Towards more confidence: about the roles of social scientists in participatory policy making

From June 26 to 27, the workshop “Ironists, Reformers, or Rebels? The Role of the Social Sciences in Participatory Policy Making” took place at the Collegium Helveticum of the UZH/ETH in Zurich. The organisers’ motivation was the apparently missing involvement of social scientists in public engagement processes. This impression persists because, while social scientists often observe public debates or develop participatory methods for public policy-making, they rarely take part in those processes themselves. A closer look at ethics commissions, expert committees or public hearings concerned with science and technology issues shows natural scientists, physicians, lawyers and the occasional philosopher. Sociologists, anthropologists and other social scientists, on the other hand, are often not involved. Because of this imbalance, the organisers’ aim was to bring together scholars and researchers from different areas of the social sciences to consider the role of their disciplines in public policy making. This article will focus on some of the ideas about specific roles of social scientists in participatory policy-making, discussed at the workshop, and their implications and give a commentary on some future prospects of the social sciences.     

The social shaping of digital research

The social shaping of technology (SST) has become a broad umbrella term to cover a variety of theoretical and methodological perspectives in the social sciences. It has also defined a set of funded projects in the UK focused on a particular technical initiative around e-social science – digital social research. It is increasingly understood that social science research and work on the SST, in particular, should be applied to the study of innovations in digital research and their implications for the sciences and humanities. This overview is designed to help introduce the diversity of perspectives that the social sciences can bring to bear, such as under the social shaping umbrella and explain why this set of perspectives is of value to policy and practice in this field. The continuing advance and diffusion of digital research make it ever more important to strengthen the role of the social sciences in this area of multi-disciplinary research, policy, and practice.     

Working with and for the citizens

This article argues that a better management of increasingly complex socio-ecological systems would require to adopt evidence-based policy-making and improve the science–policy interface by means of participatory action research involving scientists, citizens and policy-makers. The connectivity between the production of scientific evidence by experts and the delivery of policies by policy-makers is currently unsatisfactory. There is the need to find more effective knowledge mechanisms between researchers and policy-makers. A new way of connecting scientists and policy-makers is to invite a “third player” to the game, i.e. the citizens and stakeholders who are interested in or affected by policy decisions, to perform pilot experiments of participatory research. Participatory research combines different forms of knowledge. “Objective” knowledge produced by scientific disciplines is needed to describe, explain or understand a phenomenon, but participatory research brings in the contribution of citizens' everyday knowledge, e.g. their intimate familiarity with their environment and social context. The approach is illustrated with the aid of examples provided by a number of EU-funded participatory research projects coordinated by ISIS: RAISE (www.raise-eu.org), MOVE TOGETHER (www.move-together.net) and AWARE (www.aware-eu.net).     

RATIONALITY AND THE "RELIGIOUS MIND"

The social-scientific study of religion has long presumed that religious thought is "primitive," non-rational, incompatible with science, and (thus) doomed to decline. Contemporary evidence, however, suggests that religious involvement correlates with good mental health, responds to perceived costs and benefits, and persists in the face advanced education and scientific training. Although professors, scientists, and other highly educated Americans are less religious than the general population, the magnitude of this effect is similar to those associated with gender, race, and other demographic traits. Moreover, "hard" science faculty are more often religious than faculty in the humanities or social sciences. ( JEL Z10)     

Social workers and social action: a case study of the Australian Association of Social Workers' Victorian branch

Professional social work associations have long espoused at least a rhetorical commitment to promoting more equitable social policy outcomes. Yet too often the actions have failed to live up to the rhetoric. This article explores the social action history of the Victorian state branch of the Australian Association of Social Workers. Attention is drawn both to the highlights and lowlights of the branch's social policy interventions. The problematic nature of social action is attributed to a number of factors including deficits in skills, resources, and education. Practical suggestions are made as to how the AASW might establish a more effective social policy network in the future.     

RETHINKING THE POSTMODERN PERSPECTIVE: Excavating the Kantian System to Rebuild Social Theory

The postmodernism debate in the social sciences has been misunderstood as primarily an epistemological problem concerning method. The evolution of the postmodernism debate into the science wars has raised the same issues Critics blame postmodernism and science studies for epistemological relativism and hostility toward science, while supporters attempt to use postmodernism as a part of a project to replace positivism with interpretive methods. Both critics and supporters of postmodernism miss the most important aspect of the postmodern perspective: the attempt to break out of epistemology and the Kantian conceptual framework. Critics of postmodernism and science studies also mistakenly argue that postmodernism is the sole creation of the humanities. Many of the key concepts of the postmodern perspective, however, were developed through reflections on novel developments in the natural sciences. Because critics and supporters of postmodernism in the social sciences remain within a Kantian conceptual framework, the postmodern break from epistemology has been overlooked. A close reading of reflexive texts on the natural sciences rules out any claim that the post-modern perspective is simply a relativistic methodology that dislikes science. The pages below focus on key texts by Gaston Bachelard, Georges Canguilhem, Michel Foucault and Bruno Latour as an attempt to re-orient the postmodernism debate in the social sciences. A reexamination of these texts reveals how the postmodernism debate in the social sciences has mistakenly understood postmodernism as a problem of method and epistemology. Science studies represents the maturation of the postmodern perspective by building a non-epistemologically oriented social theory. The possibility of rebuilding social theory after the dismantling of epistemology is the unique halimark of science studies, the most recent development of the postmodern perspective.     

Policy Science and Social Policy

This paper briefly traces the evolution of the policy sciences. It views policy science as a technical policy development discipline. The impediments to successful integration of policy science content into social policy curriculum are analyzed and suggestions to improve utilization are made. The paper suggests that critical analysis and constructive utilization of the techniques of the policy sciences will evolve once social workers develop technical skills. It also recommends that schools of social work teach policy as a method. It goes on to articulate curriculum recommendations necessary for the effective teaching of social policy as a method.     

Distribution and selection of experts in the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services (IPBES): the case of the regional assessment for Africa

In 2013, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) agreed to carry out a regional assessment for Africa. Since then, roughly 100 authors have been working to deliver, in 2018, a document that not only synthesises existing knowledge on biodiversity and ecosystem services for the African region but to distil from it knowledge that is relevant, credible, and legitimate for both societal and scientific practise. This requires, firstly, to carefully constituting the group of authors and, secondly, to design an assessment process that allows for deriving at an integrated perspective amongst these experts. Such a joint process of knowledge production that encompasses both interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary collaboration can be framed as co-creation. In this contribution, we analyse whether the IPBES African assessment accounts for these two prerequisites for an effective assessment process. Our particular interest lays in the question whether scholars from social sciences and the humanities are sufficiently involved. Our analysis is based on the curriculum vitae of 97 members of the expert group, and reads quite straightforward: there is an overall lack of non-natural science perspectives and expertise that might lead to essential knowledge and data gaps when wishing to understand the effects of the diverse human concepts of and activities on biodiversity and ecosystem services. In order to address these gaps and to derive at an assessment report truly relevant for policy makers as well as other social and scientific actors, IPBES needs to widen its outreach to networks of scholars from the social sciences and the humanities and to inform them appropriately about the specific roles they could play within IPBES processes, particularly assessments.     

Society as an ethical system†

The idea of society on which the social sciences are premised is one of a structured pattern of interdependence and interaction that drives participation in a shared communication space and, thereby, a degree of common consciousness. These are also the preconditions for ethics to operate as an internal mode of self-understanding rather than an external imposition. Societies, in other words, are ethical systems. In order to understand in what sense societies, in the context of contemporary transformations, can still be thought of and analysed as ethical systems, the article focuses on inequality as both a practically important and normatively complex challenge – one that the international community, through the 2030 Agenda for Inclusive and Sustainable Development, has recognized to be one of its action priorities. These considerations further bear on the relation between the social sciences and the humanities, which is one important dimension of the future of the social sciences.     

Getting Unstuck: Interdisciplinarity as a New Discipline

Most disciplines and subdisciplines consider their particular specialization to be valuable in itself and superior to other disciplines. But compared with the huge leaps in the physical sciences, the social/behavioral sciences and humanities have made little progress. Since many of the physical science advances were the result of the merging of disciplines, perhaps interdisciplinarity should be tried. One path to connecting disciplines, subdisciplines, and micro‐macro levels is suggested by Spinoza's idea of part/whole methodology, exactly balancing concrete instances with abstract theses. Ideas by B. Pascal, A. Koestler, A. N. Whitehead, and E. O. Wilson may also be helpful. Any discipline, subdiscipline, or level can serve as a valuable stepping‐off place, but to advance further, integration with at least one other viewpoint may be necessary. Two brilliant examples are The Civilizing Process, by the sociologist Norbert Elias, and Freudian Repression, by the psychologist Michael Billig. Koestler's idea of “bi‐sociation” may prove to be particularly rewarding. The way that Virginia Woolf's depiction of role‐taking in interior monologue preceded the idea in social science is an extraordinary example. The need for integration may be the single most important issue facing social science, the humanities, and their subdisciplines. Given the scope of the social/behavioral problems faced by humanity, the sooner the better.     

