Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Expertise and Participation pp 25–85Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

Methodology, Theory and Context

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 213 Accesses

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in European Political Sociology ((PSEPS))

Abstract

This chapter provides methodological, theoretical and contextual background for the book’s case studies. It starts by defining the object of empirical inquiry (multi-level arenas of policy advice and consultation) in more detail and by explaining the case selection approach, research strategy, data base and choice of methods. It then develops a two-dimensional normative assessment framework of democratic legitimacy and epistemic authority, thereby conceptualising ‘democratic participation’ and ‘reliable expertise’ and developing criteria and indicators that operationalise these notions and guide the empirical case studies. The chapter finally discusses the status of participation and expertise in Norway and Germany and embeds the three environmental policy advisory processes into the framework of European multi-level governance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Abbreviated generic forms are also sometimes used as alternatives (such as ‘advisory body’ or ‘consultation arena’).

  2. 2.

    The term ‘minipublic’ these days often pertains quite specifically to randomly selected public deliberation fora, such as ‘consensus conferences’, ‘citizen juries’ or ‘planning cells’ in research (see Brown 2009, p. 251; Steiner 2012, p. 33), and this book follows this understanding. Yet, some authors also use the term in a more general sense for participatory settings that target the ‘the public’, and include town hall meetings and online debate fora that allow open access into the definition (see, e.g., Fung 2003, p. 338f.).

  3. 3.

    There were many further organisational differences, but since their description is an aim of the study, this will not be elaborated on at this point.

  4. 4.

    Despite many similarities of the two contexts, there are of course also a range of institutional and cultural differences, not only between the countries, but also between the climate policy field and the nuclear waste storage issue or between classic committee structures and more network-like advisory structures. If relevant, these differences will be taken into account and described in the case studies.

  5. 5.

    Representation means to speak, act or be present for another person or group. Whether the representatives mirror those they stand for statistically, have been authorised to act or stand in accountability relationships, are important normative questions that denote the legitimacy of the representation. Accountability is the requirement of representatives to answer to the represented and accept some responsibility for failure to advocate the interests of the represented.

  6. 6.

    While Goodin states that the principle of affected interests requires ‘giving virtually everyone everywhere a vote on virtually everything decided anywhere’ (Goodin 2007, p. 68), I contend that the principle actually limits the scope of involvement somewhat. Not everyone is in fact affected by virtually everything everywhere. Besides, whether everyone is to vote, i.e. decide directly on questions of concerns, is an issue that can be considered independently of the affectedness condition (and I do this here).

  7. 7.

    Expert commission shall refer to the ideal type of an advisory body that is quite formalised, scholarly composed and mainly deals with scientific and technical issues.

  8. 8.

    ‘Local knowledge’ can be defined as the specialised insights that users of a locality, such as farmers or residents, hold. It is to a large degree ‘experiential’ or ‘experience-based’, i.e. obtained through practice, and not through training and research.

  9. 9.

    It is interesting how in this way, two ideas interlink—and probably reinforce each other—that have been described as ‘quasi-religious’ (Hood 2006, p. 3) and ‘sacrosanct’ (Day 1997, p. 421) in contemporary debates about legitimacy and good governance, and that do not always receive the required nuanced assessment and reservation, but are sometimes idealised to some extent (see also Chapter 2.2 and Chapter 7).

  10. 10.

    ‘Aarhus convention’ refers to the UNECE convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, Aarhus, Denmark 25.06.1998, https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/documents/cep43e.pdf.

  11. 11.

    On the local level, 7503 citizen referenda were initiated between 1956 and 2017 and more than half of them between 2003 and 2017 alone (Mehr Demokratie e.V. 2018, p. 7). A similar tendency can be observed on the state level with the numbers of referenda rising from ca. 10 per decade from the 1940s to the 1980s, to 125 in the 1990s, 151 in the 2000s and 170 between 2010 and 2018 (Mehr Demokratie e.V. 2019, p. 15).

  12. 12.

    On the local level in Norway, there have been about 20 initiatives per year since 1980 (mostly on alcohol restrictions, (official) language regulations and merging of municipalities), with a slightly falling tendency, except for an exceptional peak of 204 referenda in 2016 when municipalities voted on district merging, as opposed to 8, 5 and 7 in 2017, 2018 and 2019, respectively (https://www.ssb.no/folkavs_kostra).

  13. 13.

    See for professional service providers in this field the list compiled by Netzwerk Demokratie e.V. (https://www.netzwerk-buergerbeteiligung.de/professionelle-anbieter-der-buergerbeteiligung/). The line between ‘research institutes’, think tanks, pressure groups and consultancies is a particularly fine one here.

  14. 14.

    To date, each municipality yearly initiates 8 participation procedures on average in Germany, 91% state they have used non-compulsory, innovative forms of engagement and the majority sees citizens as sought-after informants or advisors for policy-making (Pollytix and NeulandQuartier 2018).

  15. 15.

