Despite the abundant scholarship on sociopolitical embeddedness of expertise, its relation to emotions remains understudied. The paper fills this gap by discussing how public framings of expertise work against the inclusion of emotional contexts, affecting what kind of professional knowledge dominates in a public debate. The analysis of the Czech public debate on birth care shows that while midwives embrace emotional contexts of birthing and integrate them as an essential part of their professional expertise, obstetricians see these contexts as troubling their expertise. This professional difference is sustained by the public framing of expertise in the media, favoring obstetricians’ expertise over midwives’. The analysis shows that public framing of expertise outweighs evidential work done by midwives and legal advisors and impacts how emotional contexts are understood in the debate. Rather than referring to feelings and personal experience of the body, the “emotional” becomes a discursive label to delegitimize professional opinion. The results raise thus important questions about how the public framing of expertise impacts whether emotional context and experiences of bodily harm are seen as relevant in policy debates and policy regulations.

尽管有大量关于专业知识的社会政治嵌入的学术研究，但它与情绪的关系仍未得到充分研究。该论文通过讨论专业知识的公共框架如何与情感背景的包容性相矛盾，从而影响在公共辩论中占主导地位的专业知识类型，从而填补了这一空白。对捷克关于分娩护理的公开辩论的分析表明，虽然助产士接受分娩的情感背景并将其作为其专业知识的重要组成部分，但产科医生认为这些背景会困扰他们的专业知识。这种专业差异是由媒体对专业知识的公共框架维持的，有利于产科医生的专业知识而不是助产士的专业知识。分析表明，专业知识的公共框架超过助产士和法律顾问所做的证据工作，并影响辩论中如何理解情绪背景。“情绪”不是指身体的感受和个人体验，而是成为使专业意见不合法的话语标签。因此，结果提出了重要的问题，即专业知识的公共框架如何影响情绪背景和身体伤害经历是否被视为与政策辩论和政策法规相关。