认真对待多元主义:循证政策的新视角

IF 2.6 4区 管理学 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Karim Bschir, Simon Lohse
{"title":"认真对待多元主义:循证政策的新视角","authors":"Karim Bschir, Simon Lohse","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad074","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Scientific policy advice in the face of complex real-world problems requires a maximally pluralistic knowledge base. However, integrating different types of knowledge from a variety of sources raises a series of highly challenging epistemic as well as practical problems. We propose an integrated model of pluralistic policy advice emphasizing the appropriate constitution and structure of pluralistic expert panels. Furthermore, we suggest that normative assumptions underlying expert advice should be made explicit to policymakers. The goal should not be to avoid normative biases, but rather to create transparency with respect to the unavoidable value judgements that influence the epistemic preferences of experts and to provide policymakers with evidence-based scenarios that range over a variety of value preferences.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Taking pluralism seriously: a new perspective on evidence-based policy\",\"authors\":\"Karim Bschir, Simon Lohse\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/scipol/scad074\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Scientific policy advice in the face of complex real-world problems requires a maximally pluralistic knowledge base. However, integrating different types of knowledge from a variety of sources raises a series of highly challenging epistemic as well as practical problems. We propose an integrated model of pluralistic policy advice emphasizing the appropriate constitution and structure of pluralistic expert panels. Furthermore, we suggest that normative assumptions underlying expert advice should be made explicit to policymakers. The goal should not be to avoid normative biases, but rather to create transparency with respect to the unavoidable value judgements that influence the epistemic preferences of experts and to provide policymakers with evidence-based scenarios that range over a variety of value preferences.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47975,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Science and Public Policy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Science and Public Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad074\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science and Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad074","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

面对复杂的现实世界问题,科学的政策建议需要一个最大程度多元化的知识库。然而,整合来自各种来源的不同类型的知识会引发一系列极具挑战性的认知问题和实际问题。我们提出了一个多元化政策咨询的综合模式,强调多元化专家小组的适当组成和结构。此外,我们建议应向政策制定者明确指出专家建议的规范性假设。目标不应是避免规范性偏差,而应是在影响专家认知偏好的不可避免的价值判断方面创造透明度,并为政策制定者提供涵盖各种价值偏好的循证情景。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Taking pluralism seriously: a new perspective on evidence-based policy
Scientific policy advice in the face of complex real-world problems requires a maximally pluralistic knowledge base. However, integrating different types of knowledge from a variety of sources raises a series of highly challenging epistemic as well as practical problems. We propose an integrated model of pluralistic policy advice emphasizing the appropriate constitution and structure of pluralistic expert panels. Furthermore, we suggest that normative assumptions underlying expert advice should be made explicit to policymakers. The goal should not be to avoid normative biases, but rather to create transparency with respect to the unavoidable value judgements that influence the epistemic preferences of experts and to provide policymakers with evidence-based scenarios that range over a variety of value preferences.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
11.10%
发文量
67
期刊介绍: Science and Public Policy is a leading refereed, international journal on public policies for science, technology and innovation, and on their implications for other public policies. It covers basic, applied, high, low, and any other types of S&T, and rich or poorer countries. It is read in around 70 countries, in universities (teaching and research), government ministries and agencies, consultancies, industry and elsewhere.
×
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