新兴技术的专业知识:信息、声望和技术评估办公室

IF 2.3 3区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Review of Policy Research Pub Date : 2023-11-22 DOI:10.1111/ropr.12584
Jonathan Lewallen
{"title":"新兴技术的专业知识:信息、声望和技术评估办公室","authors":"Jonathan Lewallen","doi":"10.1111/ropr.12584","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Policy makers often struggle to adapt and respond to the uncertainties and ambiguities associated with new and emerging technologies. In such situations decision makers often widen their search for information and acquire more expertise in order to better define complex problems and to understand the potential consequences of proposed alternatives. I argue that acquiring information also carries social and symbolic value: having reports and other kinds of information provided to you signals that you are a policy maker important and influential enough to keep informed. The Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) provided the US Congress with nonpartisan reports on technology-related issues from 1972 until 1995 when its funding was zeroed out. Using data on all OTA reports published from 1974 to 1995, I find evidence that, while almost every committee requested at least one report, the reports largely were concentrated among a few committees in each chamber. The committees more likely to request reports also tended to be lower in prestige among members; acquiring OTA reports thus helped raise the committee leaders' profile on science and technology-related issues but was not directly related to the surrounding issue environment or immediate legislative efforts. OTA reports also were concentrated on a relatively small number of policy issues, which further suggests inequalities in the dynamics of expertise in policy making.","PeriodicalId":47408,"journal":{"name":"Review of Policy Research","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Expertise for emerging technology: Information, prestige, and the Office of Technology Assessment\",\"authors\":\"Jonathan Lewallen\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ropr.12584\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Policy makers often struggle to adapt and respond to the uncertainties and ambiguities associated with new and emerging technologies. In such situations decision makers often widen their search for information and acquire more expertise in order to better define complex problems and to understand the potential consequences of proposed alternatives. I argue that acquiring information also carries social and symbolic value: having reports and other kinds of information provided to you signals that you are a policy maker important and influential enough to keep informed. The Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) provided the US Congress with nonpartisan reports on technology-related issues from 1972 until 1995 when its funding was zeroed out. Using data on all OTA reports published from 1974 to 1995, I find evidence that, while almost every committee requested at least one report, the reports largely were concentrated among a few committees in each chamber. The committees more likely to request reports also tended to be lower in prestige among members; acquiring OTA reports thus helped raise the committee leaders' profile on science and technology-related issues but was not directly related to the surrounding issue environment or immediate legislative efforts. OTA reports also were concentrated on a relatively small number of policy issues, which further suggests inequalities in the dynamics of expertise in policy making.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47408,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Review of Policy Research\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Review of Policy Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12584\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Policy Research","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12584","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

决策者往往难以适应和应对与新兴技术相关的不确定性和模糊性。在这种情况下,决策者往往扩大对信息的搜索,获得更多的专门知识,以便更好地界定复杂的问题,并了解所提出的替代方案的潜在后果。我认为获取信息还具有社会和象征价值:向你提供报告和其他类型的信息表明,你是一个重要的、有影响力的决策者,足以了解情况。从1972年到1995年,技术评估办公室(OTA)向美国国会提供了有关技术相关问题的无党派报告,直到其资金被归零。利用1974年至1995年出版的所有在线旅行社报告的数据,我发现证据表明,虽然几乎每个委员会都要求至少一份报告,但报告主要集中在每个分庭的几个委员会中。更有可能要求提交报告的委员会在成员中的声望也往往较低;因此,获取OTA报告有助于提高委员会领导人在科学和技术相关问题上的形象,但与周围的问题环境或立即的立法努力没有直接关系。在线咨询机构的报告也集中在相对较少的政策问题上,这进一步表明政策制定过程中专业知识的动态不平等。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Expertise for emerging technology: Information, prestige, and the Office of Technology Assessment
Policy makers often struggle to adapt and respond to the uncertainties and ambiguities associated with new and emerging technologies. In such situations decision makers often widen their search for information and acquire more expertise in order to better define complex problems and to understand the potential consequences of proposed alternatives. I argue that acquiring information also carries social and symbolic value: having reports and other kinds of information provided to you signals that you are a policy maker important and influential enough to keep informed. The Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) provided the US Congress with nonpartisan reports on technology-related issues from 1972 until 1995 when its funding was zeroed out. Using data on all OTA reports published from 1974 to 1995, I find evidence that, while almost every committee requested at least one report, the reports largely were concentrated among a few committees in each chamber. The committees more likely to request reports also tended to be lower in prestige among members; acquiring OTA reports thus helped raise the committee leaders' profile on science and technology-related issues but was not directly related to the surrounding issue environment or immediate legislative efforts. OTA reports also were concentrated on a relatively small number of policy issues, which further suggests inequalities in the dynamics of expertise in policy making.
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
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
23.80%
发文量
57
期刊介绍: The Review of Policy Research (RPR) is an international peer-reviewed journal devoted to the publication of research and analysis examining the politics and policy of science and technology. These may include issues of science policy, environment, resource management, information networks, cultural industries, biotechnology, security and surveillance, privacy, globalization, education, research and innovation, development, intellectual property, health and demographics. The journal encompasses research and analysis on politics and the outcomes and consequences of policy change in domestic and comparative contexts.
期刊最新文献
Unraveling the dynamics of information exchange in governance networks: Opportunity structures in anti‐corruption multi‐stakeholder partnerships Information and expertise in public policy Embracing the politics of transformation: Policy action as “battle‐settlement events” Reputation management in turmoil—An analysis of the clashing narratives in the introduction of a “salmon tax” in Norway The narrative policy framework and institutions
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1