Suchergebnisse

In this paper, we compare the governmental and public framings of expertise in the Dutch Covid-19 vaccination campaign in the period between January 1st and April 30th, 2021. Specifically, we collected all statements regarding vaccination on three interrelated stages: (1) the official press conferences; (2) Twitter, for responses to government policies; and (3) political motions that were put forward by Members of Parliament in the days following the press conferences. We combine an interactional framing approach with a discursive psychological perspective to get insights into how framings between stages modify, contest, or build upon each other. We argue that the press conferences show a persistent technocratic framing, in the sense that a direct line between science and policy is assumed and promoted. Unlike the first period of the COVID-19 crisis in 2020, experts are not often quoted initially, but key political actors themselves act as responsible for the message that there is light at the end of the tunnel, if only citizens will get vaccinated. Once the AstraZeneca vaccine comes under fire, however, experts are again held accountable for the policy message. Throughout, governmental policies are disputed on Twitter and in Parliament, albeit in different ways, by making hidden moralities relevant, such as the government's assumed complacency, rigidity, and inability to explain policies with the available evidence.

The corona crisis of 2020 took many by surprise. Quite suddenly, politicians had to make drastic decisions to guarantee public health, affecting basic civil liberties. In justifying their decisions, politicians internationally reverted back to a direct staging of experts to legitimize their proposals for what internationally became known as the "lockdown". In this article we analyze the performance of the Dutch government that, early on, labeled its approach to COVID-19 as an "intelligent lockdown". Our analysis examines the dramaturgy of expertise during this period. We selected two interrelated "stages": the official press conferences, fully controlled by the government, and the responses on Twitter, as focal channel for critique from the general public, but also from opposition parties and (alleged) experts. 26 press conferences of the Dutch Prime Minister were analyzed and a search for the most popular posts on Twitter referring to the press conference(s) was carried out covering the period between March 6th and May 29th, 2020. The results show that the technocratic framing of expertise remained stable during the sampling period, regarding the undisputed status of expertise as the clear-cut basis for decision-making in uncertain times. Framing on Twitter challenged the omnipotence of the experts advising the government in various ways, namely, by referring to dissenting opinions of other experts, by questioning the underlying motives of experts' advice or by pointing out that the policies were clearly contrary to everyday experience. We argue that it is not so much the facts themselves that are at stake here but hidden moralities, which include the government's alleged complacency while asking citizens to blindly trust, its unpredictable behavior in the light of the promised straight line between scientific evidence and policy making, and its motivated behavior while claiming that the facts speak for themselves.

The corona crisis of 2020 took many by surprise. Quite suddenly, politicians had to make drastic decisions to guarantee public health, affecting basic civil liberties. In justifying their decisions, politicians internationally reverted back to a direct staging of experts to legitimize their proposals for what internationally became known as the "lockdown". In this article we analyze the performance of the Dutch government that, early on, labeled its approach to COVID-19 as an "intelligent lockdown". Our analysis examines the dramaturgy of expertise during this period. We selected two interrelated "stages": the official press conferences, fully controlled by the government, and the responses on Twitter, as focal channel for critique from the general public, but also from opposition parties and (alleged) experts. 26 press conferences of the Dutch Prime Minister were analyzed and a search for the most popular posts on Twitter referring to the press conference(s) was carried out covering the period between March 6th and May 29th, 2020. The results show that the technocratic framing of expertise remained stable during the sampling period, regarding the undisputed status of expertise as the clear-cut basis for decision-making in uncertain times. Framing on Twitter challenged the omnipotence of the experts advising the government in various ways, namely, by referring to dissenting opinions of other experts, by questioning the underlying motives of experts' advice or by pointing out that the policies were clearly contrary to everyday experience. We argue that it is not so much the facts themselves that are at stake here but hidden moralities, which include the government's alleged complacency while asking citizens to blindly trust, its unpredictable behavior in the light of the promised straight line between scientific evidence and policy making, and its motivated behavior while claiming that the facts speak for themselves.

