The Problems of Ensuring the Quality of Experts’ Work: the Case of Media Content Evaluation in the Russian Federation
https://doi.org/10.22394/1726-1139-2019-3-87-103
Abstract
The paper deals with the problems of ensuring the quality of expert’s activities which results are used in public administration. As a case, one type of expert evaluation is examined. This type has appeared about six years ago, according to the Federal Law N 436-FZ On Protecting Children from Information Harmful to Their Health and Development, with the purpose to assess the age rating of media content in difficult or disputable cases. The research focuses on two topics: what errors and abuses happen in the practice of expert evaluations; how the procedures of quality ensuring work. Empirical data for analysis include the texts of expert evaluations over the period 2013–2017 years (N 105) and semi-structured interviews with accredited experts (N 10). It was revealed that the quality of expert evaluations is diverse and in some cases is far from satisfactory. Some evaluations can be questioned because of their noncompliance with the law and formal criteria of academic papers. Meanwhile, obvious procedures to ensure quality are not designed in the law or exist but do not actually work. The results of evaluations of similar products differ from each other because of the absence of common methods, common theoretical ground, and unified format of evaluation. The government control of the experts’ work quality and the self-regulation of expert community are very weak. Those circumstances create conditions for distorted attitude of stakeholders to expert evaluation: not as a supplement tool for enforcement of the law on children media safety but as self-sufficient instrument of private interest protection and influence on media.
About the Author
Yulia A. Krasheninnikova
National Research University Higher School of Economics
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
the expert of laboratory of municipal management, Associate professor of Department of Management of National Research University Higher School of Economics in Perm, PhD in History
Moscow
References
1. Analytical communities in public policy: global phenomenon and Russian practices / Ex. edition: N.Yu. Belyaeva; scientific edition: D. G. Zaytsev, Sh. Sh. Kakabadze. M. : ROSSPEN, 2013. (In rus)
2. Baranov A. N. Linguistics in linguistic examination (a method and the truth) // Bulletin of the Volgograd State University. Series 2, Linguistics [Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Ser. 2, Yazykoznanie]. 2017. T. 16, N 2. P. 18–27. (In rus)
3. Bumagin R. E., Rogozin D. M. Critics of polling approach to the analysis of mutual similarity in appearance of consumer products in one commodity category // Economic sociology [Ekonomicheskaya sotsiologiya]. 2018. V. 19. N 2. P. 86–117. (In rus)
4. Galyashina E. I. Problems of increase in efficiency and quality of judicial linguistic examination // Bulletin of the Moscow University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation [Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta MVD Rossii]. 2017. N 2. P. 34–35. (In rus)
5. Golev N. D. About objectivity and legitimacy of sources of linguistic examination // Legal linguistic [Yurislingvistika]. 2002. N 3. P. 15–30. (In rus)
6. Zaytseva E. A. The concept of development of institute of judicial examination in the conditions of competitive criminal proceedings: monograph. M. : Jurlitinform. 2010. (In rus)
7. Ivanova O. S., Plaksin S. M. Analysis of practice of involvement of the expert organizations (individual experts) to process of execution of the state functions // Questions of the public and municipal administration [Voprosy gosudarstvennogo i munitsipal’nogo upravleniya]. 2009. N 1. P. 5–32. (In rus)
8. Krasheninnikova Yu. Children and fears in mass media // Domestic notes [Otechestvennye zapiski]. 2013. N 2. P. 191–200. (In rus)
9. Mazur E. S. Problem of assessment of reliability of the conclusion of the forensic scientist // Messenger of the Tomsk State University [Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta]. 2012. N 364. P. 102–106. (In rus)
10. Maslovskaya E. V. Features of interaction of experts with investigating and judicial authorities (on the example of forensic scientists and experts in the field of estimated activity) // Russian journal of legal studies [Rossiiskii zhurnal pravovykh issledovanii]. 2016. N 4 (9). P. 148–153. (In rus)
