Participatory governance in knowledge-intensive fields. Reconciling epistemic and political authority in policy-making

研究“知识密集型领域的竞争性治理”。在政策制定中维护知识和政治权威”分析了专家知识和公民参与政策过程之间的关系和紧张关系，这是两个强大但部分冲突的合法性来源。首要的问题是：我们如何协调对专业知识和参与现代决策的需求？该研究借鉴了社会认识论，科学和技术研究领域内的知识和民主参与的理论，以及在协商民主和协商民主中，以及对公民包容的作用和在决策中使用专门知识的选定的实证研究。在此背景下，该研究分析了参与式治理的审议论坛在德国和欧盟，其中利益相关者和“普通公民”，国家代表以及科学家和其他专家的任务，建议政府参与参与知识生产。重点是能源政策领域的争议问题，这些问题都是技术和知识密集型的，涉及道德或环境问题，因此需要专业知识和公民参与。这类问题的例子是水力压裂技术或核废料处理问题。第一个目标是通过将民主理论与知识理论更彻底地联系起来来发展民主理论。第二个目标是提出审议领域的制度设计，将公认的专业知识和有意义的公民包容结合起来，并允许广泛接受和有效的政策解决方案。为此，专家知识的质量和参与的质量进行了比较分析，在实证设置。

The study "Participatory governance in knowledge-intensive fields. Reconciling epistemic and political authority in policy-making" analyses the relationship and the tensions between expert knowledge and citizen participation in the policy process as two powerful, but partly conflicting sources of legitimacy. The leading question is: How do we reconcile the demands for expertise and participation in the modern policy-making? The study draws on theories dealing with knowledge and democratic participation within the fields of Social Epistemology, Science and Technology Studies and within Participatory and Deliberative Democracy as well as on selected empirical studies on the role of citizen inclusion and the use of expertise in policy-making. Against this background, the study analyses deliberative fora of participatory governance in Germany and the EU, where stakeholders and "ordinary citizens", representatives of the state as well as scientists and other experts with a mandate to advise governments engage in participatory knowledge production. The focus is on contested issues in the field of energy policy, which are both technical and knowledge-intensive and touch upon ethical or environmental issues and which therefore demand specialised knowledge and citizen inclusion at the same time. Examples of such issues are the technology of hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") or the question of nuclear waste disposal. The first aim is to develop democratic theory by connecting it more thoroughly with theories of knowledge. The second aim is to suggest institutional designs of deliberative arenas that unite both recognised expertise and meaningful citizen inclusion and allow for widely accepted and effective policy solutions. For this purpose, the quality of expert knowledge and the quality of participation are analysed comparatively in empirical settings.