Integrated assessment models (IAM) and resulting scenarios have become increasingly institutionalised and relevant in the science-policy interface of climate policy. Despite their analytical strengths to conceive low-carbon futures, their co-evolution with the transnational science-policy interface of climate politics has also led to a focus on a specific set of techno-economic futures that are typically based on a relatively narrow set of assumptions. This deviates attention from alternatives that are hardly studied by IAMs, but might be more desirable from a societal perspective. We argue that research-based models and scenarios should support rather than narrow down deliberations on possible and desirable futures and provide an impetus to enact socially desirable change. Accordingly, we propose three future directions regarding the development and use of IAMs: 1) incorporate a plurality of perspectives on plausibility and desirability through iterative participatory engagement and worldview-based scenario exploration, 2) seek collaboration with the arts and humanities to expand the range of imagined futures beyond the status quo and 3) make projected futures more tangible and experiential so that diverse societal actor groups can understand and genuinely engage with them. By deploying the indisputable analytical strengths of IAMs optimally within these suggestions, we believe they can facilitate broader societal debates about transformative pathways to low-carbon futures.

In this paper, we argue that a key component of futures literacy is reflexivity regarding different attitudes toward the future. Various intellectual traditions and futures practices make epistemologically distinct claims about the future and its manifestations in the present. Through their different outlooks on analyzing, understanding, and influencing the future, these diverse approaches represent fundamentally different attitudes to what it means to meaningfully engage with the future. Because of this diversity of attitudes toward the future, and the different possible modes of engagement with the future, futures literacy is more complex than it appears at first glance. Looking at recent developments in futures literature, we build on four epistemologically and ontologically distinct approaches to the problem of the future. We argue that being futures literate depends on reflexivity about these different engagements with the future, and what these different approaches can offer future-oriented action respectively. Such reflexivity entails being reflexive about how different approaches to the problem of the future arise, as well as about the underlying power structures. We also investigate possibilities to cultivate this futures reflexivity and conclude with a set of questions to guide future research in deepening reflexivity as a key element of futures literacy.

Integrated assessment models (IAM) and resulting scenarios have become increasingly institutionalised and relevant in the science-policy interface of climate policy. Despite their analytical strengths to conceive low-carbon futures, their co-evolution with the transnational science-policy interface of climate politics has also led to a focus on a specific set of techno-economic futures that are typically based on a relatively narrow set of assumptions. This deviates attention from alternatives that are hardly studied by IAMs, but might be more desirable from a societal perspective. We argue that research-based models and scenarios should support rather than narrow down deliberations on possible and desirable futures and provide an impetus to enact socially desirable change. Accordingly, we propose three future directions regarding the development and use of IAMs: 1) incorporate a plurality of perspectives on plausibility and desirability through iterative participatory engagement and worldview-based scenario exploration, 2) seek collaboration with the arts and humanities to expand the range of imagined futures beyond the status quo and 3) make projected futures more tangible and experiential so that diverse societal actor groups can understand and genuinely engage with them. By deploying the indisputable analytical strengths of IAMs optimally within these suggestions, we believe they can facilitate broader societal debates about transformative pathways to low-carbon futures.

Transitions are processes of major change and often come with conflict. There has been limited attention for the complex and multi-dimensional nature of conflict and its relation to transformative change. To capture this complexity, we use the case of ridesharing in Indonesia and the dynamics of conflict that accompany the emergence of digital innovations in mobility services. We use the notion of 'critical moments' to be able to deepen the analysis on particular short timespans during which conflicts are particularly visible. For an in-depth understanding of these critical moments we look at the discursive enactment and mobilize dramaturgical analysis. We argue that: (1) multi-dimensional conflict analysis could be beneficial for transition studies; (2) critical moments are promising units of analysis in transition studies when analysing conflictual dynamics. (3) examining the dramaturgy of politics provides a useful framework and shed new light on where and how conflict in transition takes place and how it plays out.

Transitions are processes of major change and often come with conflict. There has been limited attention for the complex and multi-dimensional nature of conflict and its relation to transformative change. To capture this complexity, we use the case of ridesharing in Indonesia and the dynamics of conflict that accompany the emergence of digital innovations in mobility services. We use the notion of 'critical moments' to be able to deepen the analysis on particular short timespans during which conflicts are particularly visible. For an in-depth understanding of these critical moments we look at the discursive enactment and mobilize dramaturgical analysis. We argue that: (1) multi-dimensional conflict analysis could be beneficial for transition studies; (2) critical moments are promising units of analysis in transition studies when analysing conflictual dynamics. (3) examining the dramaturgy of politics provides a useful framework and shed new light on where and how conflict in transition takes place and how it plays out.

