98 research outputs found
The problem of expertise in knowledge societies
This paper puts forward a theoretical framework for the analysis of expertise and experts in contemporary societies. It argues that while prevailing approaches have come to see expertise in various forms and functions, they tend to neglect the broader historical and societal context, and importantly the relational aspect of expertise. This will be discussed with regard to influential theoretical frameworks, such as laboratory studies, regulatory science, lay expertise, post-normal science, and honest brokers. An alternative framework of expertise is introduced, showing the limitations of existing frameworks and emphasizing one crucial element of all expertise, which is their role in guiding action
The role of expertise in governance processes
In present day knowledge societies political decisions are often justified on the basis of scientific expertise. Traditionally, a linear relation between knowledge production and application was postulated which would lead, with more and better science, to better policies. Empirical studies in Science and Technology studies have essentially demolished this idea. However, it is still powerful, not least among practitioners working in fields where decision making is based on large doses of expert knowledge. Based on conceptual work in the field of Science and Technology Studies (STS) I shall examine two cases of global environmental governance, ozone layer protection and global climate change. I will argue that hybridization and purification are important for two major forms of scientific expertise. One is delivered though scientific advocacy (by individual scientists or groups of scientists), the other through expert committees, i.e. institutionalized forms of collecting and communicating expertise to decision makers. Based on this analysis lessons will be drawn, also with regard to the stalling efforts at establishing an international forestry regime
Ozone and climate governance: an implausible path dependence
Many observers and commentators have used the case of ozone science and politics as a role model for climate science and politics. Two crucial assumptions underpin this view: (1) that science drives policymaking, and (2) that a unified, international science assessment is essential to provide âone voiceâ of science that speaks to policymakers. I will argue that these assumptions are theoretically problematic and empirically questionable. We should realize that both cases, ozone and climate, are profoundly different and only have superficial similarities. Ozone science developed late, but efforts to protect the ozone layer happened swiftly. The relation between carbon dioxide and climate change has been studied for many decades, but efforts to control global warming have failed so far. I will discuss the linear model of the scinece-policy relationship and use the typology of tame and wicked problems to explain this stark difference
The discourse of climate change: a corpus-based approach
Based on Goffmanâs definition that frames are general âschemata of interpretationâ that people use to âlocate, perceive, identify, and labelâ, other scholars have used the concept in a more specific way to analyze media coverage. Frames are used in the sense of organizing devices that allow journalists to select and emphasise topics, to decide âwhat mattersâ (Gitlin 1980). Gamson and Modigliani (1989) consider frames as being embedded within âmedia packagesâ that can be seen as âgiving meaningâ to an issue. According to Entman (1993), framing comprises a combination of different activities such as: problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described. Previous research has analysed climate change with the purpose of testing Downsâs model of the issue attention cycle (Trumbo 1996), to uncover media biases in the US press (Boykoff and Boykoff 2004), to highlight differences between nations (Brossard et al. 2004; Grundmann 2007) or to analyze cultural reconstructions of scientific knowledge (Carvalho and Burgess 2005). In this paper we shall present data from a corpus linguistics-based approach. We will be drawing on results of a pilot study conducted in Spring 2008 based on the Nexis news media archive. Based on comparative data from the US, the UK, France and Germany, we aim to show how the climate change issue has been framed differently in these countries and how this framing indicates differences in national climate change policies
Konkurrierende Netzwerke
Da es keine Weltregierung gibt, die globale GefĂ€hrdungen abwenden könnte, stellt sich die Frage, ob und wie transnationale "Governance ohne Government" auf dem Umweltsektor möglich ist. FĂŒr bisherige Erfolge spielten Politiknetzwerke und Wissenschaftler eine wichtige Rolle
Kommunikation und technische Infrastruktur: ĂŒber Schienen, StraĂen, Sand und Perlen
