HPSC90012 Trust, Communication and Expertise

How HPSC90012 is assessed

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

Current-offering dates captured in the course materials. Confirm changes and exact 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.

It is positioned as an HPS graduate subject.

The subject connects epistemology to institutions and public communication through two sustained argumentative essays.

The retrieved current-offering evidence does not publish a complete assessment weighting for HPSC90012. the published assessment components listed on this page

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; the landed endpoint was blocked.

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.

Audit an appeal to expertise

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

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.