"Das Thema der ökologischen Frage hat sich mittlerweile einen festen Platz in den Sozialwissenschaften erobert. Prominent dabei sind Versuche, die ökologische Frage durch Anwendung von Modernisierungstheorien zu konzeptualisieren (ökologische Modernisierung, reflexive Modernisierung). Der Vortrag versucht mittels einer diskursanalytischen Betrachtung die 'modernistischen' Konzeptualisierungen der ökologischen Frage unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Rolle der Technik bzw. Technikpolitik zu deuten. Die modernisierungstheoretischen Ansätze teilen hier wenigstens zwei wesentliche Merkmale: (1) Die Definition der ökologischen Frage als institutionelle Krise, wobei die Erfahrung dieser Krise als Anlaß eines umfassenden Prozesses von sozialem Wandel interpretiert wird. (2) Die Lösungsstrategien orientieren sich allerdings vor allem an technologischen oder institutionellen Innovationen. Der Vortrag soll zeigen, daß (1) man anhand der Theorie der reflexiven Modernisierung zwar viele konzeptuelle Lücken in der Theorie der ökologischen Modernisierung aufdecken kann; daß aber (2) im Hinblick auf die Rolle der Technik weder die Theorie der ökologischen Modernisierung, noch die Theorie der reflexiven Modernisierung sich aus dem 'modernistischen' Diskurs zu befreien vermag. Es wird versucht, durch diskurs-theoretische Verfahren, die Black Box der Technik weiter zu öffnen. Ziel ist es dabei, den Beck'schen Gedanken einer realistischen Utopie gegen eine techno-institutionelle Normalisierung zu verteidigen." (Autorenreferat)

This paper investigates how the teaching and learning about ?wicked? environmental problems may be fostered through an educational approach premised on futuring ? the active imagination of the future. The growing academic interest in possible and desirable futures provides a promising starting point for restructuring education as coupling knowledge to imagination and teaching to policy practice can open up new, experiential ways of learning. Empirically, this paper draws upon research on an experimental futuring course employing a ?mixed classroom? formula in which students and policy-makers learn together about sustainability challenges. Drawing on the notion of inquiry, this course is set up with the aim to foster a critical engagement with the ways futures are imagined in political debates and decision-making. Through complementary activities, the students were pushed to imagine possible futures around a central theme, the transition to a circular economy, in interaction with the policy-makers and other practitioners. This culminated in a ?Museum of the Future?. From our action-research-based investigation of the learning experiences in the course, we conclude that a futuring approach to teaching wicked problems results in a more active attitude of students towards the space in which wicked problems and solutions are collectively imagined and deliberated.

Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) have gained a prominent role in the climate science-policy interface. The article reconstructs the evolution of IAMs and their changing role in this interface, investigating how and why IAMs have become so prominent. Based on literature analysis, quantitative document analysis and semi-structured interviews, we describe the historic evolution of the interactions between IAMs and policy-making between 1970 and 2015. We identify five historic phases in which IAMs played distinct mediating roles between science and policy, succeeding to adjust their scenario efforts to the continuously changing demands for knowledge from the policy community. In explaining the prominent role of IAMs, we differentiate between background conditions (material and sociological) and more contextual factors, most notably the flexible, hybrid and broad nature of IAMs as well as the pro-active character of the IAM community to enhance their policy relevance. We draw on the notion of institutional work to explain this success. In light of the urgency of responding to the climate crisis, we suggest that the IAM community may expand their scope of anticipated futures and consider engaging a wider range of publics and societal stakeholders beyond the science-policy interface.

Ooit namen wij risico's als behorend bij het bestaan. Natuurrampen, ongelukken, dodelijke ziekten - ze hoorden er nu eenmaal bij. Tegenwoordig eisen we een leven in volstrekte veiligheid: pech moet weg. God is vervangen door de verzekeringsmaatschappij. Overkomt ons onverhoeds toch een ramp, dan wijzen we bij voorkeur naar de overheid. Zij had ons moeten beschermen. Maar hoe zit het met de verantwoordelijkheid van de burgers zelf?. Rond dit actuele thema organiseerde het Nederlands Gesprek Centrum een serie spraakmakende bijeenkomsten. Leven in de risicosamenleving is daarvan de weerslag. In p