The Problems of Ensuring the Quality of Experts’ Work: the Case of Media Content Evaluation in the Russian Federation
Abstract
Keywords
About the Author
Yulia KrasheninnikovaRussian Federation
Expert of the Laboratory for Local Administration NRU HSE, Associate Professor of the Faculty of Economics, Management and Business Informatics (HSE Campus in Perm), Ph. D. in History
References
1. Boswell С. The Political Uses of Expert Knowledge: Immigration Policy and Social Research. Cambridge University Press, 2009.
2. Collins H., Evans R. Rethinking Expertise. The University of Chicago Press. 2007.
3. Democratization of expertise?: exploring novel forms of scientific advice in political decision-making. Ed. by Maasen S., Weingart P. Springer Science & Business Media. 2006.
4. 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. Т 14. № 6. P. 675–684.
5. Fischer F. Professional expertise in a deliberative democracy // The Good Society. 2004. Т 13. № 1. P. 21–27.
6. Howlett M., Migone A. Policy advice through the market: The role of external consultants in contemporary policy advisory systems // Policy and Society. 2013. Т 32. № 3. С. 241-254.
7. Jakobson L. Russian experts: missing actors of the budget process // Post-Communist Economies. 2017. T. 29. № 4. Р. 491–504.
8. Jasanoff Sh. Quality control and peer review in advisory science // The politics of scientific advice: Institutional design for quality assurance. Cambridge University Press, 2011. С. 19–35.
9. Jasanoff Sh. The Fifth Branch. Science Advisers as Policymakers. Harvard University Press. 1990.
10. Krick E. The epistemic quality of expertise: contextualized criteria for the multi-source, negotiated policy advice of stakeholder fora // Critical Policy Studies. 2018. T. 12. № 2. P. 209–226.
11. 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.
12. Page E. C. Bureaucrats and expertise: Elucidating a problematic relationship in three tableaux and six jurisdictions // Sociologie du travail. 2010. Т 52. № 2. P. 255–273.
13. Sutherland W., Burgman M. Policy advice: use experts wisely // Nature News. 2015. T. 526. № 7573. URL: https://www.nature.com/news/policy-advice-use-experts-wisely-1.18539 (дата обращения: 10.11.2018).
14. Weingart P. Scientific expertise and political accountability: paradoxes of science in politics // Science and public policy. 1999. Т 26. № 3. С. 151-161.
15. In Russian:
16. Analiticheskie soobshchestva v publichnoy politike: global'nyy fenomen i rossiyskie praktiki [Analytical Communities in Public Policy: Global Fenomena and Russian Practices]. Otv. red.: N. Yu. Belyaeva; nauch. red.: D. G. Zaytsev, Sh. Sh. Kakabadze. M.: ROSSPEN, 2013.
17. Baranov A. N. Lingvistika v lingvisticheskoy ekspertize (metod i istina) [Linguistic in Linguistic Expertise (Method and Fact)] // Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya 2, Yazykoznanie. 2017. T 16, № 2. P. 18–27.
18. Bumagin R. E., Rogozin D. M. Kritika oprosnogo podkhoda k analizu vzaimnogo skhodstva vo vneshnem vide potrebitel'skikh produktov vnutri odnoy tovarnoy kategorii [Criticism of Interview Approach in Examining Similarity of Appearance of Products Belonging to the Same Product Category] // Ekonomicheskaya sotsiologiya. 2018. T 19. № 2. S. 86–117.
19. Galyashina E. I. Problemy povysheniya effektivnosti i kachestva sudebnoy lingvisticheskoy ekspertizy [On the Problems of Efficiency and Quality Enchartment of Forensic Linguistic Expertise] / Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta MVD Rossii. 2017. № 2. P. 34–35.
20. Golev N. D. Ob ob"ektivnosti i legitimnosti istochnikov lingvisticheskoy ekspertizy [On the Objectivity and Legitimacy of the Sources of Linguistic Expertise] // Yurislingvistika. 2002. № 3. P. 15–30.
21. Zaytseva E.A. Kontseptsiya razvitiya instituta sudebnoy ekspertizy v usloviyakh sostyazatel'nogo ugolovnogo sudoproizvodstva [The concept of development of the Institute of forensic examination in the conditions of adversarial criminal proceedings]: monografiya. M.: Yurlitinform. 2010.
22. Ivanova O. S., Plaksin S. M. Analiz praktiki privlecheniya ekspertnykh organizatsiy (individual'nykh ekspertov) k protsessu ispolneniya gosudarstvennykh funktsiy [The practice of engagement of experts or expert organizations in the process of performing government functions] // Voprosy gosudarstvennogo i munitsipal'nogo. 2009. № 1. P. 5–32.
23. Krasheninnikova Yu. Deti i strakhi v massmedia [Children and Fears in Mass Media] // Otechestvennye zapiski. 2013. № 2. P. 191–200.
24. Mazur E. S. Problema otsenki dostovernosti zaklyucheniya sudebno-meditsinskogo eksperta [Problem of estimating credibility of forensic expert's conclusion] // Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. 2012. № 364. P. 102–106.
25. Maslovskaya E.V. Osobennosti vzaimodeystviya ekspertov so sledstvennymi i sudebnymi organami (na primere sudebno-meditsinskikh ekspertov i ekspertov v oblasti otsenochnoy deyatel'nosti) [The Pecularities of Interaction of Experts with Investigative and Judicial Bodies (the Case of Forensic Experts and Assessors)] // Rossiyskiy zhurnal pravovykh issledovaniy. 2016. № 4 (9). P. 148–153.
26. Minchenko O. S. Teoriya i praktika ispol'zovaniya ekspertizy v ramkakh realizatsii kontrol'no-nadzornykh funktsiy gosudarstva [Theory and practice of using expertise within the framework of the state realizing its functions of control and supervision] // Voprosy gosudarstvennogo i munitsipal'nogo. 2012. № 4. P. 20–33.
27. Mitroshenkov O.A. Ekspertiza i politika v Rossii: kollizii rosta i otnosheniy [Expertise and Politics in Russia: Collisions of Growth and Relationships] // Lichnost'. Kul'tura. Obshchestvo. 2005. № 1 (25). P. 160–182.
28. Nesterov A. V. Metodologiya ob"ektivizatsii sudebno-ekspertnoy deyatel'nosti kak faktor povysheniya dokazatel'stvennogo znacheniya rezul'tatov sudebnoy ekspertizy [Methodology objectification forensic activity as a factor of the probative value of the result forensic] //Teoriya i praktika sudebnoy ekspertizy. 2015. № 4. P. 166–170.
29. Noskova M.V. Ob aktual'nykh voprosakh vzaimodeystviya ekspertnogo soobshchestva i vlasti: kontseptualizatsiya roli publichnykh ekspertov v formirovanii povestki dnya gosudarstva [On Actual Issues of Interaction of Expert Community and Power: Conceptualization of a Role of Public Experts in Formation of the Agenda of the State] // Upravlencheskoe konsul'tirovanie. 2016. № 9. P. 191–199.
30. Polyakova V. Izmenenie sotsial'noy roli ekspertnogo znaniya [Change in the Social Role of Expert Knowledge] // Sotsial'naya real'nost'. 2007. № 5. P. 77–85.
31. Rossinskaya E.R., Korukhov Yu.G., Kiselev S.E., Grechukha N.M. Problemy negosudarstvennoy sudebno-ekspertnoy deyatel'nosti v Rossiyskoy Federatsii [On the Problems of Non-state Forensic Expert Activities in Russian Federation] // Zakony Rossii: opyt, analiz, praktika. 2011. № 12. P. 38–49.
32. Sungurov A. Yu. Rol' i funktsii ekspertov v protsesse prinyatiya vlastnykh resheniy [Role and Functions of Experts in the Process of Governmental Decision Making] // Upravlencheskoe konsul'tirovanie. 2017. № 6. P. 8–15.
33. Sungurov A. Yu., Karyagin M. E. Rossiyskoe ekspertnoe soobshchestvo i vlast': osnovnye formy vzaimodeystviya [Russian Expert Community and Government: Main Forms of Interaction] // Politicheskie issledovaniya. 2017. № 3. P. 144–159.
Review
For citations:
Krasheninnikova Yu. The Problems of Ensuring the Quality of Experts’ Work: the Case of Media Content Evaluation in the Russian Federation. Administrative Consulting. 2019;(3).
Email this article 