背景:瑞典的政治制度建立在调查委员会的强大传统基础上,长期致力于制定基于知识的政策。这项研究探讨了与这些委员会的工作相关的知识过程,重点是废除瑞典酒精配给制度的案例。出发点是1944年节制委员会及其内部委员会工作,委员会的报告,以及由此产生的导致1955年废除配给制度的政府法案。重点是如何利用公众来支持和反对废除该制度。
方法:本文通过对政治过程中使用的论点在政治过程中依赖公众作为承载基础设施的各种方式进行了案例研究,从而增加了对政策知识生产的研究。政治过程。我们使用基础设施的概念(Star,1999)作为一个隐喻,以参与公众在政策过程中被视为理所当然的方式,以及在政治进程中推动论点所需的话语资源。
结果:政治过程涉及许多与知识运动有关的活动,我们已经探索了将公众用作辩论运动所需的活动。公众被理解为提供对话和法律资源,以将论点从一个上下文转移到另一个上下文。虽然内部委员会文件和最终法案允许公众日常使用关于麻烦的争论,烦恼和自由,该委员会的报告将公众的使用与法律程序和公众正义感的正式论据相结合。
结论:对知识运动的解释通常会错过衔接工作(Star,1991),这发生在政策过程中。公众是间接存在的,行为良好的证人过去常常强调论点,因此,他们做了很多工作。同时,正是委员会文件促进了公众的存在,这往往远离公众的实际潜力,使他们的声音被听到。尽管人们对配给制度缺乏支持的看法构成了委员会工作的背景,公众对配给制度的实际看法知之甚少。我们表明,公众构成了一种口头资源,而不是一种证明非常有效的物质资源:只要公众是行为良好的受限制的单一公众,公众就很少受到质疑。迄今为止,很少有人关注了解日常行为者在酒精政策和其他形式的毒品政策方面的作用。我们认为,研究需要更多地参与允许公众间接或直接参与政策过程的方式,以及这种参与产生的知识和政策后果。
BACKGROUND: The Swedish political system is based on a strong tradition of commissions of inquiry, which work over the long-term to develop knowledge-based policy. This study explores knowledge processes associated with the work of such commissions, focusing on the
case of the abolition of the Swedish alcohol rationing system. The point of departure is the 1944 Temperance Committee and its internal committee work, the committee\'s
reports, and also the resulting governmental bill that led to the abolition of the rationing system in 1955. The focus is directed at how the public was used in arguments for and against the abolition of the system.
METHODS: The article adds to studies of knowledge production in policy by presenting a
case study of the various ways in which the arguments used in political processes rely on the public as a carrying infrastructure over the course of a political process. We use the concept of the infrastructure (Star, 1999) as a metaphor to engage with the way the public is taken for granted in policy processes, and with the discursive resources needed to move arguments forward within a political process.
RESULTS: Political processes involve many activities related to the movement of knowledge, of which we have explored the use of the public as an activity required for the movement of arguments. The public is understood as providing both conversational and legalistic resources for moving arguments from one context to another. While the internal committee documents and the final bill allowed for an everyday use of the public in relation to arguments on hassle, annoyance and freedom, the committee
reports combined the use of the public with formal arguments on legal processes and the public\'s sense of justice.
CONCLUSIONS: Explanations of the movement of knowledge often miss the articulation work (Star, 1991) that takes place within policy processes. The public is indirectly present, as well-behaving witnesses used to emphasize arguments, and as such, they do plenty of work. At the same time, it is the committee documents that facilitate the presence of this public, which often lie far from the publics\' actual potential to make their voices heard. Although a perception of the rationing system\'s lack of support in popular opinion constituted a backdrop to the work of the committee, there was little knowledge of the publics\' actual views on the rationing system. We show that the public constitute a spoken rather than a material resource that proves quite effective: the public is rarely questioned as long as it is a restricted singular public that behaves well. To date, little attention has been focused on understanding the role of the everyday actors in relation to alcohol policy and other forms of drug policy. We argue that research needs to engage more with the way publics are allowed to indirectly or directly participate in policy processes and what knowledge and policy consequences this participation produces.