    In the regular polls on national parliament voting intention, support for the German AfD (Alternative für Deutschland) has fluctuated between 3% in 2013 and a short high of 16% in 2018, and has been between 8 and 13% during 2020 (https://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/forsa.htm). Support for the Norwegian FrP (Fremskrittspartiet) has sunk from a peak of over 30% in 2008 to between 10 and 13% in 2020 (http://www.pollofpolls.no/?cmd=Stortinget).

  16. 16.

    Public opinion surveys conducted by the EU (Eurobarometer e.g.) are usually confined to the 28 member states, Germany tends to be compared to other big countries in Europe or the Americas (or to other German-speaking ones), while Norway is often part of intra-Nordic assessments.

  17. 17.

    The statements and questions that respondents have to answer to range from ‘People should trust their beliefs more than science all in all’ and ‘Science harms more than it benefits societies’ (both Wissenschaftsbarometer 2014, p. 8), ‘Science has made our lives healthier, easier and more comfortable’ (European Commission 2011, p. 464) to ‘How much do you trust independent research institutions?’ (Wissenschaftsbarometer 2019, p. 5).

  18. 18.

    This high trust in researchers as a social groups is for Germany confirmed by numbers from a 2001 Eurobarometer (European Commission 2001).

  19. 19.

    The above cited Eurobarometer found 89% agreement in Germany and 91% agreement in Norway to the statement ‘what university scientists do has a positive effect on society’ (European Commission 2005, p. 49).

  20. 20.

    See Kommunal-og moderniseringsdepartementet (2016) and Direktoratet for økonomistyring (2018).

  21. 21.

    The document that comes closest to a public register are the reports required by the Federal Act on the Appointment to Bodies (FAAB; ‘Bundesgremienbesetzungsgesetz’). This report is published once in a legislative period. It primarily details the share of men and women on public advisory and monitoring bodies and lacks systematic information on such fundamental variables as professional background or names of committee members, start or end date of the committee. It is limited to those advisory committees that the responsible ministry considers ‘essential’—and this generally does not cover even the most formalised and influential ad hoc committees. Further scattered information on committees can be found in a handful of responses to parliamentary inquiries over the past 20 or 30 years.

  22. 22.

    See, e.g., Bundesamt für Naturschutz (2014), Bundesamt für Straßenschutz (2017), Hans-Böckler-Stiftung (2015), Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (2010), and National academy of science and engineering (acatech) (2015).

  23. 23.

    For Germany, see BTPP 17/9266, 19/22400, 19/7066; for Norway see written inquiry (skriftlig spørsmål) 15:2147.

  24. 24.

    For Germany, see Federal audit office (Bundesrechnungshof) BRH-Az: IV 1–2016 – 0490; BRH-Az: IV 3 – 2018 – 1018 / BU; for Norway see Audit office of Norway (Riksrevisjonen) doc no 3:6 (2016–2017)/ 3:6 (2016–2017) as well as the report by the foreign ministry’s main monitoring entity from 2017 (Sentral kontrollenhet 2017).

  25. 25.

    The survey and its exact numbers are no longer publicly available, but Aftenposten’s entry is https://www.aftenposten.no/kultur/i/zaJaq/Ny-undersokelse-Nesten-halvparten-av-nordmenn-stoler-ikke-pa-forskning (10.10.2017).

References

  • Allianz Vielfältige Demokratie and Bertelsmann Foundation. 2017. “Citizens’ Participation Using Sortition. A Practical Guide to Using Random Selection to Guarantee Diverse Democratic Participation.” https://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/fileadmin/files/Projekte/Vielfaeltige_Demokratie_gestalten/181102_Citizens__Participation_Using_Sortition_mb.pdf.

  • Ansell, Chris, and Alison Gash. 2007. “Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18 (4): 543–571.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bächtiger, André, Markus Spörndli, Marco R. Steenbergen, and Jürg Steiner. 2005. “The Deliberative Dimensions of Legislatures.” Acta Politica 40 (2): 225–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldersheim, Harald, Lawrende E. Rose, and Siv Sandberg. 2017. “Local and Regional Government in the Nordic Countries: Co-operative Decentralization.” In The Nordic Models in Political Science. Challenged But Still Viable?, edited by Oddbjørn Knutsen, 193–218. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, Silke. 2012. “The Challenges of Building Cosmopolitan Climate Expertise: The Case of Germany.” WIREs Clim Change 3: 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, Silke, and Tim Forsyth. 2015. “Co-production and Democratizing Global Environmental Expertise: The IPCC and Adaptation to Climate Change.” In Science and Democracy: Making Knowledge and Making Power in the Biosciences and Beyond, edited by Rob Hagendijk, Stephen Hilgartner, and Clark Miller, 113–132. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • BMU (Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und nukleare Sicherheit). 2019. “Gute Bürgerbeteiligung. Leitlinien für Mitarbeiterinnen und Mitarbeiter des Bundesministeriums für Umwelt, Naturschutz und nukleare Sicherheit.” Accessed 14 December 2020. https://www.bmu.de/fileadmin/Daten_BMU/Download_PDF/buergerbeteiligung/leitlinien_buergerbeteiligung_bmu_bf.pdf.