11. Minchenko O. S. The theory and practice of use of examination within realization of control and supervising functions of the state // Questions of the public and municipal administration [Voprosy gosudarstvennogo i munitsipal’nogo upravleniya]. 2012. N 4. P. 20–33. (In rus)
12. Mitroshenkov O. A. Examination and policy in Russia: collisions of growth and relations // Personality. Culture. Society [Lichnost’. Kul’tura. Obshchestvo]. 2005. Issue 1 (25). P. 160–182. (In rus)
13. Nesterov A. V. Methodology of objectification of judicial and expert activity as factor of increase in evidentiary value of results of judicial examination // Theory and Practice of Forensic Science [Teoriya i praktika sudebnoi ekspertizy]. 2015. N 4. P. 166–170. (In rus)
14. Noskova M. V. About topical issues of interaction of expert community and power: conceptualization of a role of public experts in formation of the agenda of the state // Administrative consulting [Upravlencheskoe konsul’tirovanie]. 2016. N 9. P. 191–199. (In rus)
15. Polyakova V. Change of a social role of expert knowledge // Social reality [Sotsial’naya real’nost’]. 2007. N 5. P. 77–85. (In rus)
16. Rossinskaya E. R., Korukhov Yu. G., Kiselev S. E., Grechukha N. M. Problems of non-state judicial and expert activity in the Russian Federation // Laws of Russia: experience, analysis, practice [Zakony Rossii: opyt, analiz, praktika]. 2011. N 12. P. 38–49. (In rus)
17. Sungurov A. Yu. A role and functions of experts in the course of adoption of imperious decisions // Administrative consulting [Upravlencheskoe konsul’tirovanie]. 2017. N 6. P. 8–15. (In rus)
18. Sungurov A. Yu., Karyagin M. E. Russian expert community and power: main forms of interaction // Political researches [Politicheskie issledovaniya]. 2017. N 3. P. 144–159. (In rus)
19. Boswell С. The Political Uses of Expert Knowledge: Immigration Policy and Social Research. Cambridge University Press, 2009.
20. Collins H., Evans R. Rethinking Expertise. The University of Chicago Press. 2007.
21. Democratization of expertise?: exploring novel forms of scientific advice in political decisionmaking. Ed. by Maasen S., Weingart P. Springer Science & Business Media. 2006.
22. Edelenbos J., Van Buuren A., Van Schie N. Co-producing knowledge: joint knowledge production between experts, bureaucrats and stakeholders in Dutch water management projects // Environmental Science & Policy. 2011. V. 14. N 6. P. 675–684.
23. Fischer F. Professional expertise in a deliberative democracy // The Good Society. 2004. V. 13. N 1. P. 21–27.
24. Howlett M., Migone A. Policy advice through the market: The role of external consultants in contemporary policy advisory systems // Policy and Society. 2013. V. 32. N 3. С. 241–254.
25. Jakobson L. Russian experts: missing actors of the budget process // Post-Communist Economies. 2017. V. 29. N 4. Р. 491–504.
26. Jasanoff Sh. Quality control and peer review in advisory science // The politics of scientific advice: Institutional design for quality assurance. Cambridge University Press, 2011. P. 19–35.
27. Jasanoff Sh. The Fifth Branch. Science Advisers as Policymakers. Harvard University Press. 1990.
28. Krick E. The epistemic quality of expertise: contextualized criteria for the multi-source, negotiated policy advice of stakeholder fora // Critical Policy Studies. 2018. V. 12. N 2. P. 209–226.
29. Lentsch J., Weingart P. Introduction: the quest for quality as a challenge to scientific policy advice: an overdue debate? // The politics of scientific advice: Institutional design for quality assurance. Cambridge University Press, 2011. P. 3–18.
30. Page E. C. Bureaucrats and expertise: Elucidating a problematic relationship in three tableaux and six jurisdictions // Sociologie du travail. 2010. V. 52. N 2. P. 255–273.
31. Sutherland W., Burgman M. Policy advice: use experts wisely // Nature News. 2015. V. 526. N 7573. URL: https://www.nature.com/news/policy-advice-use-experts-wisely-1.18539 (date of the address: 10.11.2018).
32. Weingart P. Scientific expertise and political accountability: paradoxes of science in politics // Science and public policy. 1999. V. 26. N 3. P. 151–161.
Review
For citations:
Krasheninnikova Yu.A. The Problems of Ensuring the Quality of Experts’ Work: the Case of Media Content Evaluation in the Russian Federation. Administrative Consulting. 2019;(3):87-103. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.22394/1726-1139-2019-3-87-103
Views:
764
Email this article 