Forskning for politikk: Om uavhengighet i direktoratsektoren

Gisle Andersen
{"title":"Forskning for politikk: Om uavhengighet i direktoratsektoren","authors":"Gisle Andersen","doi":"10.23865/NOASP.63.CH7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter analyzes the establishment of ecosystem-based petroleum management in Norway since 2001. Based on interviews with researchers involved in the processes and document analysis, it is argued that research has a much less autonomous role for policy development than the public debate presupposes. Rather than being a scientific corrective to policy, research is deeply intertwined with political decision-making and management processes. This is often the case when research is to inform policymakers. What is particular in this case, is the organization of research. The core research institutions are themselves hybrids, as the boundary between science and policy is drawn within these institutions. This way of organizing research is resource-effective, flexible and secure policy-relevant knowledge creation. However, it also reduces researchers’ autonomy, it puts limits on when and how they choose to participate in public debates, and it can create a false impression of knowledge consensus. The prevailing organization of research makes it easier to define policy decisions as “knowledge-based”, but at the same time potentially limits the quality of knowledge available to the public. Rather than asking for “purer” knowledge production, we need to discuss the consequences of different ways of organizing policy-relevant knowledge creation.","PeriodicalId":126889,"journal":{"name":"Interessekonflikter i forskning","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interessekonflikter i forskning","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23865/NOASP.63.CH7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This chapter analyzes the establishment of ecosystem-based petroleum management in Norway since 2001. Based on interviews with researchers involved in the processes and document analysis, it is argued that research has a much less autonomous role for policy development than the public debate presupposes. Rather than being a scientific corrective to policy, research is deeply intertwined with political decision-making and management processes. This is often the case when research is to inform policymakers. What is particular in this case, is the organization of research. The core research institutions are themselves hybrids, as the boundary between science and policy is drawn within these institutions. This way of organizing research is resource-effective, flexible and secure policy-relevant knowledge creation. However, it also reduces researchers’ autonomy, it puts limits on when and how they choose to participate in public debates, and it can create a false impression of knowledge consensus. The prevailing organization of research makes it easier to define policy decisions as “knowledge-based”, but at the same time potentially limits the quality of knowledge available to the public. Rather than asking for “purer” knowledge production, we need to discuss the consequences of different ways of organizing policy-relevant knowledge creation.
本章分析了挪威自2001年以来建立的基于生态系统的石油管理制度。根据对参与过程和文件分析的研究人员的采访,有人认为,研究在政策制定方面的自主作用远不如公众辩论所预设的那样大。研究不是对政策的科学修正,而是与政治决策和管理过程深深交织在一起。当研究为决策者提供信息时,这种情况经常出现。在这种情况下,特别的是研究的组织。核心研究机构本身就是混合体,因为科学和政策之间的界限是在这些机构内部划定的。这种组织研究的方式是资源有效的、灵活的和安全的与政策相关的知识创造。然而,它也降低了研究人员的自主权,限制了他们选择何时以及如何参与公共辩论,并可能造成知识共识的错误印象。流行的研究组织使人们更容易将政策决定定义为“基于知识的”,但同时也潜在地限制了公众可获得的知识的质量。与其要求“更纯粹”的知识生产,我们需要讨论组织与政策相关的知识创造的不同方式的后果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信