IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/acf/journl/y2019id1062.html

The Problems of Ensuring the Quality of Experts’ Work: the Case of Media Content Evaluation in the Russian Federation

Author

Listed:
  • Yulia A. Krasheninnikova

Abstract

The paper deals with the problems of ensuring the quality of expert’s activities which results are used in public administration. As a case, one type of expert evaluation is examined. This type has appeared about six years ago, according to the Federal Law N 436-FZ On Protecting Children from Information Harmful to Their Health and Development, with the purpose to assess the age rating of media content in difficult or disputable cases. The research focuses on two topics: what errors and abuses happen in the practice of expert evaluations; how the procedures of quality ensuring work. Empirical data for analysis include the texts of expert evaluations over the period 2013–2017 years (N 105) and semi-structured interviews with accredited experts (N 10). It was revealed that the quality of expert evaluations is diverse and in some cases is far from satisfactory. Some evaluations can be questioned because of their noncompliance with the law and formal criteria of academic papers. Meanwhile, obvious procedures to ensure quality are not designed in the law or exist but do not actually work. The results of evaluations of similar products differ from each other because of the absence of common methods, common theoretical ground, and unified format of evaluation. The government control of the experts’ work quality and the self-regulation of expert community are very weak. Those circumstances create conditions for distorted attitude of stakeholders to expert evaluation: not as a supplement tool for enforcement of the law on children media safety but as self-sufficient instrument of private interest protection and influence on media.

Suggested Citation

  • Yulia A. Krasheninnikova, 2019. "The Problems of Ensuring the Quality of Experts’ Work: the Case of Media Content Evaluation in the Russian Federation," Administrative Consulting, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration. North-West Institute of Management., issue 3.
    • Handle: RePEc:acf:journl:y:2019:id:1062
    DOI: 10.22394/1726-1139-2019-3-87-103
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.acjournal.ru/jour/article/viewFile/1062/1013
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22394/1726-1139-2019-3-87-103?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:acf:journl:y::id:419 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Lev Jakobson, 2017. "Russian experts: missing actors of the budget process," Post-Communist Economies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(4), pages 491-504, October.
    3. William J. Sutherland & Mark Burgman, 2015. "Policy advice: Use experts wisely," Nature, Nature, vol. 526(7573), pages 317-318, October.
    4. Peter Weingart, 1999. "Scientific expertise and political accountability: paradoxes of science in politics," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(3), pages 151-161, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. repec:sae:envval:v:12:y:2003:i:2:p:195-224 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Marjolein B.. A. van Asselt & Ellen Vos, 2006. "The Precautionary Principle and the Uncertainty Paradox," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(4), pages 313-336, June.
    3. Warren Pearce & Sujatha Raman, 2014. "The new randomised controlled trials (RCT) movement in public policy: challenges of epistemic governance," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(4), pages 387-402, December.
    4. Rodrigo A. Estévez & Valeria Espinoza & Roberto D. Ponce Oliva & Felipe Vásquez-Lavín & Stefan Gelcich, 2021. "Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for Renewable Energies: Research Trends, Gaps and the Challenge of Improving Participation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-13, March.
    5. Kleinschmit, Daniela & Pülzl, Helga & Secco, Laura & Sergent, Arnaud & Wallin, Ida, 2018. "Orchestration in political processes: Involvement of experts, citizens, and participatory professionals in forest policy making," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 4-15.
    6. Charlotte Rungius & Tim Flink, 2020. "Romancing science for global solutions: on narratives and interpretative schemas of science diplomacy," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-10, December.
    7. Phoebe Koundouri & Georgios I. Papayiannis & Achilleas Vassilopoulos & Athanasios N. Yannacopoulos, 2023. "Probabilistic Scenario-Based Assessment of National Food Security Risks with Application to Egypt and Ethiopia," Papers 2312.04428, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2023.
    8. Klauer, Bernd & Manstetten, Reiner & Petersen, Thomas & Schiller, Johannes, 2013. "The art of long-term thinking: A bridge between sustainability science and politics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 79-84.
    9. Caroline Hussler & Patrick Rondé, 2006. "Biais cognitifs et choix technologiques : une analyse des priorités des experts français," Economie & Prévision, La Documentation Française, vol. 0(4), pages 65-77.
    10. Kate Dooley & Aarti Gupta, 2017. "Governing by expertise: the contested politics of (accounting for) land-based mitigation in a new climate agreement," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 483-500, August.
    11. Nataliia Sokolovska & Benedikt Fecher & Gert G. Wagner, 2019. "Communication on the Science-Policy Interface: An Overview of Conceptual Models," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-15, November.
    12. Rhea Ravenna Sohst & Eduardo Acostamadiedo & Jasper Tjaden, 2023. "Reducing uncertainty in Delphi surveys: A case study on immigration to the EU," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 49(36), pages 983-1020.
    13. Åse Gornitzka & Cathrine Holst, 2015. "The Expert-Executive Nexus in the EU: An Introduction," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 3(1), pages 1-12.
    14. Noam Obermeister, 2020. "Tapping into science advisers’ learning," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 6(1), pages 1-9, December.
    15. Biraj Adhikari & Davnah Urbach & Nakul Chettri & Eklabya Sharma & Thomas Breu & Jonas Geschke & Markus Fischer & Graham W. Prescott, 2023. "A multi‐methods approach for assessing how conserving biodiversity interacts with other sustainable development goals in Nepal," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(5), pages 3239-3253, October.
    16. Jarle Trondal & Zuzana Murdoch & Benny Geys, 2015. "Representative Bureaucracy and the Role of Expertise in Politics," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 3(1), pages 26-36.
    17. Karin M. Gustafsson, 2019. "Learning from the Experiences of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Balancing Science and Policy to Enable Trustworthy Knowledge," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-14, November.
    18. Bal, Roland & de Graaff, Bert & van de Bovenkamp, Hester & Wallenburg, Iris, 2020. "Practicing Corona – Towards a research agenda of health policies," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(7), pages 671-673.
    19. Peter Tangney & Michael Howes, 2016. "The politics of evidence-based policy: A comparative analysis of climate adaptation in Australia and the UK," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 34(6), pages 1115-1134, September.
    20. Markus Dressel, 2022. "Models of science and society: transcending the antagonism," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-15, December.
    21. repec:osf:socarx:dxvfp_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    22. Thomas V Maher & Charles Seguin & Yongjun Zhang & Andrew P Davis, 2020. "Social scientists’ testimony before Congress in the United States between 1946-2016, trends from a new dataset," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-13, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:acf:journl:y:2019:id:1062. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://sziu.ranepa.ru .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.