Eine gute beratene Demokratie ist eine gut beratene Demokratie

Gohl, Christopher

doi:10.1007/978-3-531-90144-2_17

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Today, however, science–policy models seek to include a broad set of stakeholders and civil society actors in policy deliberation. Such type of knowledge integration in the policy domain, however, draws on participatory democracy and consequently involves policy arenas beyond legislative assemblies [ 33 ]. This conceptual consideration of the literature on the science–policy interface is crucially important, as it points to the conspicuous absence of interactive and deliberative approaches to policy-making in the reviewed literature.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This potential is even greater where participation is made possible from the outset of knowledge-making processes (upstream engagement). Indeed, participatory approaches and the contribution of more inclusive forms of knowledge-making have seen some success [ 27 , 33 ]. However, these efforts were not framed in terms of open science, but rather as deliberative democracy [ 50 ], participatory technology assessment [ 5 ], public engagement [ 3 ], or responsible research and innovation [ 68 ], respectively.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Open science at the science–policy interface: bringing in the evidence?

Reichmann

Wieser

2022

Health Res Policy Sys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Part of the current enthusiasm about open science stems from its promises to reform scientific practice in service of the common good, to ensure that scientific outputs will be found and reused more easily, and to enhance scientific impact on policy and society. With this article, we question this optimism by analysing the potential for open science practices to enhance research uptake at the science–policy interface. Science advice is critical to help policy-makers make informed decisions. Likewise, some interpretations of open science hold that making research processes and outputs more transparent and accessible will also enhance the uptake of results by policy and society at large. However, we argue that this hope is based on an unjustifiably simplistic understanding of the science–policy interface that leaves key terms (“impact”, “uptake”) undefined. We show that this understanding—based upon linear models of research uptake—likewise grounds the influential “evidence–policy gap” diagnosis which holds that to improve research uptake, communication and interaction between researchers and policy-makers need to be improved. The overall normative stance of both discussions has sidelined empirical description of the science–policy interface, ignoring questions about the underlying differences between the policy domain and academia. Importantly, both open science and literature on closing the evidence–policy gap recommend improving communication (in terms of either the content or the means) as a viable strategy. To correct some of these views, we combine insights from policy theory with a narrative review of the literature on the evidence–policy gap in the health domain and find that removing barriers to access by itself will not be enough to foster research uptake.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Open science at the science–policy interface: bringing in the evidence?

Reichmann

Wieser

2022

Health Res Policy Sys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The recently accumulating informal 'consultation rounds' or 'dialogues' (Brown et al, 2005; Bundestag Official Printed Papers (BOPP), 14/7722; Czada, 2014, Gohl, 2004Heinze, 2013;Krick, 2010;Siefken, 2009), by contrast, which can also be seen as ad hoc advisory committees, are more closely linked with the appointing authority. They tend to have governmental departments chairing the sessions and a more fluid membership structure that follows from invitation rather than appointment of participants, for instance.…”

Section: The German System Of Ad Hoc Advisory Committeesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These features qualify the committees particularly for interest mediation, coordination and consensus-building as well as for (multilateral) bargaining and cooperative law-making (Czada, 2014, p. 117;Gohl, 2004;Krick, 2010;. Alongside these instrumental purposes, individual cases are of course also used for strategic political purposes, i.e.…”

Section: The German System Of Ad Hoc Advisory Committeesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Governance by Hybrid Advisory Committees – A Hallmark of Social Democracy?

Krick¹,

Holst²

2021

Comparative Social Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study focuses on ad hoc policy advisory committees that bring together experts and stakeholders to propose public policies on the basis of consensus. These kinds of committees are often considered to be a typical governance mechanism of the social democratic model of regulation and policy-making known from the Nordic countries. We challenge this view by comparing the Norwegian system of committee governance with those of Germany and the European Union and point out the central role of coordination and consensus in all three systems. Relying on existing and original research, and contrary to the assumption of a distinct Nordic regime, we find significant similarities between the three committee governance systems when it comes to organisational features, the kind of expertise produced and the committees' governance functions. Most remarkable is the prevalence of hybrid, tripartite committees that draw together interest groups, civil servants and researchers in all three systems. We show that these kinds of ad hoc advisory committees tend to generate a kind of coordinated, negotiated expertise where notions of validity and objectivity are connected not only to cognitive quality, but also to the breadth of viewpoints that are integrated. Moreover, the Nordic committee system of Norway stands out with only few distinctive qualities, and it is not obvious how the notion of 'social democracy' helps illuminating these features. To help shed light on the striking resemblances we find across systems, we develop a notion of consensus-oriented political and epistemological systems, which may be a useful complement to the notion of Nordic social democracy.

show abstract

Beteiligung braucht Wissen — Beteiligung schafft Wissen

Gohl¹,

Wüst²

Erfolgsbedingungen Lokaler Bürgerbeteiligung

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Eine gute beratene Demokratie ist eine gut beratene Demokratie

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Open science at the science–policy interface: bringing in the evidence?

Open science at the science–policy interface: bringing in the evidence?

Governance by Hybrid Advisory Committees – A Hallmark of Social Democracy?

Beteiligung braucht Wissen — Beteiligung schafft Wissen

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About