  • Boswell, Christina. 2008. ”The Political Functions of Expert Knowledge: Knowledge and Legitimation in European Union Immigration Policy.” Journal of European Public Policy 15 (4): 471–488.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, Mark B. 2006. “Survey Article: Citizen Panels and the Concept of Representation.” The Journal of Political Philosophy 14 (2): 203–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, Mark B. 2009. Science in Democracy: Expertise, Institutions, and Representation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, Mark B. 2014. “Expertise and Deliberative Democracy.” In Deliberative Democracy: Issues and Cases, edited by Stephen Elstub, and Peter McLaverty, 50–68. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, Mark B., Justus Lentsch, and Peter Weingart. 2005. “Representation, Expertise, and the German Parliament: A Comparison of Three Advisory Institutions.” In Democratization of Expertise? Exploring Novel Forms of Scientific Advice in Political Decision-Making, edited by Sabine Maasen and Peter Weingart, 81–100. Dodrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bundesamt für Naturschutz. 2014. “Leitlinien zur guten fachlichen Praxis in der wissenschaftsbasierten Politikberatung des BfN.” https://www.bfn.de/fileadmin/BfN/wirueberuns/Dokumente/BfN_Leitlinien_Politikberatung_2014_barrierefrei.pdf.

  • Bundesamt für Straßenschutz. 2017. “Leitlinien guter wissenschaftlicher Politikberatung.” https://www.bast.de/BASt_2017/DE/BASt/Leitlinien-Politikberatung.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=3.

  • Busuioc, Madalina. 2009. “Accountability, Control and Independence: The Case of European Agencies.” European Law Journal 15 (5): 599–615.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, John L., and Ove K. Pedersen. 2014. The National Origins of Policy Ideas: Knowledge Regimes in the United States, France, Germany, and Denmark. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, Simone. 2005. “Measuring Publicity’s Effect: Reconciling Empirical Research and Normative Theory.” Acta Politica 40: 255–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, Johan, and Cathrine Holst. 2017. “Advisory Commissions, Academic Expertise and Democratic Legitimacy: The Case of Norway.” Science and Public Policy 44 (6): 821–833.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, Johan, and Stine Hesstvedt. 2019. “Expertization or Greater Representation? Evidence from Norwegian Advisory Commissions.” European Politics and Society 20 (1): 81–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, Johan, Åse Gornitzka, and Cathrine Holst. 2017. “Knowledge Regimes in the Nordic Countries.” In The Nordic Models in Political Science. Challenged But Still Viable?, edited by Oddbjørn Knutsen, 239–254. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, Dag Arne, Brita Ytre-Arne, Tord Skogedal Lindén, and Jacob Aars. 2017. “Tjenestedemokratiet.” Stat og Styring 3: 42–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christiansen, Peter M., Asbjørn S. Nørgaard, Hilmar Rommetvedt, Torsten Svensson, Gunnar Thesen, and PerOla Öberg. 2010. “Varieties of Democracy: Interest Groups and Corporatist Committees in Scandinavian Policy Making.” VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 21: 22–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cingolani, Luciana, and Mihaly Fazekas. 2019. “The Role of Agencification in Achieving Value-for-Money in Public Spending.” Governance 33: 545–563.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, H. M., and Robert Evans. 2002. “The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience.” Social Studies of Science 32 (2): 235–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of Europe. 1985. “European Charter of Local Self-Government.” European Treaty Series No. 122, Strasbourg, 15 October. https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=090000168007a088.

  • Council of Europe. 2009. “Additional Protocol to the European Charter of Local Self-Government on the Right to Participate in the Affairs of a Local Authority.” Council of Europe Treaty Series No. 207, Utrecht, 16 November. https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=090000168008482a.

  • Curato, Nicole, and Marit Böker. 2016. “Linking Minipublics to the Deliberative System: A Research Agenda.” Policy Science 49: 173–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Czada, Roland. 2014. “Informalität und Öffentlichkeit in politischen Aushandlungsprozessen.” Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft 8 (1) (supplement issue): 115–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, Robert A. 1994. “A Democratic Dilemma: System Effectiveness Versus Citizen Participation.” Political Science Quarterly 109 (1): 23–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Day, Diane. 1997. “Citizen Participation in the Planning Process: An Essentially Contested Concept?” Journal of Planning Literature 11 (3): 421–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Design og arkitektur Oslo (Doga) 2017. “Folketråkk 2017. Oppsummering fra spørreundersøkelse.” https://doga.no/globalassets/programmer-og-aktiviteter/folketrakk/oppsummering-sporreundersokelse-medvirkning-doga2017.pdf.

  • Direktoratet for økonomistyring. 2018. “Veileder til utredningsinstruksen.” https://dfo.no/filer/Fagomr%C3%A5der/Utredninger/Veileder-i-utredningsinstruksen.pdf.

  • Dyson, Kenneth. 2005. “Binding Hands as a Strategy for Economic Reform: Government by Commission.” German Politics 14 (2): 224–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzioni, Amitai. 2010. “Is Transparency the Best Disinfectant?” The Journal of Political Philosophy 18 (4): 389–404.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission 2001. “Eurobarometer 55.2 Europeans, Science and Technology.” https://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/ebs/ebs_154_en.pdf.