Social desire paths: a new theoretical concept to increase the usability of social science research in society

Social scientists are well-trained to observe and chart social trends, but less experienced at presenting scientific findings in formats that can inform social change work. In this article, I propose a new theoretical concept that provides a mechanism by which social science research can be more effectively applied for proactive policy, organizational, and program development. The approach is to use the metaphor of “desire paths” from landscape architecture to show how social scientists can identify and analyze social desire paths that appear on the social structural landscape. Social desire paths usually emerge because existing formal structures do not meet individual or group needs. Such paths are generally started at the individual level, followed by others through individual actions, and ultimately leave an (usually informal) imprint on the social structure, even though the motivations behind those actions are not usually social change. Using what we know about the sociology of interests and what we have learned from trying to apply social science findings to policy, I propose seven criteria for phenomena to be defined as social desire paths. I then apply the criteria to two case studies related to housing, and discuss social desire paths usefulness to social scientists involved in any research that captures interests, deviance, or innovation; and that also has the potential to inform formal structures such as policy, organizations, program development, and participatory democracy.     

One size fits all? On the institutionalization of participatory technology assessment and its interconnection with national ways of policy-making: the cases of Switzerland and Austria

Science and technology policy is often confronted with issues that are both complex and controversial and which have to be decided upon in a delicate constellation of policy-makers, experts, stakeholders, non-governmental organizations and the public. One attempt to deal with such a complex problem is via citizen involvement. Participatory technology assessment (pTA) already goes back to several decades, and countries have made various experiences. While in some countries, governments established technology assessment organizations, which also included pTA in their methodological portfolio, others primarily rely on experts to make decisions on science and technology policy. In a third group of countries non-state actors, such as social scientists, experimented with pTA. However, they were often unable to link these experiments to policy-making. This paper deals with the question of why this variation exists and compares the use of pTA in Switzerland and Austria. Despite similarities between the two countries, both had quite different experiences with pTA so far. Whereas several pTAs have been carried out in Switzerland until today, Austrian pTAs have remained infrequent. The aim of this paper is to explain this difference as a result of different ways of policy-making which affect the use and chances of pTA.     

Social scientists as technicians,advisors and meaning producers

In this paper, we are addressing three issues that are at the core of scholarly reflections about the societal role of social science knowledge: (1) Social scientists tend to follow – although this is not always a deliberate choice – one of three models that describe their role as the producers of practical knowledge. For the sake of simplicity we have called the three models the “model of the technician”, the “model of the advisor” and the “model of the meaning producer”. (2) Due to the need for social inquiry to adopt a particular, restrictive perspective of its domain, useful knowledge is a complicated matter. Hence the need to put into question a widely supported notion at least among social scientists: When asked about the reasons for the limited “power” of social science knowledge the response frequently is that the adequacy and practical usefulness of social science knowledge is a function of its capturing the full complexity of what indeed are complex social phenomena. (3) Social scientists often tend to lament the marginal impact their intellectual efforts have on society, and they look with great envy across the divide of the so-called two cultures, wondering how and when they will be able to achieve the same kind of success and prestige the natural sciences and technology appear to enjoy in most societies. However, this unhappy view systematically understates the actual power of social science knowledge, in particular its role as a mind maker or meaning producer.     

A CRITIQUE OF METHODOLOGICAL REASON

In this essay, we argue that, following their perception of practices in the natural sciences the social sciences have reified methodology, making it the chief imperative of social investigation and using it to ground their knowledge claims. We find this to be the case even in the work of social scientists who try to overcome or reject the dominant positivist paradigm. We argue that this obsession with method has led the social sciences to abandon thinking-beyond-the-given in favor of small, specialized studies whose justification is no longer substantive but methodology driven. After a review of the history of the role of method in traditional philosophies of science, the essay turns to the work of recent critics of social science who have become increasingly dissatisfied with modeling the social sciences after the natural ones. We distinguish between a hermeneutic and phenomenological critique of positivism, both of which, we argue, end up reproducing the scientism they reject. We identify this problem in our careful readings of some of the most influential critics of Popperian scientific philosophy. In the final section, we distinguish between contemporary social science, situated in what we term the epistemological paradigm, and our own critical science, stemming from an alternate, ontohistorical tradition in the history of ideas. Here, we begin to lay out what a critical, nonmethodology-driven, reflective and historical science might look like.     

