Eva Krick

Bio: Eva Krick is an academic researcher from University of Oslo. The author has contributed to research in topics: Corporate governance & Government. The author has an hindex of 8, co-authored 26 publications receiving 169 citations. Previous affiliations of Eva Krick include Humboldt University of Berlin & FernUniversität Hagen.

Negotiated expertise in policy-making: How governments use hybrid advisory committees

Abstract: By linking the realms of public policy-making, science and the public, advisory committees that include academics, state representatives and societal stakeholders answer to a double challenge that governments face today: a need for technical knowledge and an increasing demand for public acceptance and accountability. In contrast to purely scientific policy advice, little theoretical attention has so far been paid to these hybrid advisory committees. Drawing on and adapting research on knowledge utilisation, theories of delegation, decision-making and governance, an analytical framework of the use of multi-source, negotiated expertise will be developed and applied to four cases set up by the German Federal Government with mandates in social policy and in science and technology policy. The study shows the committees’ pronounced governance potential, which builds on their political and epistemic authority. It describes two distinct dynamics that lend the committees to instrumental, problem solving, and symbolic, substantiating purposes.

Between ‘Scientization’ and a ‘Participatory Turn’. Tracing shifts in the governance of policy advice

Abstract: This study traces the claims of a ‘scientization’ and a ‘participatory turn’ in modern governance within the system of temporary policy advisory committees in Norway. It analyzes whether there is evidence of the two claims in these key governance institutions and to what extent these shifts are compatible with each other. As expressions of a participatory turn, a growing emphasis on citizen involvement and transparency in the committee system is searched for. A growing relevance of researchers and of science-based claims in the committees’ reports are taken as indicators of scientization. The longitudinal study shows an overall shift both towards science- and expertise-based governance and towards an increasing openness and public engagement, as well as some variation between policy fields.

The epistemic quality of expertise: contextualized criteria for the multi-source, negotiated policy advice of stakeholder fora

Abstract: This study focuses on the epistemic quality of the policy expertise that is generated by stakeholder advisory bodies. Bringing together science and technology studies, deliberative democratic theor...

Ensuring social acceptance of the energy transition. The German government’s ‘consensus management’ strategy

Abstract: This study deals with the German Federal Government’s approach of ensuring public support for its ‘Energiewende’, the swift and complete transition to an energy system based on renewable sources. F...

The socio-political ties of expert bodies. How to reconcile the independence requirement of reliable expertise and the responsiveness requirement of democratic governance

Abstract: This study questions the traditional story of the detachment and independence of expert bodies such as agencies, central banks and expert committees. It directs attention to the numerous institutio...

Rhetoric and the Public Sphere: Has Deliberative Democracy Abandoned Mass Democracy to its Fate?

Abstract: The pathologies of the democratic public sphere, first articulated by Plato in his attack on rhetoric, have pushed much of deliberative theory out of the mass public and into the study and design of small scale deliberative venues. The move away from the mass public can be seen in a growing split in deliberative theory between theories of democratic deliberation (on the ascendancy) which focus on discrete deliberative initiatives within democracies and theories of deliberative democracy (on the decline) that attempt to tackle the large questions of how the public, or civil society in general, relates to the state. Using rhetoric as the lens through which to view mass democracy, this essay argues that the key to understanding the deliberative potential of the mass public is in the distinction between deliberative and plebiscitary rhetoric.

책무성(Accountability)의 개념분석

Abstract: We are all accountable. We are accountable to a Supreme Being (if we are believers), to our families, and to our employers (or clients, as the case may be). We are accountable to our government (and reminded of that every April 15), to the electorate (if we are elected public officials) and to each other (civilly and criminally). This accountability may be based on oath (marriage vows, the lawyer’s oath) or status (employee, citizens). We are taught early on that with privilege comes responsibility; with conduct (or misconduct), comes consequences.

The fifth branch. Science advisers as policymakers

Abstract: 1. Rationalizing Politics The Rise of Social Regulation Science and Policymaking Expertise and Trust The Contingency of Knowledge The Reform Debate An Alternative Approach 2. Flawed Decisions Nitrites 2,4,5-T Love Canal Estimates of Occupational Cancer The Technocratic Response A Critical Counterpoint 3. Science for the People The Rationale for Public Science The "New" Expert Agency Scientific Advice and Open Government Judicial Review of Science Policy The Weakening of the Paradigm 4. Peer Review and Regulatory Science The Traditions of Peer Review Peer Review in Practice Instructive Failures Regulatory Science: Content and Context Implications for Regulatory Peer Review 5. EPA and the Science Advisory Board Early Political Challenges A New Cooperation Boundary Exercises SAB's Impact on Policy Conclusion 6. The Science and Policy of Clean Air CASAC and the NAAQS Process Science and Standards Redefining CASAC's Role The Carbon Monoxide Controversy CASAC's Effectiveness: Bridging Science and Policy 7. Advisers as Adversaries The Scientific Advisory Panel Implementing the Impossible Ethylene Dibromide Dicofol Alar A Fragmentation of Authority 8. FDA's Advisory Network The Scientific Evaluation of Drugs Expertise and Food Safety Advice and Decision 9. Coping with New Knowledge The Quest for Principled Risk Assessment Formaldehyde: An Uncertain Carcinogen Conclusion 10. Technocracy Revisited A Public-Private Partnership for Science Risk Assessment without Politics The Public Board of Inquiry Wider Applications 11. The Political Function of Good Science From Advice to Policy Acceptable Risk Scientific Advice as Legitimation: Negotiation and Boundary Work Defining "Good Science" Normative Implications Conclusion Notes Index

Policy forums: Why do they exist and what are they used for?

Abstract: Policy forums are issue-based intermediary organizations where diverse types of political and societal actors repeatedly interact Policy forums are important elements of modern governance systems as they allow actors to learn, negotiate, or build trust They can vary in composition, size, membership logic, and other distinct features This article lays the foundation of a theory of policy forums based on three interrelated elements: First, it discusses conditions for the formation of a forum and describes the logic of these organizations as one of an asymmetric multipartite exchange Second, it enumerates the potential set of goals and motivations of participating actors that are fed into this exchange Third, it proposes eight different dimensions on which policy forums differ and which affect the exchange mechanisms among actors We claim that empirical work on policy forums should systematically take these elements into account and propose elements of a research agenda