Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Zwischen Wissenschaft und Staat? Die Verortung der Ressortforschung


Author Info

  • Barlösius, Eva
Registered author(s):


    Über die Ressortforschung ist nur wenig bekannt, selbst in der Wissenschaft. Für diese Einrichtungen gilt als charakteristisch, dass sie „auf politischen Beschluss“ (Lundgreen) forschen und sie als „staatliche Behörden“ geführt werden. Davon wird hergeleitet, dass sie sowohl zum wissenschaftlichen als auch zum staatlichen Feld gehören, woraus „strukturelle Probleme“ resultieren. Zur Überprüfung dieser Grundannahme wird in dem Paper eine relationale Analyse von drei Sichtweisen von „guter Leistung“ der Ressortforschung vorgenommen: aus ministerieller Sicht, aus der Sicht der Ressortforschung und aus der Sicht des wissenschaftlichen Feldes. Auf diese Weise sollen einerseits die Bewährungspunkte für „gute Leistungen“ und andererseits die Auffassungen von Staatsaufgaben und von wissenschaftlicher Expertise deutlich werden. Aus ministerieller Sicht hat sich die Ressortforschung dem Primat der Politik unterzuordnen. Wissenschaftlichkeit wird mehr oder weniger als Methode angesehen, um zu einer politisch belastbaren Expertise zu gelangen. Aus der Perspektive der Wissenschaft ist „gute Forschung“ die Voraussetzung für „gute Leistung“ der Ressortforschung, weil diese vorrangig wissenschaftlichen Kriterien Stand zu halten hat und deshalb auch keinen eigenständigen Forschungstypus repräsentiert. Die Ressortforschung selbst gibt als Bewährungspunkt die Umsetzung ihrer Ergebnisse in die (politische) Praxis an und leitet davon ihre Spezifik her. -- Only little is known about government research agencies, even in the field of science. Generally, they are taken to be government agencies whose research follows political decisions (cf. Lundgreen). They are, therefore, considered to be part of the field of science as well as that of government, a status which is taken to produce “structural problems”. These assumptions are verified by a relational analysis of three different views on what is considered “good performance” of these agencies: the ministerial view, the view of the governmental research agencies themselves, and the view of the scientific field. This approach allows to show the difference in concepts of “best practice” as well as in opinions held with regard to government tasks and scientific expertise. According to the ministerial view government research agencies are subordinate to the primacy of politics. Scientific standards are more or less considered to be fulfilled when the expertise reached stands the test of political debate. From the scientific point of view a basic requirement for “good performance” of government research agencies is “excellent research”; due to this priority of scientific criteria research done by government agencies does not represent a specific kind of research. From the government agencies’ perspective “best practice” depends on the (political) implementation of their research results; this is what they consider their specific feature.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Bibliographic Info

    Paper provided by Social Science Research Center Berlin (WZB) in its series Discussion Papers, Research Group Science Policy Studies with number P 2008-101.

    as in new window
    Date of creation: 2008
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:zbw:wzbsps:p2008101

    Contact details of provider:
    Postal: Reichpietschufer 50, 10785 Berlin, Germany
    Phone: ++49 - 30 - 25491 - 0
    Fax: ++49 - 30 - 25491 - 684
    Web page:
    More information through EDIRC

    Related research



    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.



    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.


    Access and download statistics


    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:wzbsps:p2008101. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (ZBW - German National Library of Economics).

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.