The expert interview is a rarely considered method in sociological research. In light of this background we discuss the complex assumptions based on the sociology of knowledge and on interaction theory that lead to a methodological consolidation of qualitative expert interviews. First, based on our general distinction between three types of expert interviews, we outline the specific features of the expert interview as an instrument for generating theory. In the second part we give an overview of the current debate within the sociology of knowledge on the concept of the expert and we introduce a definition of the expert that is closely related to the empirical practice. Finally we discuss the implications of such a concept of expert knowledge as an analytical construction for interpreting the process of interaction. Guided by the assumption that data is a product of specific interaction rather than a representation of a reality that has become independent of the continual (re)construction of meaning, we argue for a shift from an archaeological towards an interactionist model of data production. We suggest that due to the many equivalent ways of stimulating the production of expert knowledge the problem of validity as a central aspect of the expert interview has to be redefined.
In this article, with special regard to biopolitics, I will challenge the common assumption in the social sciences that the rise of ethics is deeply associated with a process of de-politicisation. Rather, I will show that the usual unease in the social sciences with the rise of ethics is inappropriate for the most part. Taking national ethics councils as an example, I will show that currently the consensus approach in policy advice is challenged by a deliberation model evolved and established under the dominance of the ethical discourse. As ethical deliberation corresponds to the basic cornerstones of democratic debate (diversity and pluralism), the current trend towards an ethicisation of technology may help politicising technology issues. In my view, we should understand the contemporary tendency to negotiate biopolitical issues under the header of ethics as an opportunity for politicization.
Kontroversen um die Biomedizin sind durch normative Unsicherheit gepragt und werden als Wertkonflikte verhandelt. Dies stellt fur die Politik eine erhebliche Herausforderung dar. Denn es besteht kein gesellschaftlicher Konsens daruber, was wir (nicht) wissen und tun sollten. Als politische Reaktion konnen wir eine Institutionalisierung von ethischer Expertise beobachten. In diesem Beitrag wird aus wissenschaftssoziologischer Perspektive Politikberatung durch Ethikkommissionen am Beispiel Osterreichs analysiert. Die These lautet, dass die politische Verwertung von Ethik-Expertise deren Subsumtion unter die eigensinnigen Handlungslogiken des Politik-Systems bedeutet („Politisierung von Expertise“). In der politischen Rezeption wird Expertise neu konfiguriert, um eine Ubereinstimmung zwischen (divergierenden) ExpertInnenmeinungen und politischen Zielvorstellungen herzustellen. Politisches Lernen lasst sich vor diesem Hintergrund allenfalls als ein strategischer Umgang mit dem ExpertInnendissens beschreiben. Abschliesend wird dargestellt, dass die Politisierung von Expertise mit einer Entpolitisierung bioethischer Fragen zusammenhangt.
Science, Technology & Human Values, 2010, 35: 888 Over recent years, science and technology have been reassessed increas- ingly in ethical terms. Particularly for life science governance, ethics has become the dominant discourse. In the course of this ‘‘ethical turn’’ national ethics councils were set up throughout Europe and in the United States to advice politics in ethically controversial issues such as stem cell research and genetic testing. Ethics experts have become subject to traditional warnings against expertocracy: they are suspected to unduly influence political deci- sion-making. However, any reliable ethics expertise has to reflect societal disagreements in moral issues. Therefore, expert dissent is a normal feature of legitimate ethics expertise. Based on theoretical considerations we argue that in principle, expert dissent does not cause problems for political legiti- macy; rather, it enhances the salience of politics: obviously decisions on ethical issues cannot be taken on the basis of expert knowledge alone. We therefore conclude that expert dissent, not consent, supports politics. Focussing on Germany and Austria, we show how politics deal with expert dissent in practice. While in Germany politics acknowledge dissent and use it to foster a fundamental political debate, Austrian politics attribute authoritative power to ethics expertise and try to construct an overall consensus. This illustrates how the drawing of boundaries between politic and expertise differs.
In the framework of the Phase-2 upgrade of the CMS tracker for the High Luminosity LHC, a power hybrid for usage in silicon sensor modules with macro-pixel and strip sensors has been developed. The power hybrid features three DC-DC converters in a two-step powering scheme, delivering three different low voltages (1.0 V, 1.25 V, 2.5 V) to the module electronics. A first prototype of the power hybrid has been developed. The prototype is fully functional and has been characterized in terms of power efficiency, voltage drops, dynamical behaviour, and radiated and conducted noise emissions. In this work the power hybrid concept and the prototype design are described, and the measurements are summarized.
Im Begriff »Technology Governance« spiegelt sich ein geändertes Verständnis der Steuerbarkeit technischen Wandels und der Beschaffenheit von Regelungsstrukturen, in denen öffentliche und private Akteure zusammenwirken. Technikfolgenabschätzung (TA) behauptet sich im Governance-Prozess als wissenschaftliches Reflexionselement und strategische Wissensressource. Im Kern versucht TA, Chancen und Risken neuer Technologien auszuloten sowie auf Entwicklung und Anwendung zum größtmöglichen gesellschaftlichen Nutzen einzuwirken. Die wachsende Bedeutung technischer Innovationen im globalen Wettbewerb verstärkt den Bedarf an Folgenwissen und damit an TA. Umso dringlicher ist es, sich ihrer geeigneten Ausrichtung und Ausstattung für effektive Beiträge zur Governance technologischer Entwicklungen und für erfolgreiche Problemlösungen zu vergewissern. Dieser Band bietet Ansätze zu einer Reflexion von Voraussetzungen und Reichweite der TA aus einer Governance-Perspektive, u.a. mit Blick auf verschiedene TA-Konzepte, mögliche Funktionen und Fragen des Timings von TA im Governance-Prozess sowie eine Analyse von Mikrostrukturen der Innovationsgestaltung. Die Beiträge nehmen exemplarisch Bezug auf zahlreiche kontrovers diskutierte Technisierungsprozesse der Gegenwart.
'%3e%3cpath fill='%23012169' d='M0 0v30h60V0z'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='6' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='4' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30' clip-path='url(%23b)'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='10' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='6' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)
