Social studies, technology assessment and the pandemic: a comparative analysis of social studies-based policy advice in PTA institutions in France, Germany and the UK during the COVID-19 crisis.

IF 2.5 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Lise Moawad, Sebastian Ludwicki-Ziegler
{"title":"Social studies, technology assessment and the pandemic: a comparative analysis of social studies-based policy advice in PTA institutions in France, Germany and the UK during the COVID-19 crisis.","authors":"Lise Moawad, Sebastian Ludwicki-Ziegler","doi":"10.1332/17442648Y2024D000000043","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The COVID-19 crisis has put the question of the political uses of science back at the centre of public debates. In the last few years, the focus on using scientific knowledge in parliamentary technology assessment (PTA) institutions has predominantly been to the advantage of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). In contrast, our study aims to widen the debate and explore how social studies (encompassing humanities, arts and social sciences) have been represented in the observable science and technology assessment processes and their outputs during a salient time that required a substantial corpus of scientific evidence, namely the pandemic. Against the background of Pitkin's work on the concept of representation, our article addresses this issue by utilising a qualitatively driven multi-method approach (document analysis and prosopography) on three case studies: OPECST in France, TAB in Germany and POST in the UK. We show that, between 2020 and 2022, social studies are used primarily as a complement to STEM, and that ethical issues, in particular, play a central role in opening up to multidisciplinary references. We also examine the disparate ways these disciplines are embodied in these three PTA structures. We conclude by examining the relevance of employing such a comprehensive concept and touch on the political implications of social studies' uneven representation.</p>","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"21 2","pages":"166-185"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/17442648Y2024D000000043","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The COVID-19 crisis has put the question of the political uses of science back at the centre of public debates. In the last few years, the focus on using scientific knowledge in parliamentary technology assessment (PTA) institutions has predominantly been to the advantage of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). In contrast, our study aims to widen the debate and explore how social studies (encompassing humanities, arts and social sciences) have been represented in the observable science and technology assessment processes and their outputs during a salient time that required a substantial corpus of scientific evidence, namely the pandemic. Against the background of Pitkin's work on the concept of representation, our article addresses this issue by utilising a qualitatively driven multi-method approach (document analysis and prosopography) on three case studies: OPECST in France, TAB in Germany and POST in the UK. We show that, between 2020 and 2022, social studies are used primarily as a complement to STEM, and that ethical issues, in particular, play a central role in opening up to multidisciplinary references. We also examine the disparate ways these disciplines are embodied in these three PTA structures. We conclude by examining the relevance of employing such a comprehensive concept and touch on the political implications of social studies' uneven representation.

社会研究、技术评估和大流行:COVID-19危机期间法国、德国和英国PTA机构基于社会研究的政策咨询的比较分析
2019冠状病毒病危机使科学的政治用途问题重新成为公众辩论的中心。在过去几年中,在议会技术评估(PTA)机构中使用科学知识的重点主要是科学,技术,工程和数学(STEM)的优势。相比之下,我们的研究旨在扩大辩论并探索社会研究(包括人文、艺术和社会科学)如何在需要大量科学证据的重要时期(即大流行时期)在可观察到的科学和技术评估过程及其产出中得到体现。在皮特金关于表征概念的研究背景下,我们的文章通过对三个案例研究(法国的OPECST,德国的TAB和英国的POST)利用定性驱动的多方法方法(文件分析和人物学)来解决这个问题。我们表明,在2020年至2022年之间,社会研究主要被用作STEM的补充,尤其是伦理问题,在开放多学科参考文献方面发挥着核心作用。我们还研究了这些学科在这三个PTA结构中体现的不同方式。最后,我们考察了采用这样一个全面概念的相关性,并触及了社会研究不均衡代表性的政治含义。
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
Evidence & Policy
Evidence & Policy SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
14.30%
发文量
53
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信