Suchergebnisse

Controversies about biomedicine are characterized by moral uncertainty; they are negotiated as value conflicts. This presents a considerable challenge for politics because in modern societies there is no consent about what we should (not) know & do. The political response to this problem is the institutionalization of ethics expertise. With respect to Austria I will analyze the ethics councils' policy advice from an STS perspective. I will argue that the political utilization of expertise means to subsume it under the particular operation principles of the political system ("politicization of expertise"). During its political utilization, expertise is reconfigured in a way as to establish an identity between the experts' opinions & political objectives. Against this background policy learning can be described, at best, as a strategic use of expert dissent. Finally, I will show that the politicization of expertise is closely connected to a de-politicization of bioethical issues. References. Adapted from the source document.

Every society recognizes expertise, and anthropologists have long documented the culturally and historically specific practices that constitute it. The anthropology of expertise focuses on what people do rather than what people possess, even in the many circumstances where the former is naturalized as the latter. Across its many domains, expertise is both inherently interactional, involving the participation of objects, producers, and consumers of knowledge, and inescapably ideological, implicated in the evolving hierarchies of value that legitimate particular ways of knowing as "expert." This review focuses on the semiotics of expertise, highlighting four constitutive processes: socialization practices through which people establish intimacy with classes of cultural objects and learn to communicate that familiarity; evaluation, or the establishment of asymmetries among people and between people and objects; institutionalization, wherein ways of knowing are organized and authorized; and naturalization, or the essentialization of expert enactments as bodies of knowledge.

Im Kontext gesellschaftstheoretischer Überlegungen beschäftigt sich der Beitrag mit der Frage, welche Expertise die Politik benötigt. Dabei erhält die Explikation der gesellschaftlichen Voraussetzungen und Bedingungen, unter denen die Intelligenz der Politik zu einem relevanten Governance-Problem wird, einen zentralen Stellenwert. Der Autor geht davon aus, dass mit der Herausbildung von Gesellschaften, in denen Wissen zur dominanten Produktivkraft und einer allseits strategisch verwendbaren Ressource wird, an die Politik neue Aufgaben herangetragen werden. Sofern die Organisation gesellschaftlicher Ordnung nicht mehr nur über Macht und Geld, sondern über Wissen funktioniert, werden Kontingenzen gesteigert, und es wird ein kompetenter Umgang mit Nichtwissen notwendig, um Chancen wahrnehmen zu können. Eine weitere Herausforderung für die Politik besteht darin, dass im Zuge der Globalisierung und der daraus resultierenden Konkurrenz zwischen Staaten die Leistungsfähigkeit der Governance-Regime einer vergleichenden Bewertung unterworfen wird. Aus diesen Bedingungen - der Ablösung traditioneller Ordnungsprinzipien und der Evaluierung staatlicher Ordnungsmodelle - ergibt sich die Schlussfolgerung, dass es für die Politik um die Entwicklung von Eigenintelligenz und Lernfähigkeit gehen muss. Die politischen Herausforderungen globalisierter Wissensgesellschaften sind nicht einfach mit einem Import von (wissenschaftlichem) Wissen zu bewältigen. Die Steuerungsfähigkeit der Politik hängt vielmehr davon ab, Expertise im Umgang sowohl mit Nichtwissen als auch mit anderen funktional differenzierten Sozialsystemen zu mobilisieren. (ICH2)

L'entrée en expertise.
Jacques Chevallier [33-50].
En partant de deux expériences personnelles de participation à des commissions de réflexion, l'auteur s'attache à mettre en évidence les logiques qui président à la construction puis à l'exercice du rôle d'expert. Devenu expert, le chercheur se trouve confronté à un ensemble de contradictions, liées à la superposition de plusieurs principes de légitimité (légitimité scientifique conquise/légitimité sociale et politique octroyée), qu'il s'efforce de rendre compatibles et d'articuler.

AbstractAccording to many, the US Congress desperately needs reform because its capacity to govern has declined. Congressional capacity cannot be understood without examining how the expertise available to members is fostered or discouraged. We present a theory of expertise acquisition and apply it to the problem of overseeing the Executive. We use this theory to organize a dataset of congressional staff employment merged with new records of invitations, applications, and attendance at training sessions produced by three nonprofit organizations in Washington, DC. We find that staffers are more likely to acquire expertise when their jobs are more secure and there are more opportunities to use their expertise in careers outside of Congress—most notably, when their party takes control of the presidency. Our analysis suggests that oversight expertise is generally not sufficiently valuable outside of Congress to entice many staffers to acquire it without subsidies.

