IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/wzbdms/295744.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Argumentkartierung von politischen Debatten: Identifikation von Zielkonflikten und Lösungsstrategien in transdisziplinären Forschungsprojekten

Author

Listed:
  • Frank, David
  • Scheidler, Viktoria
  • Schmid, Eva

Abstract

Es ist eine Herausforderung und häufig noch eine methodische Leerstelle in Beteiligungsprozessen, wie unterschiedliches Wissen zusammengeführt und der Stand der Diskussion aufgearbeitet und geteilt werden kann. In diesem Paper zeigen wir auf, wie die Methode der Argumentationskartierung dazu genutzt werden kann, in einem transdisziplinären Forschungsprojekt Zielkonflikte und Lösungsstrategien zu identifizieren. Im Rahmen des Forschungsprojektes "Dezentrale Energiewende zwischen sozialer Gerechtigkeit, Systemkosten und Umweltschutz - Zielkonflikte und Lösungsstrategien" (Kurztitel DEZ-ZIELKONFLIKTE) wurde zur Aufarbeitung der Debatte, inwiefern eine dezentrale Energiewende erstrebenswert ist, die Methode der Argumentkartierung angewendet und soll in diesem Papier als Case-Study dienen. Die Case-Sudy zeigt, dass Argumentationslandkarten einen möglichst umfänglichen und geordneten Überblick über eine Debatte geben und damit die Brennpunkte der Debatte sichtbar machen, so dass Lösungsstrategien und wohlinformierte Entscheidungen erarbeitet werden können.

Suggested Citation

  • Frank, David & Scheidler, Viktoria & Schmid, Eva, 2024. "Argumentkartierung von politischen Debatten: Identifikation von Zielkonflikten und Lösungsstrategien in transdisziplinären Forschungsprojekten," Discussion Papers, Research Group Digital Mobility and Social Differentiation SP III 2024-601, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:wzbdms:295744
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/295744/1/1889756512.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Helga Nowotny, 2003. "Democratising expertise and socially robust knowledge," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 151-156, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chiasson, Guy & Angelstam, Per & Axelsson, Robert & Doyon, Frederik, 2019. "Towards collaborative forest planning in Canadian and Swedish hinterlands: Different institutional trajectories?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 334-345.
    2. Gunn, Callum J. & Bertelsen, Neil & Regeer, Barbara J. & Schuitmaker-Warnaar, Tjerk Jan, 2021. "Valuing patient engagement: Reflexive learning in evidence generation practices for health technology assessment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 280(C).
    3. Markus Dressel, 2022. "Models of science and society: transcending the antagonism," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-15, December.
    4. Rau, Henrike & Goggins, Gary & Fahy, Frances, 2018. "From invisibility to impact: Recognising the scientific and societal relevance of interdisciplinary sustainability research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 266-276.
    5. Sauermann, Henry & Vohland, Katrin & Antoniou, Vyron & Balázs, Bálint & Göbel, Claudia & Karatzas, Kostas & Mooney, Peter & Perelló, Josep & Ponti, Marisa & Samson, Roeland & Winter, Silvia, 2020. "Citizen science and sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(5).
    6. Stefan Thomas & David Scheller & Susan Schröder, 2021. "Co-creation in citizen social science: the research forum as a methodological foundation for communication and participation," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, December.
    7. Klenk, Nicole L. & Hickey, Gordon M., 2011. "A virtual and anonymous, deliberative and analytic participation process for planning and evaluation: The Concept Mapping Policy Delphi," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 152-165, January.
    8. Jennifer Garard & Larissa Koch & Martin Kowarsch, 2018. "Elements of success in multi-stakeholder deliberation platforms," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-16, December.
    9. Joke Kenens & Michiel Van Oudheusden & Go Yoshizawa & Ine Van Hoyweghen, 2020. "Science by, with and for citizens: rethinking ‘citizen science’ after the 2011 Fukushima disaster," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 6(1), pages 1-8, June.
    10. Michael Barnett, 2016. "Accountability and global governance: The view from paternalism," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(2), pages 134-148, June.
    11. Justus Henke, 2022. "Can Citizen Science in the Humanities and Social Sciences Deliver on the Sustainability Goals?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-20, July.
    12. Timotijevic, Lada & Barnett, Julie & Brown, Kerry & Raats, Monique M. & Shepherd, Richard, 2013. "Scientific decision-making and stakeholder consultations: The case of salt recommendations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 79-86.
    13. Schneidewind, Uwe & Singer-Brodowski, Mandy & Augenstein, Karoline & Stelzer, Franziska, 2016. "Pledge for a transformative science: A conceptual framework," Wuppertal Papers 191, Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy.
    14. Camilla Adelle, 2019. "The Role of Knowledge in Food Democracy," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(4), pages 214-223.
    15. Andrea Saltelli & Mario Giampietro, 2015. "The fallacy of evidence based policy," Papers 1607.07398, arXiv.org.
    16. Walton, Nigel & Nayak, Bhabani Shankar, 2021. "Rethinking of Marxist perspectives on big data, artificial intelligence (AI) and capitalist economic development," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).
    17. Failing, L. & Gregory, R. & Harstone, M., 2007. "Integrating science and local knowledge in environmental risk management: A decision-focused approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 47-60, October.
    18. Flipse, Steven M. & van der Sanden, Maarten C.A. & Osseweijer, Patricia, 2014. "Improving industrial R&D practices with social and ethical aspects: Aligning key performance indicators with social and ethical aspects in food technology R&D," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 185-197.
    19. Sagie, Hila & Orenstein, Daniel E., 2022. "Benefits of Stakeholder integration in an ecosystem services assessment of Mount Carmel Biosphere Reserve, Israel," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    20. Nataliia Sokolovska & Benedikt Fecher & Gert G. Wagner, 2019. "Communication on the Science-Policy Interface: An Overview of Conceptual Models," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-15, November.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:wzbdms:295744. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/wzbbbde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.