Students’ Vocational Choices and Voluntary Action: A 12-Nation Study

Previous research on student involvement suggested that business and engineering students manifest lowest rates of voluntary action. Similarly, it was thought that social science students are the most involved in voluntary action, with students of natural sciences and humanities in the middle. However, there were very few studies that empirically compared these assertions. Furthermore, these assertions were not investigated from cross-cultural perspectives. Based on a study of students in 12 countries (N = 6,570), we found that even when controlling for background variables, social science students are actually less engaged in voluntary action than other students. Engineering students are higher than expected on voluntary action while students of humanities are the most involved in voluntary action. When studying these differences in the 12 selected countries, local cultures and norms form different sets of findings that suggest that there is no universal trend in choice of academic field and voluntary action.     

Bringing Sociology into the Public Policy Process: a Relational Network Approach

How does evidence-based sociological research influence public policymaking either directly or indirectly? Based on an analysis of a 2014 NSF-funded public policy research workshop and written case studies by workshop participants, this article provides a conceptual roadmap and varied examples of the pathways through which social science research and social scientists can inform public policy decision-making. Pathways include networks and relationships among academics, social scientists employed in government, special interest groups and non-profits, and members of the media. Many sociologists are committed to using their evidence-based findings to inform solutions to societal problems, yet are often too narrowly trained to write only for scholarly communities and are often unaware of the relations, connections, and networks that can increase the use of sociological and other social science research in public discourse and in the public policy arena. The paper highlights lessons learned about effective networks, communication channels and dissemination strategies from the workshop and case studies in order to better equip those social scientists interested to bring their research into a public policy realm with the tools to do so. Given the current political climate, this resolve seems all the more important.     

Science and the Mass Media –‘Medialization’ as a New Perspective on an Intricate Relationship

This survey article discusses a recently proposed perspective on the science–media interface the concept of medialization. The medialization approach assumes that there is mutual resonance between science and the mass media. Medialization research systematically investigates structural transformation in science: What are the implications of high media attention for science funding, for research agendas, for universities and the professional self‐understanding of scientists? And how do these developments relate to the production of scientific knowledge? For detailed empirical studies of these processes, the medialization approach separates the role of mass media, but its grounding in general social theory contextualises this research with social science studies on sciences relation to other spheres such as politics and the economy.     

NEW MEDIA'S POTENTIAL FOR PERSONALIZATION

Despite the growing maturity of new, interactive media, rhetoric about its possibilities and potentialities that abounded in its earliest days still endures. The growth of detailed and empirical work, which has sought to populate the digital landscape with grounded research calling into question this rhetoric, has not stopped new media debate from continuing to be shaped, in part, by the language of the potential. This paper is concerned with one aspect of new media's potential, personalization. It focuses on new media's proclaimed capacity to be adapted to meet the needs and desires of individual users. This is a trope that runs through much humanities and social sciences literature on new media and ICTs, yet despite recognition of the possibility of personalization offered by networked media technologies, there is very little grounded, empirical work on this subject in these fields. In order to address this absence, this paper compares an attempt to personalize new media web content on a two-year research endeavour entitled Project @pple with the rhetoric about the potentiality for personalization that new technologies offers. It aims to contribute to understandings of personalization by detailing the issues that arise when attempting to implement it. The argument of the paper is that the difficulties encountered on Project @pple suggest that, in real-life situations, characterized as they are by constraints and complexities, it is not always a straightforward process for personalization to cease to be potential and to become actual.     

International comparisons in science studies: what and why do we compare?

This article is based on experiences with EU-funded research projects over the last 10 years. They have posed many methodological difficulties: many classifications do not fit the objects and actual issues are not measured or observed. They question the effectiveness of comparative research in the social sciences as it is being conducted now. We need new methodologies to make comparisons without overlooking specific contexts and effective tools to analyze large amounts of data, taking into account translation problems and mixing various types of data: qualitative, quantitative, more or less certain, first-hand and second-hand, statistical, from case studies. Furthermore, international comparisons assume that we can identify good practice and common indicators. Scientific governance is based on such assumptions, but what happens to that model if the comparative methodology is not so relevant? Rethinking methodology for social sciences and humanities in science studies could lead to rethinking the governance of science itself.