IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i23p13442-d695248.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Goodbye Expert-Based Policy Advice? Challenges in Advising Governmental Institutions in Times of Transformation

Author

Listed:
  • Christoph Kehl

    (Office of Technology Assessment at the German Bundestag, Neue Schönhauser Straße 10, 10178 Berlin, Germany)

  • Steffen Albrecht

    (Office of Technology Assessment at the German Bundestag, Neue Schönhauser Straße 10, 10178 Berlin, Germany)

  • Pauline Riousset

    (Office of Technology Assessment at the German Bundestag, Neue Schönhauser Straße 10, 10178 Berlin, Germany)

  • Arnold Sauter

    (Office of Technology Assessment at the German Bundestag, Neue Schönhauser Straße 10, 10178 Berlin, Germany)

Abstract

The global transformation towards sustainability has not only increased the demand for anticipatory and reflexive knowledge to support decision making, but also raises three challenges common to all forms of scientific policy advice: to appropriately consider societal norms and values (challenge of normativity), to integrate different forms of knowledge (challenge of integration) and to organize the participation of stakeholders (challenge of participation). While new forms of scientific policy advice in the field of sustainability research (SR) have emerged in response, the role of established actors such as the Office of Technology Assessment at the German Bundestag (TAB) is increasingly scrutinized. One of the fundamental characteristics of TAB’s model of scientific policy advice is a rigid boundary arrangement between politics and science that places a high value on the objectivity and authority of scientific knowledge. Based on a content analysis of digitalization-related TAB reports spanning three decades, we describe how a rather technocratic institution such as TAB has dealt with the challenges of normativity, integration, and participation, and we compare its approach with that of SR institutions. TAB has partly adapted its working mode to the new challenges, e.g., by trying out new methods to foster a stronger dialogue with stakeholders. However, TAB’s response to the challenges distinctly differs from the forms of transformative research conducted in the SR community. We argue that this is not only a necessary precondition to maintain its reputation as a trustworthy actor towards the Parliament but gives TAB and similar expert-based institutions a special role in the governance of societal transformation.

Suggested Citation

  • Christoph Kehl & Steffen Albrecht & Pauline Riousset & Arnold Sauter, 2021. "Goodbye Expert-Based Policy Advice? Challenges in Advising Governmental Institutions in Times of Transformation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-16, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:23:p:13442-:d:695248
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/23/13442/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/23/13442/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Luks, Fred & Siebenhuner, Bernd, 2007. "Transdisciplinarity for social learning? The contribution of the German socio-ecological research initiative to sustainability governance," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 418-426, August.
    2. Bauer, Anja & Kastenhofer, Karen, 2019. "Policy advice in technology assessment: Shifting roles, principles and boundaries," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 32-41.
    3. Armin Grunwald, 2003. "Technology assessment at the German Bundestag: ‘Expertising’ democracy for ‘democratising’ expertise," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 193-198, June.
    4. Jahn, Thomas & Bergmann, Matthias & Keil, Florian, 2012. "Transdisciplinarity: Between mainstreaming and marginalization," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 1-10.
    5. van der Hel, Sandra & Biermann, Frank, 2017. "The authority of science in sustainability governance: A structured comparison of six science institutions engaged with the Sustainable Development Goals," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 211-220.
    6. Jabbour, Jason & Flachsland, Christian, 2017. "40 years of global environmental assessments: A retrospective analysis," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 193-202.
    7. van Est, Rinie, 2019. "Thinking parliamentary technology assessment politically: Exploring the link between democratic policy making and parliamentary TA," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 48-56.
    8. Armin Grunwald, 2006. "Scientific independence as a constitutive part of parliamentary technology assessment," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(2), pages 103-113, March.
    9. Delvenne, Pierre & Parotte, Céline, 2019. "Breaking the myth of neutrality: Technology Assessment has politics, Technology Assessment as politics," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 64-72.
    10. Kunseler, Eva-Maria & Tuinstra, Willemijn, 2017. "Navigating the authority paradox: Practising objectivity in environmental expertise," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 1-7.
    11. Konrad Gürtler & Manuel Rivera, 2019. "New Departures—Or a Spanner in the Works? Exploring Narratives of Impact-Driven Sustainability Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-17, November.
    12. Hennen, Leonhard & Nierling, Linda, 2019. "The politics of technology assessment," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 17-22.
    13. Hirsch Hadorn, Gertrude & Bradley, David & Pohl, Christian & Rist, Stephan & Wiesmann, Urs, 2006. "Implications of transdisciplinarity for sustainability research," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 119-128, November.
    14. 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)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Leonhard Hennen & Jürgen Kopfmüller & Maria Maia & Linda Nierling & Constanze Scherz, 2023. "Ways towards Transformation—Conceptual Approaches and Challenges," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-27, October.

