Creating participatory expert bodies. How the targeted selection of policy advisers can bridge the epistemic-democratic divide

References

• Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2007). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571. doi: 10.1093/jopart/mum032
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bächtiger, A., Spörndli, M., Steenbergen, M. R., & Steiner, J. (2005). The deliberative dimensions of legislatures. Acta Politica, 40(2), 225–239. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.ap.5500103
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beck, S. (2012). The challenges of building cosmopolitan climate expertise: The case of Germany. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 3, 1–17. doi: 10.1002/wrna.100
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biegelbauer, P., & Hansen, J. (2011). Democratic theory and citizen participation: Democracy models in the evaluation of public participation in science and technology. Science and Public Policy, 38(8), 589–597. doi: 10.3152/030234211X13092649606404
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chambers, S. (2009). Rhetoric and the public sphere. Has deliberative democracy abandoned mass democracy? Political Theory, 37(3), 323–350. doi: 10.1177/0090591709332336
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christiano, T. (2012). Rational deliberation among experts and citizens. In J. Parkinson & J. Mansbridge (Eds.), Deliberative systems: Deliberative democracy at the large scale (pp. 27–51). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, J., & Rogers, J. (1992). Secondary associations and democratic governance. Politics & Society, 20(4), 393–472. doi: 10.1177/0032329292020004003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corporate Europe Observatory. (2014). Response to the public consultation by the European Ombudsman concerning the composition of European Commission expert groups. Retrieved from https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/showResource?resourceId=1429863654988_MAIN20-20COVER20LETTER20CEO20Ombudsman20consultation20on20expert%20groups_FINAL_Redacted.pdf&type=pdf&download=true&lang=en
   Google Scholar
• Dahl, R. (1994). A democratic dilemma: System effectiveness versus citizen participation. Political Science Quarterly, 109(1), 23–34. doi: 10.2307/2151659
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Day, D. (1997). Citizen participation in the planning process: An essentially contested concept? Journal of Planning Literature, 11(3), 421–434. doi: 10.1177/088541229701100309
   Google Scholar
• Fischer, F. (2009). Democracy and expertise. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fung, A. (2003). Survey article: Recipes for public spheres: Eight institutional design choices and their consequences. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 11(3), 338–367. doi: 10.1111/1467-9760.00181
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fung, A. (2006). Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Administration Review, 66(1), 66–74. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00667.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fung, A. (2013). The principle of affected interests and inclusion in democratic governance. In J. Nagel, & R. Smith (Eds.), Representation: Elections and beyond (pp. 236–268). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goodin, R. (2004). Reflective democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goodin, R. (2007). Enfranchising all affected interests, and its alternatives. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 35(1), 40–68. doi: 10.1111/j.1088-4963.2007.00098.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin, B. (1992). Justice by lottery. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Haas, P. M. (2004). When does power listen to truth? A constructivist approach to the policy process. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(4), 569–592. doi: 10.1080/1350176042000248034
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagendijk, R., & Irwin, A. (2006). Public deliberation and governance: Engaging with science and technology in contemporary Europe. Minerva, 44(2), 167–184. doi: 10.1007/s11024-006-0012-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansen, J., & Allansdottir, A. (2011). Assessing the impacts of citizen participation in science governance: Exploring new roads in comparative analysis. Science and Public Policy, 38(8), 609–617. doi: 10.3152/030234211X13111546663377
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hauptman, E. (2001). Can less be more? Leftist deliberative critique of participatory democracy. Polity, 33(3), 397–421. doi: 10.2307/3235441
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hennen, L. (2012). Why do we still need participatory technology assessment? Poiesis Praxis, 9, 27–41. doi: 10.1007/s10202-012-0122-5
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hirst, P. (1996). Associative democracy. New forms of economic and social governance. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Holst, C., & Molander, A. (2017). Public deliberation and the fact of expertise: Making experts accountable. Social Epistemology, 31(3), 235–250. doi: 10.1080/02691728.2017.1317865
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Irvin, R. A., & Stansbury, J. (2004). Citizen participation in decision making: Is it worth the effort? Public Administration Review, 64(1), 55–65. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00346.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, S. (1987). Contested boundaries in policy-relevant science. Social Studies of Science, 17, 195–230. doi: 10.1177/030631287017002001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, S. (2003). (No?) Accounting for expertise. Science and Public Policy, 30(3), 157–162. doi: 10.3152/147154303781780542
   Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, S. (2005). Judgment under siege: The three-body problem of expert legitimacy. In S. Maasen, & P. Weingart (Eds.), Democratization of expertise? Exploring novel forms of scientific advice in political decision-making (pp. 209–224). Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, S. (2011). Quality control and peer review in advisory science. In J. Lentsch, & P. Weingart (Eds.), The politics of scientific advice: Institutional design for quality assurance (pp. 19–35). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Knight, J., & Johnson, J. (1994). Aggregation and deliberation. On the possibility of democratic legitimacy. Political Theory, 22, 277–296. doi: 10.1177/0090591794022002004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krick, E. (2014). Partizipationspotentiale von Expertengremien. Der Trade-off zwischen Inklusion und Effektivität im Verhandlungsprozess. Österreichische Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft, 43(1), 7–22.