  • European Commission. 2005. “Special Eurobarometer. Social Values, Science and Technology.” https://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf.

  • European Commission. 2009. European Transparency Initiative: The Register of Interest Representatives, One Year After. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council COM(2009) 612 final.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. 2011. “European Competitiveness Report 2011.” http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/competitiveness-report/2011/iuc2011-full-report.pdf.

  • European Commission. 2015. “Strengthening Evidence Based Policy Making Through Scientific Advice. Reviewing Existing Practice and Setting up a European Science Advice Mechanism.” https://ec.europa.eu/research/sam/pdf/strengthening_evidence_based_policy_making.pdf.

  • European Commission. 2016a. Better Regulation. Delivering Better Results for a Stronger Union (COM(2016)615 final).

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. 2016b. Communication to the Commission. Framework for Commission Expert Groups: Horizontal Rules and Public Register (C(2016)3300).

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. 2018. “Citizen Science for Environmental Policy: Development of an EU-Wide Inventory and Analysis of Selected Practices.” https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/science-update/eu-wide-inventory-citizen-science-environmental-policy.

  • Figueiredo Nascimento, S., E. Cuccillato, S. Schade, and A. Guimaraes Pereira. 2016. Citizen Engagement in Science and Policy-Making. Reflections and Recommendations Across the European Commission. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, Frank. 2000. Citizens, Experts and the Environment. The Politics of Local Knowledge. Durham & London: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, Frank. 2009. Democracy and Expertise. Reorienting Policy Inquiry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiss, Peer C. 2009. “Case Studies and the Configurational Analysis of Organizational Phenomena.” In The SAGE Handbook of Case-Based Methods, edited by David S. Byrne and Charles C. Ragin, 424–440. London and Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forskningsrådet and Kantar. 2020. “Befolkningens tillit til og syn på forskning.” https://www.forskningsradet.no/contentassets/96ad9ee96f7a460cada4501ad0b3502d/pm-rapport-befolkningens-tillit-til-forskning---april-2020.pdf.

  • Fricker, Miranda. 1998. “Rational Authority and Social Power: Towards a Truly Social Epistemology.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series 98: 159–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Froschauer, U., and M. Lueger. 2003. Das qualitative Interview. Zur Praxis interpretativer Analyse sozialer Systeme. Wien: WUV-UTB.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fung, Archon. 2003. “Survey Article: Recipes for Public Spheres: Eight Institutional Design Choices and Their Consequences.” The Journal of Political Philosophy 11 (3): 338–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fung, Archon. 2006. “Varieties of Participation in Complex Governance.” Public Administration Review 66 (1): 66–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fung, Archon. 2013. “The Principle of Affected Interests and Inclusion in Democratic Governance.” In Representation: Elections and Beyond, edited by J. Nagel and R. Smith, 236–268. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabriel, Oscar W., and Kerstin Völkl. 2005. “Politische und soziale Partizipation.” In Handbuch Politisches System der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, edited by Oscar W. Gabriel and Everhard Holtmann, 523–573. München.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geertz, Clifford. 1973. “Thick Description: Toward an Interpretative Theory of Culture.” In The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelfert, Axel. 2011. “Expertise, Argumentation and the End of Inquiry.” Argumentation 25: 297–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerring, John. 2011. “The Case Study: What It Is and What It Does.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Science, edited by Robert E. Goodin. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, Alvin I. 2001. “Experts: Which Ones Should We Trust?” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 63 (1): 85–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodin, Robert. 2005. “Sequencing Deliberative Moments.” Acta Politica 40: 182–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodin, Robert. 2007. “Enfranchising All Affected Interests, and its Alternatives.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 35 (1): 40–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greve, Carsten, Per Lægreid, and Lise H. Rykkja. 2016. Nordic Administrative Reforms. Lessons for Public Management. Houndsmill: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guston, David H. 2005. “Institutional Design for Socially Robust Knowledge: The National Toxicology Program’s Report on Racinogens”. In Democratization of Expertise? Exploring Novel Forms of Scientific Advice in Political Decision-Making, edited by Sabine Maasen and Peter Weingart, 63–79. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutmann, A., and D. Thompson. 1996. Democracy and Disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haas, Peter M. 1992. “Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination.” International Organization 46 (1): 1–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haas, Peter M. 2004. “When Does Power Listen to Truth? A Constructivist Approach to the Policy Process” Journal of European Public Policy 11(4): 569–592.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hans-Böckler-Stiftung. 2015. “Leitlinien wissenschaftlicher Politikberatung für die Hans Böckler Stiftung.” https://www.boeckler.de/pdf/leitlinien_wissenschaftlicher_politikberatung.pdf.

  • Hansen, Janus, and Agnes Allansdottir. 2011. “Assessing the Impacts of Citizen Participation in Science Governance: Exploring New Roads in Comparative Analysis.” Science and Public Policy 38 (8): 609–617.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendricks, Carolyn M. 2016. “Coupling Citizens and Elites in Deliberative Systems: The Role of Institutional Design.” European Journal of Political Research 55 (1): 43–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holst, Cathrine. 2014. “Forskning viser.” Tidsskriftet Fett (1/2014). https://fett.no/forskning-viser/.

