反射专家的崛起?全球公共政策中的认识性、关怀性和工具性自反性

IF 1.5 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE
J. Bandola-Gill, Sotiria Grek, Marlee Tichenor
{"title":"反射专家的崛起?全球公共政策中的认识性、关怀性和工具性自反性","authors":"J. Bandola-Gill, Sotiria Grek, Marlee Tichenor","doi":"10.1177/14680181221145382","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The production of data and numbers has become the key mechanism of both knowing and governing global public policy. And yet, processes of quantification are inherently paradoxical: from expectations of technocratic rationality and political usability of producing ‘global’ numbers that count for ‘local’ politics and needs to practical limitation of measurement and the necessity to work with ‘good enough’ data. This begs a question – how do these competing epistemic, political and value orders manifest themselves through the work that experts do? In this article, we explore the problem by focussing on reflexivity as a way for experts (primarily those working in key International Organisations) to make sense of and tame the tensions inherent in their work. Through rich qualitative exploration of over 80 semi-structured interviews with experts working in the areas of poverty, education and statistical capacity development, we contribute to debates in the social studies of quantification by arguing that reflexivity is not just a mental process that experts engage in but rather an important resource allowing them to make sense of the contradictions inherent in their work and to mobilise political and ethical considerations in the technocratic process of producing numbers. We identify three types of reflexivity: (1) epistemic reflexivity – regarding the quality of data and its epistemic status as reflecting the reality; (2) care-ful reflexivity – regarding values embedded in data and the duty of care to the populations affected by the measurement and (3) instrumental reflexivity – regarding political rationality and necessary trade-off required to realise political goals. Overall, the article argues that reflexivity becomes an increasingly central expert practice, allowing the transformation of the process of quantification into one of qualification enabling them to attach political attributes and values to data and measurement.","PeriodicalId":46041,"journal":{"name":"Global Social Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The rise of the reflexive expert? Epistemic, care-ful and instrumental reflexivity in global public policy\",\"authors\":\"J. Bandola-Gill, Sotiria Grek, Marlee Tichenor\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/14680181221145382\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The production of data and numbers has become the key mechanism of both knowing and governing global public policy. And yet, processes of quantification are inherently paradoxical: from expectations of technocratic rationality and political usability of producing ‘global’ numbers that count for ‘local’ politics and needs to practical limitation of measurement and the necessity to work with ‘good enough’ data. This begs a question – how do these competing epistemic, political and value orders manifest themselves through the work that experts do? In this article, we explore the problem by focussing on reflexivity as a way for experts (primarily those working in key International Organisations) to make sense of and tame the tensions inherent in their work. Through rich qualitative exploration of over 80 semi-structured interviews with experts working in the areas of poverty, education and statistical capacity development, we contribute to debates in the social studies of quantification by arguing that reflexivity is not just a mental process that experts engage in but rather an important resource allowing them to make sense of the contradictions inherent in their work and to mobilise political and ethical considerations in the technocratic process of producing numbers. We identify three types of reflexivity: (1) epistemic reflexivity – regarding the quality of data and its epistemic status as reflecting the reality; (2) care-ful reflexivity – regarding values embedded in data and the duty of care to the populations affected by the measurement and (3) instrumental reflexivity – regarding political rationality and necessary trade-off required to realise political goals. Overall, the article argues that reflexivity becomes an increasingly central expert practice, allowing the transformation of the process of quantification into one of qualification enabling them to attach political attributes and values to data and measurement.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46041,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global Social Policy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global Social Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/14680181221145382\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Social Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14680181221145382","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

数据和数字的产生已成为了解和管理全球公共政策的关键机制。然而,量化过程本质上是矛盾的:从对技术官僚理性和政治可用性的期望,到产生对“地方”政治有意义的“全球”数字,再到测量的实际限制和使用“足够好”数据的必要性。这就引出了一个问题——这些相互竞争的认识、政治和价值秩序是如何通过专家的工作表现出来的?在这篇文章中,我们通过关注自反性来探讨这个问题,将其作为专家(主要是那些在关键国际组织工作的专家)理解和缓和工作中固有紧张关系的一种方式。通过对贫困、教育和统计能力发展领域的专家进行的80多次半结构化访谈进行丰富的定性探索,我们认为,自反性不仅是专家参与的一个心理过程,而且是一种重要的资源,使他们能够理解工作中固有的矛盾,并在产生数字的技术官僚过程中调动政治和伦理考虑,从而为量化社会研究中的辩论做出了贡献。我们确定了三种类型的自反性:(1)认识自反性——将数据的质量及其认识地位视为反映现实;(2) 谨慎自反性——关于数据中嵌入的价值观和对受测量影响的人群的谨慎义务;(3)工具自反性,关于政治理性和实现政治目标所需的必要权衡。总的来说,这篇文章认为,自反性成为一种越来越核心的专家实践,允许将量化过程转化为资格过程,使他们能够将政治属性和价值观附加到数据和测量中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The rise of the reflexive expert? Epistemic, care-ful and instrumental reflexivity in global public policy
The production of data and numbers has become the key mechanism of both knowing and governing global public policy. And yet, processes of quantification are inherently paradoxical: from expectations of technocratic rationality and political usability of producing ‘global’ numbers that count for ‘local’ politics and needs to practical limitation of measurement and the necessity to work with ‘good enough’ data. This begs a question – how do these competing epistemic, political and value orders manifest themselves through the work that experts do? In this article, we explore the problem by focussing on reflexivity as a way for experts (primarily those working in key International Organisations) to make sense of and tame the tensions inherent in their work. Through rich qualitative exploration of over 80 semi-structured interviews with experts working in the areas of poverty, education and statistical capacity development, we contribute to debates in the social studies of quantification by arguing that reflexivity is not just a mental process that experts engage in but rather an important resource allowing them to make sense of the contradictions inherent in their work and to mobilise political and ethical considerations in the technocratic process of producing numbers. We identify three types of reflexivity: (1) epistemic reflexivity – regarding the quality of data and its epistemic status as reflecting the reality; (2) care-ful reflexivity – regarding values embedded in data and the duty of care to the populations affected by the measurement and (3) instrumental reflexivity – regarding political rationality and necessary trade-off required to realise political goals. Overall, the article argues that reflexivity becomes an increasingly central expert practice, allowing the transformation of the process of quantification into one of qualification enabling them to attach political attributes and values to data and measurement.
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
Global Social Policy
Global Social Policy POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
6.70%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: Global Social Policy is a fully peer-reviewed journal that advances the understanding of the impact of globalisation processes upon social policy and social development on the one hand, and the impact of social policy upon globalisation processes on the other hand. The journal analyses the contributions of a range of national and international actors, both governmental and non-governmental, to global social policy and social development discourse and practice. Global Social Policy publishes scholarly policy-oriented articles and reports that focus on aspects of social policy and social and human development as broadly defined in the context of globalisation be it in contemporary or historical contexts.
×
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