| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Hermansen, Erlend A T, et al.
(författare)
-
Fra symfoni til Kakofoni. Rapportene fra FNs klimapanel og reisen mot relevans
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Rapporten: Sjanger og styringsverktøy, Kristian Bjørkdahl (ed). - Oslo : Pax Forlag. - 9788253040523
-
Bokkapitel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Rapportsjangeren roper ikke på oppmerksomhet: Den blir sjelden anmeldt i tidsskrifter og magasiner, dens forfattere blir ikke bokbadet og beundret, og leserne – vel, de skummer, for det meste. Kort sagt: Rapporter utgjør en teksttype som av mange anses på linje med kontorrekvisita, en «sakprosaens syvendedivisjon». Rapportenes lave status stemmer imidlertid ikke med hvilken rolle disse tekstene faktisk spiller. I dag foretar vi oss knapt noe av politisk betydning uten at det ligger en rapport til grunn, for ikke å si lange kjeder av rapporter. Rapportene utgjør dermed en sentral bjelke i det moderne, «kunnskapsbaserte» demokratiet. På tross av sin anonymitet er rapportene tekster med innflytelse. De utøver makt med nøytralitet som retorisk virkemiddel. Denne boken springer ut av et ønske om å forstå rapportenes unnselige og tilsynelatende uskyldige retorikk. Bidragene i boken tar for seg både enkelt rapporter (Ludvigsenutvalget; Gjørvkommisjonens rapport) og rapportserier (NOUene, rapportene fra FNs klimapanel), samt rapportrelaterte fenomener som ikkelesing og rapporteringsregimer. Rapporten kan dermed ses som et av foreløpig få bidrag til den såkalte «papirarbeid»-forskningen, der man forsøker å forstå hvilken rolle ulike styringssjangre spiller i moderne samfunn.
|
|
| 3. |
- Sundqvist, Göran, 1957, et al.
(författare)
-
Formalization and separation: A systematic basis for interpreting approaches to summarizing science for climate policy
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Social Studies of Science. - : SAGE Publications. - 0306-3127 .- 1460-3659. ; 45:3, s. 416-440
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- In studies of environmental issues, the question of how to establish a productive interplay between science and policy is widely debated, especially in relation to climate change. The aim of this article is to advance this discussion and contribute to a better understanding of how science is summarized for policy purposes by bringing together two academic discussions that usually take place in parallel: the question of how to deal with formalization (structuring the procedures for assessing and summarizing research, e.g. by protocols) and separation (maintaining a boundary between science and policy in processes of synthesizing science for policy). Combining the two dimensions, we draw a diagram onto which different initiatives can be mapped. A high degree of formalization and separation are key components of the canonical image of scientific practice. Influential Science and Technology Studies analysts, however, are well known for their critiques of attempts at separation and formalization. Three examples that summarize research for policy purposes are presented and mapped onto the diagram: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the European Union's Science for Environment Policy initiative, and the UK Committee on Climate Change. These examples bring out salient differences concerning how formalization and separation are dealt with. Discussing the space opened up by the diagram, as well as the limitations of the attraction to its endpoints, we argue that policy analyses, including much Science and Technology Studies work, are in need of a more nuanced understanding of the two crucial dimensions of formalization and separation. Accordingly, two analytical claims are presented, concerning trajectories, how organizations represented in the diagram move over time, and mismatches, how organizations fail to handle the two dimensions well in practice.
|
|
| 4. |
- Sundqvist, Göran, 1957, et al.
(författare)
-
Formalization and Separation: A Systematic Basis for Interpreting Approaches to Summarizing Science for Climate Policy
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Systematic Reviews and Research. Volume One: Aims, Principles, Diversity and Context. Gough, D., Oliver, S. & Thomas, J. (eds). - London : Sage. - 9781473952188 ; , s. 55-81
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Systematic reviews gather the findings of prior research to advance knowledge and inform decisions for policy, practice and personal lives. Review authors have applied the principles of working systematically and transparently across all types of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods. Systematic reviews have become an increasingly important aspect of research across all areas of social policy from health, to education and environmental science and management studies. This major work has been designed to: Bring together the key cutting edge historical and contemporary papers on the nature and methods of systematic reviews; Represent the most interesting and exciting approaches and strategies in the literature including controversies and debates; Include a breadth of disciplinary fields that use systematic reviews; Provide succinct editorial introductions to enable the reader to understand how the papers relate to each other and to other publications The contents have been arranged thematically, and each volume includes a mix of historical and contemporary papers, providing a thorough and balanced overview of all key areas.
|
|
| 5. |
- Sundqvist, Göran, 1957, et al.
(författare)
-
One world or two? Science–policy interactions in the climate field
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Critical Policy Studies. - 1946-0171 .- 1946-018X. ; 12:4, s. 448-468
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This article assesses how science–policy interactions are conceptualized in the social sciences with special reference to climate change and the IPCC. In terms of the dimension of distance (or proximity) between science and policy, we discern two ideal-type cases: a ‘twoworlds’ and a ‘one-world’ perspective. The first understands science and policy as independent spheres separated by a clear gap, while the second perceives science and policy as tightly coupled. These two perspectives, presented here in detail and in various sub-variants in order to show their complexity, appear dominant also in the discussions on how to improve, not only describe, the interaction between science and policy.We argue that this situation of opposing perspectives is not beneficial, nor properly recognized by scholars in the field. In response to this, we present a typology that may serve as a modest and judicious way for thinking about and making more nuanced choices in designing science–policy relations.
|
|