  • Holst, Cathrine. 2017. “Kunnskapsbasert politikk – et demokratisk problem?” Stat og styring 3: 6–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holst, Cathrine, and Silje Hexeberg Tørnblad. 2015. “Variables and Challenges in Assessing EU Experts’ Performance.” Politics and Governance 3 (1): 166–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holst, Cathrine, and Anders Molander. 2017. “Public Deliberation and the Fact of Expertise: Making Experts Accountable.” Social Epistemology 31 (3): 235–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hood, Christopher. 2006. “What Happens When Transparency Meets Blame Avoidance?” Public Management Review 9 (2): 191–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huntington, S. P., and J. M. Nelson. 1976. No Easy Choice: Political Participation in Developing Countries. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • IFOK. 2020. “Make Random Selection Part of Political Practice. Contribution to the Debate.” https://www.ifok.de/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Citizens%E2%80%99-Councils.pdf.

  • Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung. 2010. “Leitlinien guter wissenschaftlicher Politikberatung für das IAB.” http://doku.iab.de/politikberatung/leitlinien_politikberatung.pdf.

  • Irvin, Renee A., and John Stansbury. 2004. “Citizen Participation in Decision Making: Is It Worth the Effort?” Public Administration Review 64 (1): 55–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, Sheila. 1987. “Contested Boundaries of Policy-Relevant Science.” Social Studies of Science 17: 196–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, Sheila. 2003. “(No?) Accounting for Expertise.” Science and Public Policy 30 (3): 157–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, Sheila. 2005. “Judgment Under Siege: The Three-Body Problem of Expert Legitimacy.” In Democratization of Expertise? Exploring Novel Forms of Scientific Advice in Political Decision-Making, edited by Sabine Maasen and Peter Weingart, 209–224. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, Sheila, and Brian Wynne. 1998. “Science and Decisionmaking.” In Human Choice and Climate Change, edited by Steve Rayner and Elizabeth L. Malone, 1–87. Washington, DC: Battelle Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jung, Arlena, Rebecca-Lea Korinek, and Holger Straßheim. 2014. “Embedded Expertise: A Conceptual Framework for Reconstructing Knowledge Orders, Their Transformation and Local Specificities.” Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 27 (4): 398–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaase, Max. 1997. “Vergleichende Politische Partizipationsforschung.” In Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft, edited by Dirk Berg-Schlosser and Ferdinand Müller-Rommel, 159–174. Opladen: Leske und Budrich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karlsen, Mina Liavik. 2017. „Nei, nye tall viser ikke økt mistillit til forskere og voksende tro på konspirasjonsteorier blant nordmenn.“ Faktisk helt feil. https://www.faktisk.no/faktasjekker/0xd/nye-tall-viser-okt-mistillit-til-forskere-og-voksende-tro-pa-konspirasjonsteorier-blant-nordmenn.

  • Khrono. 2017. “Alarm i forskningsrådet?” https://khrono.no/forskningsradet-forskningsdagene-forskning/alarm-i-forskningsradet/117264.

  • Kobro, Lars Ueland. 2017. “Politisk retorikk eller ny metodikk?” Stat og Styring 27 (1): 38–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kommunal-og moderniseringsdepartementet. 2016. “Utredningsinstruksen.” https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/fb9f8af4b54844f2821589b3d73b821e/utredningsinstruksen.pdf.

  • Krick, Eva. 2014. “Partizipationspotentiale von Expertengremien. Der Trade-off zwischen Inklusion und Effektivität im Verhandlungsprozess.” Österreichische Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft 43 (1): 7–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krick, Eva. 2015. “Negotiated Expertise in Policy-Making. How Governments Use Hybrid Advisory Committees.” Science and Public Policy 42 (4): 487–500.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krick, Eva. 2017. “The Myth of Effective Veto Power Under the Rule of Consensus. Dynamics and Democratic Legitimacy of Collective Decision-Making by ‘Tacit Consent’.” Revue Négociations 27 (1): 109–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krick, Eva. 2018. “The Epistemic Quality of Expertise. Contextualised Criteria for the Multi-source, Negotiated Policy Advice of Stakeholder Fora.” Critical Policy Studies 12 (2): 209–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krick, Eva. 2019: “Creating Participatory Expert Bodies. How the Targeted Selection of Policy Advisers can Bridge the Epistemic-Democratic Divide.” European Politics and Society 20 (1): 101–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krick, Eva. 2020. “Demokratisierung durch Partizipation? Die Mehrebenen-Beteiligung an der Endlagersuche in Deutschland.” Politische Vierteljahresschrift [online first]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11615-020-00274-y.

  • Krick, Eva, and Åse Gornitzka. 2020. “Tracing Scientisation in the EU Commission’s Expert Group System.” Innovation: European Journal of Social Science Research [online first]. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2020.181649.