   Google Scholar
• Krick, E. (2015). Negotiated expertise in policy-making. How governments use hybrid advisory committees. Science and Public Policy, 42(4), 487–500. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scu069
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krick, E. (2016). The epistemic quality of expertise. Contextualised criteria for the multi-source, negotiated policy advice of stakeholder fora. Critical Policy Studies, 12, 209–226. doi: 10.1080/19460171.2016.1258317
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kriesi, H. (2008). Direct democratic choice. The Swiss experience. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
   Google Scholar
• Lengwiler, M. (2008). Participatory approaches in science and technology: Historical origins and current practices in critical perspective. Science, Technology and Human Values, 33(2), 186–200. doi: 10.1177/0162243907311262
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lijphart, A. (1997). Unequal participation. Democracy’s unresolved dilemma. American Political Science Review, 91(1), 1–14. doi: 10.2307/2952255
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maasen, S., & Weingart, P. (2005). What’s new in scientific advice to politics? In S. Maasen, & P. Weingart (Eds.), Democratization of expertise? Exploring novel forms of scientific advice in political decision-making (pp. 1–19). Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Mahoney, C., & Beckstrand, M. J. (2011). Following the money: EU funding of civil society groups. Journal of Common Market Studies, 49(6), 1339–1361. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5965.2011.02197.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manin, B. (1997). The principles of representative democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mansbridge, J., Bohman, J., Chambers, S., Christiano, T., Fung, A., Parkinson, J., … Warren, M. E. (2012). A systematic approach to deliberative democracy. In J. Parkinson, & J. Mansbridge (Eds.), Deliberative systems: deliberative democracy at the large scale (pp. 1–26). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mansbridge, J., Bohman, J., Chambers, S., Estlund, D., Føllesdal, A., Fung, A., … Martí, J. L. (2010). The place of self-interest and the role of power in deliberative democracy. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 18(1), 64–100. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9760.2009.00344.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marien, S., Hooghe, M., & Quintelier, E. (2010). Unconventional participation and the problem of inequality: A comparative analysis. In E. Amna (Ed.), New forms of citizen participation. Normative implications (pp. 131–146). Baden-Baden: Nomos.
   Google Scholar
• Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking science. Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity.
   Google Scholar
• Papadopulos, Y., & Warrin, P. (2007). Are innovative, participatory and deliberative procedures in policy making democratic and effective? European Journal of Political Research, 46(4), 445–472. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6765.2007.00696.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parkinson, J. (2006). Deliberating in the real world: Problems of legitimacy in deliberative democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2000). Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology and Human Values, 25(3), 3–29. doi: 10.1177/016224390002500101
   Google Scholar
• Ryfe, D. M. (2005). Does deliberative democracy work? Annual Review of Political Science, 8(1), 49–71. doi: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.8.032904.154633
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmitter, P. C. (1992). The irony of the modern democracy and efforts to improve its practice. Politics & Society, 20(4), 507–512. doi: 10.1177/0032329292020004008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone, P. (2009). The logic of random selection. Political Theory, 37(3), 375–397. doi: 10.1177/0090591709332329
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldman, A. I. (2001). Experts: Which Ones Should You Trust?. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 63(1). doi: 10.1111/j.1933-1592.2001.tb00093.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Straßheim, H. (2008). Kulturen der Expertise und politischen Wissensproduktion im Wandel: Vergleichende Beobachtungen. In D. Gosewinkel, & G. F. Schuppert (Eds.), Politische Kultur im Wandel von Staatlichkeit (pp. 281–301). WZB-Jahrbuch 2007, Berlin: edition sigma.
   Google Scholar
• Turner, S. P. (2014). The politics of expertise. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Urbinati, N., & Warren, M. E. (2008). The concept of representation in contemporary democratic theory. Annual Review of Political Sciences, 11(1), 387–412. doi: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.053006.190533
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warren, M. (2002). What can democratic participation mean today? Political Theory, 30(5), 677–701. doi: 10.1177/0090591702030005003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Webler, T., & Tuler, S. (2000). Fairness and competence in citizen participation. Theoretical reflections from a case study. Administration & Society, 32(5), 566–595. doi: 10.1177/00953990022019588
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young, I. M. (2000). Inclusion and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar