truth.
What should a student check before enrolling in Trust, Communication and Expertise?
Confirm current eligibility in the 2026 Handbook. This resource covers Semester 2, 2026. Philosophical and social analysis of trust, expertise, science communication, disagreement, transparency, metascience and post-truth.
Questions students ask in each HPSC90012 chapter
- How does epistemic trust help a student frame a public knowledge dispute as a relation of reliance?
- Frame a public knowledge dispute as a relation of reliance. Week 1 asks whether the apparent crisis of truth is better understood as a crisis of trust. Chapter 01 · Truth, Trust and Social Dependence
- Which evidence helps students identify how social power shapes who is heard and understood?
- Identify how social power shapes who is heard and understood. Week 3 centres epistemic marginalisation and the politics of credibility. Credibility deficit imposed through identity prejudice. This chapter uses the concept when students identify how social power shapes who is heard and understood. Chapter 02 · Epistemic Injustice and Marginalised Knowers
- Which common basis lets a student compare deficit, dialogue and participation models?
- Compare deficit, dialogue and participation models. Week 4 examines why deficit assumptions persist in science communication. Communication model treating public disagreement primarily as a lack of scientific information. This chapter uses the concept when students compare deficit, dialogue and participation models. Chapter 03 · Models of Science Communication
- Why is it important to distinguish disclosure, explanation and accountability?
- Distinguish disclosure, explanation and accountability. Weeks 5 and related readings test whether transparency and explanation reliably build trust. Making selected information, processes or interests visible to an audience. This chapter uses the concept when students distinguish disclosure, explanation and accountability. Chapter 04 · Transparency, Explanation and Their Limits
- Why is it important to distinguish productive challenge from strategic doubt?
- Distinguish productive challenge from strategic doubt. Week 6 asks whether contestation can build rather than merely erode trust. Structured challenge to claims, reasons or authority. This chapter uses the concept when students distinguish productive challenge from strategic doubt. Chapter 05 · Contestation, Democracy and Public Expertise
- Which common basis lets a student compare credentials, tacit skill, experience and institutional recognition?
- Compare credentials, tacit skill, experience and institutional recognition. Week 8 examines whether people who know how deserve special trust. Capacity to contribute competently to a specialist practice. This chapter uses the concept when students compare credentials, tacit skill, experience and institutional recognition. Chapter 06 · Expertise, Experience and Deference
- What evidence would allow a student to evaluate whether self-critique improves trustworthy practice?
- Evaluate whether self-critique improves trustworthy practice. Week 11 asks whether metascientific criticism increases trust in science. Systematic study of scientific practices, evidence and institutions. This chapter uses the concept when students evaluate whether self-critique improves trustworthy practice. Chapter 07 · Metascience, Reputation and Institutional Self-Critique
- Why is it important to distinguish misinformation, gaslighting and structural distrust?
- Distinguish misinformation, gaslighting and structural distrust. The closing sequence connects post-truth diagnosis to possible institutional repair. Political condition in which identity, affect or strategic communication weakens the public force of shared factual standards. This chapter uses the concept when students distinguish misinformation, gaslighting and structural distrust. Chapter 08 · Post-Truth, Gaslighting and Trust Repair
How to prepare for the assessments
Retrieve the course map, practise the recurring method—identify the trust dependency and claim, reconstruct the argument, distinguish kinds of expertise and authority, test communication under disagreement, and qualify the conclusion for power, values and epistemic vulnerability—on changed scenarios, and verify every operational assessment detail in the live institutional system.
Your AI Arts tutor for HPSC90012
Stuck on a hard HPSC90012 question? Sia is AskSia’s AI Arts and Humanities tutor — ask any HPSC90012 Trust, Communication and Expertise question and get a clear, step-by-step explanation grounded in how the course is actually taught and assessed. Read this whole study guide free, then take your hardest questions to Sia.