  • Krick, Eva, and Cathrine Holst. 2018. “Committee Governance in Consensus Cultures: An Exploration of Best Practice Cases in Germany and Norway.” In Democratic State and Democratic Society: Institutional Change in the Nordic Model, edited by Fredrik Engelstad, Cathrine Holst, and Gunnar C. Aakvaag, 151–174. Warsaw, Poland: De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krick, Eva, and Cathrine Holst. 2021. “Governance by Hybrid Advisory Committees: A Hallmark of Social Democracy?” In Social Democracy in the 21st Century. Comparative Social Research, edited by Øivind Bratberg, Nik Brandal, and Dag Einar Thorsen, 115–132. Emerald Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krick, Eva, Johan Christensen, and Cathrine Holst. 2019. “Between ‘Scientisation’ and a ‘Participatory Turn’. Tracing Shifts in the Governance of Policy Advice.” Science & Public Policy [online first]. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scz040.

  • Ladner, Andreas, Nicolas Keuffer, Harald Baldersheim, Nikos Hlepas, Pavel Swianiewicz, Kristof Steyvers, and Carmen Navarro. 2018. Patterns of Local Autonomy in Europe. Houndsmill: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lægreid, Per, Åsta Dyrnes Nordø, and Lise H. Rykkja. 2013. “The Quality of Coordination in Norwegian Central Government: The Importance of Coordination Arrangements and Structural, Cultural and Demographic Factors.” COCOPS Working Paper No. 14. Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lafont, Christina. 2015. “Deliberation, Participation and Democratic Legitimacy: Should Deliberative Minipublics Shape Public Policy?” The Journal of Political Philosophy 23 (1): 40–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landwehr, Claudia. 2010. “Discourse and Coordination: Modes of Interaction and Their Roles in Political Decision-Making.” Journal of Political Philosophy 18 (1): 101–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavertu, Stéphane, and David L. Weimer. 2011. “Federal Advisory Committees, Policy Expertise, and the Approval of Drugs and Medical Devices at the FDA.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21 (2): 211–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lentsch, Justus, and Peter Weingart. 2011a. The Politics of Scientific Advice: Institutional Design for Quality Assurance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lentsch, Justus, and Peter Weingart. 2011b. “Introduction: The Quest for Quality as a Challenge to Scientific Policy Advice: an Overdue Debate?” In The Politics of Scientific Advice: Institutional Design for Quality Assurance, edited by Justus Lentsch, and Peter Weingart, 3–18. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lentsch, Justus, and Peter Weingart. 2011c. “Quality Control in the Advisory Process: Towards an Institutional Design for Robust Science Advice.” In The Politics of Scientific Advice: Institutional Design for Quality Assurance, edited by Justus Lentsch, and Peter Weingart, 353–374. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lijphart, Arend. 2012. Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in 36 Countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loeber, Anne, Erich Griessler, and Wytske Versteeg. 2011. “Stop Looking Up the Ladder: Analyzing the Impact of Participatory Technology Assessment from a Process Perspective.” Science and Public Policy 38 (8): 599–608.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lövbrand, Eva, Roger Pielke, and Silke Beck. 2011. “A Democracy Paradox in Studies of Science and Technology.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 36 (4): 474–496.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maasen, Sabine, and Peter Weingart. 2005. “What’s New in Scientific Advice to Politics?” In Democratization of Expertise? Exploring Novel Forms of Scientific Advice in Political Decision-Making, edited by Sabine Maasen and Peter Weingart, 1–19. Dodrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manin, Bernard. 1987. “On Legitimacy and Political Deliberation.” Political Theory 15 (3): 338–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manin, Bernard. 2005. “Democratic Deliberation: Why We Should Promote Debate Rather than Discussion.” Paper delivered at the Program in Ethics and Public Affairs Seminar Princeton University, 13 October. https://as.nyu.edu/content/dam/nyu-as/faculty/documents/delib.pdf.

  • Mansbridge, Jane. 1980. Beyond Adversary Democracy. New York, NY: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mansbridge, Jane, James Bohman, Simone Chambers, David Estlund, Andreas Føllesdal, Archon Fung, Cristina Lafont, Bernard Manin, and José luis Martí. 2010. “The Place of Self-Interest and the Role of Power in Deliberative Democracy.” The Journal of Political Philosophy 18 (1): 64–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mansbridge, Jane, James Bohman, Simone Chambers, Thomas Christiano, Archon Fung, John Parkinson, Dennis F. Thompson, and Mark E. Warren. 2012. “A Systematic Approach to Deliberative Democracy.” In Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale, edited by John Parkinson and Jane Mansbridge, 1–26. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marien, Sofie, Marc Hooghe, and Ellen Quintelier. 2010. “Unconventional Participation and the Problem of Inequality: A Comparative Analysis.” In New Forms of Citizen Participation. Normative Implications, edited by Erik Amnå, 131–146. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayntz, Renate. 2009. “Speaking Truth to Power: Leitlinien für die Regelung wissenschaftlicher Politikberatung.” Der moderne Staat 2 (1): 5–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehr Demokratie e.V. 2018. “Bürgerbegehren-Bericht.” https://www.mehr-demokratie.de/fileadmin/pdf/2018-12-04_BB-Bericht2018.pdf.