Die Theorie sozialer Systeme, wie sie vor allem von Niklas Luhmann vertreten wird, hat sich bislang wenig um technische Aspekte der modernen Gesellschaft gekĂŒmmert. Es liegen BeitrĂ€ge vor, die Recht, Politik, Wissenschaft oder Wirtschaft als autopoietische Sozialsysteme fassen, aber zum Thema Technik herrscht Schweigen. Ist dies ein Zufall oder zeigen sich hier GrundzĂŒge der Theorie? Dieser Frage wird nachgegangen, indem die autopoietische Systemtheorie mit dem Ansatz der groĂen technischen Systeme verglichen wird, die sich vorrangig mit PhĂ€nomenen technischer Vernetzung beschĂ€ftigt. Dabei werden vor allem die blinden Flecken beider AnsĂ€tze sichtbar gemacht sowie das Potential gegenseitigen Lernens ausgelotet. Es zeigt sich, daĂ die Luhmannsche Systemtheorie, obwohl sie sachtechnische ZusammenhĂ€nge aus der Soziologie exkommunizieren möchte, diese nicht nur fĂŒr das Funktionieren moderner Gesellschaften voraussetzt, sondern in ihnen eine entscheidende Differenz sieht. Sie ist aber nicht in der Lage, diese in angemessener Weise zu thematisieren. Der Ansatz der GroĂen technischen Systeme auf der anderen Seite weist theoretische Schwachstellen auf, die ĂŒberwunden werden mĂŒssen, wenn er in ernsthafter Weise zur soziologischen Debatte beitragen will.The theory of social systems, as put forward by Niklas Luhmann, until now did not thematize technological aspects of modern society. There are contributions which analyze law, politics, science, economy as autopoietic social systems, but virtually nothing has been said as regards technical artifacts. is this a coincidence or has it to do with basic traits of the theory as such? This question is pursued by means of a comparison between autopoietic systems theory and the approach of Large Technical Systems, which focusses mainly on phenomena of technical networks. In so doing, the blind spots of both approaches are made visible and it is asked what potential for learning from one another there is. It is shown that Luhmann's systems theory tends to draw out technical artifacts from society, albeit it Sees their necessity for the functioning of modern societies. Yet, what is more, they are said to mark a decisive difference within modern societies. It turns out, however, that the theory is not prepared to deal with technical artifacts in a satisfying way. The Large-Technical-Systems-Approach on the other hand suffers from theoretical shortcomings which need to be overcome if it wants to contribute more substantially to the debate
Using large text news archives for the analysis of climate change discourse: some methodological observations
This paper explores the contribution of software-based tools that are increasingly used for the semi-automated analysis of large volumes of text, especially Topic Modelling and Corpus Linguistics. These tools highlight the potential of getting interesting and new insights quickly, but at a cost. Linguistic aspects need to be considered carefully if computer-assisted technologies are to provide valid and reliable results. Main features of these tools will be presented, and some general problems and limitations will be discussed. The relation between technical tools and theoretical frameworks is discussed. The main empirical reference is the case of climate change
Die soziologische Tradition und die natĂŒrliche Umwelt
"Auf die Frage, wie das VerhĂ€ltnis von Natur und Gesellschaft aussieht, hat die Soziologie drei Modelle entwickelt: ein naturalistisches, ein soziologistisches und ein dialektisches. WĂ€hrend das zweite, soziologistische Modell als Antwort der soziologischen Klassiker auf naturalistische AnsĂ€tze konzipiert wurde und bis in unsere Zeit dominiert, ist der dialektische Ansatz weitgehend einfluĂlos geblieben. Mit der zunehmenden Beachtung ökologischer Fragestellungen gibt es Versuche, den naturalistischen Ansatz wiederzubeleben, was im Kampf gegen den zweiten Ansatz geschieht. Dabei wird klar, daĂ die Schubkraft des soziologistischen Ansatzes vor allem auf politische und professionspolitische Motive zurĂŒckzufĂŒhren ist. Diese spielten auch eine wichtige Rolle bei der Marginalisierung des dritten, dialektischen Ansatzes (Marx), der sich weniger auf ökologische, sondern auf sozialpolitische Fragen konzentrierte und sich durch seine diesbezĂŒgliche RadikalitĂ€t isolierte. Weber und Durkheim setzten alles daran, naturalistische, umweltdeterministische ErklĂ€rungen sozialer PhĂ€nomene auszuschalten. Ihr Prograrnm der soziologischen AufklĂ€rung bekĂ€mpfte solche ErklĂ€rungen nicht nur wegen ihrer theoretisch fragwĂŒrdigen Grundlagen, sondern auch wegen ihrer legitimatorischen Funktion fĂŒr diskriminatorische Politik. Dieser Aspekt, der zwar weitgehend latent geblieben ist, hat auf zeitgenössische Soziologen seine Wirkung nicht verfehlt. Das Wiederauftauchen der Natur als Problem fĂŒr die Gesellschaft trifft die Soziologie unvorbereitet. Alle groĂen soziologischen EntwĂŒrfe befinden sich innerhalb des sozialen Universums, losgetrennt vom Austausch mit natĂŒrlichen Prozessen. Dabei macht es keinen kategorialen Unterschied, ob Handlung (Weber, Parsons) oder Kommunikation (Luhmann) als Grundkategorie des jeweiligen theoretischen Systems fungieren. Erst eine RĂŒckbesinnung auf einen Arbeits- oder Praxisbegriff könnte die ausgeklammerte dritte Option wieder aktualisieren." (Autorenreferat
- âŠ