    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. Karaulova, Maria & Edler, Jakob, 2023. "Bringing research into policy: Understanding context-specific requirements for productive knowledge brokering in legislatures," Discussion Papers "Innovation Systems and Policy Analysis" 77, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    2. Kraus, Sascha & Kumar, Satish & Lim, Weng Marc & Kaur, Jaspreet & Sharma, Anuj & Schiavone, Francesco, 2023. "From moon landing to metaverse: Tracing the evolution of Technological Forecasting and Social Change," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    3. Paul Stock & Rob J.F. Burton, 2011. "Defining Terms for Integrated (Multi-Inter-Trans-Disciplinary) Sustainability Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 3(8), pages 1-24, July.
    4. Nicolás Ruiz, Néstor & Suárez Alonso, María Luisa & Vidal-Abarca, María Rosario, 2021. "Contributions of dry rivers to human well-being: A global review for future research," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    5. Arora-Jonsson, Seema, 2016. "Does resilience have a culture? Ecocultures and the politics of knowledge production," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 98-107.
    6. Lundgren, Jakob, 2022. "Unity through disunity: Strengths, values, and tensions in the disciplinary discourse of ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    7. Evelien de Hoop, 2020. "More Democratic Sustainability Governance through Participatory Knowledge Production? A Framework and Systematic Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-30, July.
    8. Flurina Schneider & Zarina Patel & Katsia Paulavets & Tobias Buser & Jacqueline Kado & Stefanie Burkhart, 2023. "Fostering transdisciplinary research for sustainability in the Global South: Pathways to impact for funding programmes," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-11, December.
    9. Carbajo, Ruth & Cabeza, Luisa F., 2018. "Renewable energy research and technologies through responsible research and innovation looking glass: Reflexions, theoretical approaches and contemporary discourses," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 792-808.
    10. Ulrike Zeigermann, 2021. "Scientific Knowledge Integration and the Implementation of the SDGs: Comparing Strategies of Sustainability Networks," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(1), pages 164-175.
    11. Aeberhard, Andrea & Rist, Stephan, 2009. "Transdisciplinary co-production of knowledge in the development of organic agriculture in Switzerland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(4), pages 1171-1181, February.
    12. Schmidt, Laura & Falk, Thomas & Siegmund-Schultze, Marianna & Spangenberg, Joachim H., 2020. "The Objectives of Stakeholder Involvement in Transdisciplinary Research. A Conceptual Framework for a Reflective and Reflexive Practise," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    13. Stefan Schaltegger & Markus Beckmann & Erik G. Hansen, 2013. "Transdisciplinarity in Corporate Sustainability: Mapping the Field," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(4), pages 219-229, May.
    14. Troullaki, Katerina & Rozakis, Stelios & Kostakis, Vasilis, 2021. "Bridging barriers in sustainability research: Α review from sustainability science to life cycle sustainability assessment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    15. Brandt, Patric & Ernst, Anna & Gralla, Fabienne & Luederitz, Christopher & Lang, Daniel J. & Newig, Jens & Reinert, Florian & Abson, David J. & von Wehrden, Henrik, 2013. "A review of transdisciplinary research in sustainability science," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 1-15.
    16. Ana Guzmán Ruiz & Meredith Dobbie & Rebekah Brown, 2017. "Insights and future directions of transdisciplinary practice in the urban water sector," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 7(2), pages 251-263, June.
    17. Ahn, Sang-Jin & Yoon, Ho Young & Lee, Young-Joo, 2021. "Text mining as a tool for real-time technology assessment: Application to the cross-national comparative study on artificial organ technology," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    18. Marina Knickel & Karlheinz Knickel & Francesca Galli & Damian Maye & Johannes S. C. Wiskerke, 2019. "Towards a Reflexive Framework for Fostering Co—Learning and Improvement of Transdisciplinary Collaboration," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-22, November.
    19. Jana Zscheischler & Sebastian Rogga & Maria Busse, 2017. "The Adoption and Implementation of Transdisciplinary Research in the Field of Land-Use Science—A Comparative Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-20, October.
    20. Hoffmann, Sabine & Pohl, Christian & Hering, Janet G., 2017. "Exploring transdisciplinary integration within a large research program: Empirical lessons from four thematic synthesis processes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 678-692.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:23:p:13442-:d:695248. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.