  • Mehr Demokratie e.V. 2019. “Volksbegehrensbericht.” https://www.mehr-demokratie.de/fileadmin/pdf/Volksbegehrensbericht_2019.pdf.

  • Meriluoto, Taina. 2017. “Turning Experience into Expertise: Technologies of the Self in Finnish Participatory Social Policy.” Critical Policy Studies 12 (3): 294–313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, John. W., and Brian Rowan. 1977. “Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony.” American Journal of Sociology 83 (2): 340–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, Alfred. 2017. Critical Elitism. Deliberation, Democracy and the Problem of Expertise. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mouffe, Chantal. 2013. Agonistics. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Academy of Science and Engineering (acatech). 2015. “Leitlinien für gute Politik- und Gesellschaftsberatung.” https://www.acatech.de/akademie/leitlinien-politikberatung/.

  • Nowotny, Helga. 2001. “Democratising Expertise and Socially Robust Knowledge.” Science and Public Policy 30 (3): 151–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowotny, Helga, Peter Scott, and Michael Gibbons. 2001. Re-thinking Science. Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nullmeier, Frank. 2013. “Wissenspolitologie und interpretative Politikanalyse.” In Wissen und Expertise in Politik und Verwaltung, edited by Sabine Kropp and Sabine Kuhlmann, 21–43. Leverkusen: Budrich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nullmeier, Frank. 2019. “Interpretative Politikforschung und kausale Mechanismen.” Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft 29 (2): 153–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. 2020. “Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions. Catching the Deliberative Wave.” Highlights. https://www.oecd.org/gov/open-government/innovative-citizen-participation-new-democratic-institutions-catching-the-deliberative-wave-highlights.pdf.

  • Olsen, Johan P. 1972. “Voting, ‘Sounding Out’, and the Governance of Modern Organizations.” Acta Sociologica. Journal of the Scandinavian Sociological Association 15 (3): 267–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Open Government Partnership (OGP). 2019. “What’s Next for Open Government in the Nordics.” https://www.opengovpartnership.org/stories/whats-next-for-open-government-in-the-nordics/.

  • Open Government Partnership (OGP). 2020. “Independent Reporting Mechanism: Germany Implementation Report 2017–2019.” https://www.opengovpartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Germany_Implementation_Report_2017-2019_EN_for-public-comment.pdf.

  • Ørstavik, Ragnhild. 2017. “Tillit, men til hva?” Tidskrift for den norske legeforeningen: 19. https://tidsskriftet.no/2017/10/fra-redaktoren/tillit-men-til-hva#ref2.

  • Papadopulos, Yannis, and Philippe Warin. 2007. “Are Innovative, Participatory and Deliberative Procedures in Policy Making Democratic and Effective?” European Journal of Political Research 46 (4): 445–472.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pateman, Carole. 1970. Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pattyn, Valérie, Sonja Blum, Ellen Fobé, Mirjam Pekar-Milicevic, and Marleen Brans. 2019. “Academic Policy Advice in Consensus-Seeking Countries: The Cases of Belgium and Germany.” International Review of Administrative Sciences [online first]. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852319878780.

  • Pfister, Thomas, and Anna Horvath. 2014. “Reassessing Expert Knowledge and the Politics of Expertise.” Innovation. The European Journal of Social Science Research 27 (4): 311–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierson, Robert. 1994. “The Epistemic Authority of Expertise.” PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1: 398–405.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitkin, Hanna F. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polletta, Francesca. 2016. “Participatory Enthusiasms: A Recent History of Citizen Engagement Initiatives.” Journal of Civil Society 12 (3): 231–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollytix and NeulandQuartier. 2018. “Studie: Bürgerbeteiligung aus kommunaler Sicht. Stellenwert und Verbreitung informeller Bürgerbeteiligung in deutschen Kommunen.” https://pollytix.de/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/pdf_studie_buergerbeteiligung.pdf.

  • Rip, Arie. 2003. “Constructing Expertise: In a Third Wave of Science Studies?” Social Studies of Science 33 (3): 419–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosen, Gideon. 2001. “Nominalism, Naturalism, Epistemic Relativism.” Philosophical Perspectives 15: 69–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, Gene, and Lynne J. Frewer. 2000. “Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation.” Science, Technology and Human Values 25 (3): 3–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryfe, David M. 2005. “Does Deliberative Democracy Work?” Annual Review of Political Science 8 (1): 49–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saward, Michael. 2010. The Representative Claim. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schäuble, Wolfgang. 2020. “Grußwort zum ‚Bürgerrat Demokratie‘.” https://www.buergerrat.de/aktuelles/bundestagspraesident-unterstuetzt-buergerrat/; https://www.mehr-demokratie.de/fileadmin/pdf/Buergerrat/Grusswort_Dr._Wolfgang_Schaeuble__Praesident_des_Deutschen_Bundestages.pdf.

  • Scholz, Oliver R. 2009. “Experts: What They Are and How We Recognise Them—A Discussion of Alvin Goldman’s Views.” Grazer Philosophische Studien 79 (1): 187–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sentral kontrollenhet. 2017. “Gjennomgang av utenrikstjenestens forvaltning av samarbeidet med ILPI 2009–2016.” https://www.regjeringen.no/globalassets/departementene/ud/vedlegg/adm/ilpirapport_fase2.pdf.

