Coalitions, Science, and Belief Change: Comparing Adversarial and Collaborative Policy Subsystems
Coalitions, Science, and Belief Change: Comparing Adversarial and Collaborative Policy Subsystems
复制标题
联盟、科学和信仰变化：比较对抗性和协作性政策子系统
DOI：
10.1111/j.1541-0072.2009.00310.x
复制
发表时间：
2009
影响因子：
3.8
通讯作者：
P. Sabatier
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
C. Weible;P. Sabatier
对于协作而不是对抗治理方法的争论部分基于两个公理：第一，协作方法将冲突缓和到中间水平；第二，协作方法通过各种联合事实发现策略帮助整合科学和价值。本文利用1984年和2001年参与太浩湖水质政策的政策参与者的问卷调查数据，研究了从对抗性政策子系统到协作性政策子系统的转变是否与以下因素有关：(1)关于水质问题和政策建议的信念趋同；（ii）在支持政策建议时，增加使用基于科学的经验信念，减少使用规范性信念。这些发现向决策者和研究人员发出了关于科学与合作的复杂信息。分析表明，合作政策子系统与竞争联盟之间的某些信念趋同有关，但它也表明，政策参与者在合作政策子系统中并不比在对抗政策子系统中更可能依赖基于科学的经验主义信念。
Arguments for collaborative rather than adversarial approaches to governance rest partly on two axioms: first, that collaborative approaches mitigate conflict to intermediate levels and second, that collaborative approaches help integrate science and values through various joint fact-finding strategies. Using questionnaire data in 1984 and 2001 of policy participants involved in Lake Tahoe water quality policy, this article investigates whether a shift from an adversarial to a collaborative policy subsystem is associated with (i) convergence in beliefs regarding water quality problems and policy proposals; and (ii) an increase in the use of science-based empirical beliefs and a decrease in the use of normative beliefs in supporting policy proposals. The findings send a mixed message to policymakers and researchers about science and collaboration. The analysis suggests that collaborative policy subsystems are associated with convergence in some beliefs between rival coalitions, but it also suggests that policy participants are no more likely to rely on science-based, empirical beliefs in collaborative than in adversarial policy subsystems.