Goodbye Expert-Based Policy Advice? Challenges in Advising Governmental Institutions in Times of Transformation
| Autor: | Christoph Kehl, Steffen Albrecht, Pauline Riousset, Arnold Sauter |
|---|---|
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Rok vydání: | 2021 |
| Předmět: |
Technology
science–policy interface Environmental effects of industries and plants Renewable Energy Sustainability and the Environment transformation Geography Planning and Development responsible research and innovation TJ807-830 technology assessment Management Monitoring Policy and Law TD194-195 scientific policy advice sustainability research Renewable energy sources Environmental sciences GE1-350 ddc:600 |
| Zdroj: | Sustainability, 13 (23), Art.-Nr.: 13442 Sustainability, Vol 13, Iss 13442, p 13442 (2021) Sustainability; Volume 13; Issue 23; Pages: 13442 |
| ISSN: | 2071-1050 |
| Popis: | The global transformation towards sustainability has not only increased the demand for anticipatory and reflexive knowledge to support decision making, but also raises three challenges common to all forms of scientific policy advice: to appropriately consider societal norms and values (challenge of normativity), to integrate different forms of knowledge (challenge of integration) and to organize the participation of stakeholders (challenge of participation). While new forms of scientific policy advice in the field of sustainability research (SR) have emerged in response, the role of established actors such as the Office of Technology Assessment at the German Bundestag (TAB) is increasingly scrutinized. One of the fundamental characteristics of TAB’s model of scientific policy advice is a rigid boundary arrangement between politics and science that places a high value on the objectivity and authority of scientific knowledge. Based on a content analysis of digitalization-related TAB reports spanning three decades, we describe how a rather technocratic institution such as TAB has dealt with the challenges of normativity, integration, and participation, and we compare its approach with that of SR institutions. TAB has partly adapted its working mode to the new challenges, e.g., by trying out new methods to foster a stronger dialogue with stakeholders. However, TAB’s response to the challenges distinctly differs from the forms of transformative research conducted in the SR community. We argue that this is not only a necessary precondition to maintain its reputation as a trustworthy actor towards the Parliament but gives TAB and similar expert-based institutions a special role in the governance of societal transformation. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|