  • Sirtes, Daniel, Hans Bernhard Schmid, and Marcel Weber. 2011. “Introduction.” In Collective Epistemology, edited by Daniel Sirtes, Hans Bernhard Schmid, and Marcel Weber, 1–10. Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solbu, Gisle, Nora Levol, Tomas Moe Skjølsvold. 2017. “Nyanser av mistillit.” Morgenbladet, 19 September. https://morgenbladet.no/2017/09/forskningsradets-manglende-forstaelse.

  • Steiner, Jürg. 1971. “The Principles of Majority and Proportionality.” British Journal of Political Science 1 (1): 63–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiner, Jürg. 2012. The Foundations of Deliberative Democracy. Empirical Research and Normative Implications. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Straßheim, Holger. 2008. “Kulturen der Expertise und politischen Wissensproduktion im Wandel. Vergleichende Beobachtungen.” In Politische Kultur im Wandel von Staatlichkeit. WZB-Jahrbuch 2007, edited by D. Dieter Gosewinkel and Gunnar F. Schuppert, 281–301. Berlin: Edition Sigma.

    Google Scholar 

  • Straßheim, Holger. 2013. “Politische Expertise im Wandel: Zur diskursiven und institutionellen Einbettung epistemischer Autorität.” In Wissen und Expertise in Politik und Verwaltung, edited by Sabine Kropp and Sabine Kuhlmann, 65–86. Opladen: Budrich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Straßheim, Holger, and Pekka Kettunen. 2014. “When Does Evidence-Based Policy Turn into Policy-Based Evidence? Configurations, Contexts and Mechanisms.” Evidence and Policy 10 (2): 259–277.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torfing, Jacob, Eva Sørensen, and Asbjørn Røiseland. 2016. “Samskapelse er bedre og billigere.” Stat og styring 1: 10–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, Stephen P. 2014. The Politics of Expertise. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • UN (United Nations). 1998. UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters. Aarhus, Denmark, 25 June. Accessed 14 December 2020. https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/documents/cep43e.pdf.

  • Urbinati, Nadia, and Marc E. Warren 2008. “The Concept of Representation in Contemporary Democratic Theory.” Annual Review of Political Sciences 11 (1): 387–412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veit, Sylvia, Turid Husted, and Tobias Bach. 2017. “Dynamics of Change in Internal Policy Advisory Systems: The Hybridization of Advisory Capacities in Germany.” Policy Sciences 50 (1): 85–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verba, Sidney, Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Henry E. Brady. 1995. Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verhoest, Koen, B. Guy Peters, Geert Bouckaert, and Bram Verschuere. 2004. “The Study of Organisational Autonomy: A Conceptual Review.” Public Administration and Development 24 (2): 101–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldner, David. 2012. “Process Tracing and Causal Mechanisms.” In The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Social Science, edited by Harold Kincaid. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren, Mark E. 2002. “What Can Democratic Participation Mean Today?” Political Theory 30 (5): 677–701.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webler, Thomas, and Seth Tuler. 2000. “Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation. Theoretical Reflections from a Case Study.” Administration & Society 32 (5): 566–595.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weingart, Peter, and Justus Lentsch. 2008. Wissen, beraten, entscheiden. Form und Funktion wissenschaftlicher Politikberatung in Deutschland. Weilerswist: Velbruück Wissenschaft.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, Carol H. 1979. “The Many Meanings of Research Utilization.” Public Administration Review 39 (5): 426–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, Carol H. 1989. “Congressional Committees as Users of Analysis.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 8 (3): 411-431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, Christopher. 2019. “Multi-stakeholder Initiatives, Policy Learning and Institutionalization: The Surprising Failure of Open Government in Norway.” Policy Studies [online first]. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2019.1618808.

  • Wissenschaftsbarometer. 2014. “Gesamtergebnisse.” https://www.wissenschaft-im-dialog.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Projekte/Wissenschaftsbarometer/Dokumente/Ergebnistabellen_Wissbarometer2014_neu.pdf.

  • Wissenschaftsbarometer. 2019. “Vertrauen in die Wissenschaft.” https://www.wissenschaft-im-dialog.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Projekte/Wissenschaftsbarometer/Dokumente_19/Einzelgrafiken/WB_Einzelgrafik_03_Vertrauen.jpg.

  • Wissenschaftsbarometer. 2020. “Corona Spezial.” https://www.wissenschaft-im-dialog.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Projekte/Wissenschaftsbarometer/Dokumente_20/2020_WiD-Wissenschaftsbarometer_Corona_Spezial_Ergebnispraesentation.pdf.

  • Young, Iris M. 2000. Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ARENA Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo Blindern, Oslo, Norway

    Eva Krick

Authors
  1. Eva Krick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eva Krick .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Krick, E. (2021). Methodology, Theory and Context. In: Expertise and Participation. Palgrave Studies in European Political Sociology. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75329-0_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75329-0_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-75328-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-75329-0

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation