Der schmale Grat zwischen Option und Empfehlung

Gudowsky-Blatakes, Niklas; Kehl, Christoph; Torgersen, Helge

doi:10.5771/9783748907275-97

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, the report on disability-compensating technologies in the workplace (#129) refers to the goals of disability policy in Germany to justify the importance of the self-determined participation of people with disabilities (p. 5). Interestingly, as the analysis of the policy options sections of the various reports shows (and as was already observed elsewhere, [37]), many policy options are formulated as recommendations (e.g., "should be done", "has to be done"). This apparently clear normative standpoint seems to conflict with TAB's institutional orientation on developing different options for action from an impartial point of view [39].…”

Section: Normativitymentioning

confidence: 62%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Goodbye Expert-Based Policy Advice? Challenges in Advising Governmental Institutions in Times of Transformation

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Normativitymentioning

confidence: 62%

“…TA institutions, however, are usually committed to non-partisan and independent advice [35] and refrain from advocating certain value standpoints [22]. Although this view of TA has recently been scrutinized [36,37], a neutral stance is still a central aspect of TA's role as an "honest broker" [38,39].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%