AbstractIn considering issue expertise in policymaking, we unpack differences in the supply and types of expertise with attention to the presumed privileged role of the bureaucracy. Our empirical investigation is based on witness testimonies of congressional hearings for a policy area involving various forms of expertise – critical infrastructure protection policymaking. Three sets of findings stand out. One set substantiates the role of the bureaucracy as an important information conduit while also showing it is not a primary source of issue expertise. A second set shows how differences in issue maturity and salience affect the demand for and supply of expertise. A third set illustrates the influence of a small cadre of hyper-expertise in drawing attention to problems and solutions across different venues. These findings challenge the conventional view of the bureaucracy in policymaking while expanding the understanding of different sources of information and types of issue expertise in policymaking.

Agrarian expertise has been employed in the context of Swedish development aid since the 1950s. Throughout this time, the Swedish institutions of higher agrarian education—the Agricultural College, the College of Forestry, and the Veterinary College, in 1977 merged to form the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences—have played important roles. In this dissertation I consider three problems with respect to these institutions' involvement in development aid: (1) How and why did actors at the three colleges begin framing their expertise in a development context? (2) How did Swedish agrarian experts approach the problem of development in contexts about which they had little prior knowledge? (3) How and why did a long-term institutional collaboration evolve between the agrarian institutions of higher learning and the Swedish development aid authorities, and what were its characteristics? The study follows actors and their standpoints through three different aid projects: international courses in animal reproduction at the Veterinary College first planned and held in the mid-1950s; the planning and implementation of the Chilalo Agricultural Development Unit in the 1960s and 1970s; and SLU's support to higher forestry education in Ethiopia in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s. It also examines the growth and subsequent decline of a continuous institutional collaboration between the institutions of higher agrarian education and SIDA, the Swedish government agency responsible for development aid. Based on my findings, I argue that the framing of Swedish agrarian expertise as relevant to the developing countries—particularly at the Agricultural College in the 1960s—was part of a broader attempt to widen the scope of agrarian science in Sweden in response to social change at home. At the same time, the development strategies proposed by the Swedish experts were anchored in the particulars of the Swedish agrarian context. This made them attuned to the local adaptation of technologies and to the value of practical knowledge but less sensitive to the societal contexts and social effects of their interventions. Their attempts to bring their knowledge to bear on the developing world also helped create a long-lasting institutionalized relationship between SLU (and the three colleges before it) and the Swedish development aid authorities, through which SLU exercised influence on much of Sweden's agrarian development aid from the mid-1960s to the early 1990s.

The issue of what development is & how it is commonly conceived, is also dealt with in the fifth article of this volume, 'Activism, Expertise, Commons' by Larry Lohmann. For many policymakers & activists, social & political reality is imagined to be divided into two parts: what Lohmann terms 'disembodied, potent, transcendental, 'global' entities' such as 'globalization' & their alleged counterpart in the 'local' & 'particular'. Through such dualisms emerges, among other things, a view of development as being a process of planning, taming, organising & rationalising undeveloped, natural, irrational or unmapped domains. However, these dualisms, through which much politics -- tacitly or overtly -- tends to operate, are, he says, subject to incessant collapse. Using three different examples -- dams/development, commodification/'the economy' & science -- Lohmann describes the processes by which the dichotomies are built up & disintegrated. Every development 'master plan' & its implementation, he points out, evolves through an endless chain of revisions, additions, restructurings & other redistributions of power in offices, corners of farmers' fields & elsewhere. Similarly, the politically-contested frontier between 'the market' & what is imagined to be 'outside the market' constantly shifts as the institutions of 'economics' work at the unfinishable job of creating an 'economy'. A more determined awareness of the processes through which dualisms between intention & world, theory & practice & 'inside' & 'outside' are set up, Lohmann suggests, could help middle-class activism better achieve its goals. Rather than buying into a dichotomous metaphysics by attempting to improve theories that are seen as different in kind from practice, he argues, middle-class activists might become more effective by becoming more self-conscious about the primacy of forming closer working alliances with what he calls 'commoners', whom he sees as being often less prone to imagine political action in terms of such dichotomies. Adapted from the source document.

"Gender Expertise in International Organizations" published on by Oxford University Press.

Two page transcript of Turkish oral narrative story No. 597 titled "Kurdish Military Expertise." The folktale was narrated in 1968 and is part of the Archive of Turkish Oral Narrative. ; Oral narrative of a Turkish folktale collected by Professor Ahmet Edip Uysal, Dr. Waren Walker and Barbara Walker (Mrs. Warren Walker). Each narrative was translated into English by native Turkish speakers (mostly students), paid for by the Walkers, who then edited the translations.

Call for Papers für eine Tagung vom 23. bis 24. Mai 2024 in Berlin. Deadline: 31. Januar 2024